Flotilla Activists Able to Walk Through Iron?

reply to post by defcon5


You keep bringing up the cost of making a prop vs the cost of CGI, and I think it's a valid question but asked from a layman's perspective. It doesn't cost anything to digitally generate an image, well other than perhaps paying the guy doing the CGI work, why risk making a prop for somebody to kick over during production or recognise it as a prop when you can digitally matte in the 'real' Mavi Marmara 'set' in post?
It takes time to create a set, if you're going to claim that set is a specific and known location, you're looking at logistical modeling nightmare taking up valuable time that Israel didn't have because of the attention focused on their actions.
It's possible, if not likely, that they shot this on another ship/set in a port somewhere and added the Mavi Marmara in digitally later. I don't know honestly, I don't have all the answers, just my experience and a glaringly obvious fakery based on that experience. They rushed this video trying to justify their actions and do a little damge control and they screwed up their CGI, it happens all the time with major networks when they cover breaking news, excpet this wasn't news, it was a fairy tale.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


Sitting on CGI eh? I'm starting to smell something too, straw.
No you can't sit on CGI, rather ridiculous if not insulting really, but you can sit on a cleat on ANY ship though and you can sit on a prop. Like I said, it's a set, probably a hastily prepared one. It's possible that some were set up and others being needed and realized after the ship was in their posession, it's also possible that this is another ship entirely. It's possible that I'm imagining the whole thing and I've been mislead by terrorist propaganda and equally possible that you are intentionally denying the obvious, but if we're going for facetious crap like 'sitting on CGI' then let's at least try to stay on topic, which is the miraculous ability of walking through the cleat specifically at the 7:54 to 8:39 minute marks, you've said you don't see it, I disagree. If you really and truly can't see the guy's leg dissolve into the cleat then there's really not much left for us to discuss is there?

reply to post by empireofpain


Thanks for another hateful contribution to the site. If I am against terms and conditions here I will gladly accept whatever punishment Mods/Administrators deem fitting, as I was not aware this was not allowed.

But trust me you did all the damage to your argument yourself. You claim once again that you do not hate anyone yet you have no problem nuking people in the middle east? You are an unusual fellow.

As for starting a fight on the internet I'm not sure how I would go about such a thing, unless you know of some Tron type battle we can have. If it is a battle of wits you are referring to I would have to say that I do not attack the unarmed, I leave that behaviour to the Israeli Administration.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


I don't think you have much to worry about, I reported it but apparently the guy gets away with this...

you are a an a-hole my good sir
i dont hate anyone you putz.

So quoting from another thread is yeah, a little off topic, but I think it's nessecary to show what we're dealing with here.

I'm going to break out the ole .gif animator later and get an animation of the guy walking through the cleats, apparently it's not easy to spot for some folks and negatives are just 'filters on a pixilated piece of compressed video and you can find all kinds of silly stuff'. Frustrating but not unexpected.

reply to post by twitchy


Well that is good to know, and apologies for any derailing!
Although you have the credentials to de-construct this video (I think it is fairly obvious a large portion of his thigh travels through metal) perhaps getting someone on the site who specialises in video analysis would be a good plan. I'm only new so I don't really know of anyone, but it might add more weight to the argument.
I think that if this was rushed, it's entirely possible the actors may not have been fully informed about the bollards position (maybe there as just an x on the floor), and they also did not place an object there to represent it. There are plenty of mistakes like this made before, and here is the most prominent example I can think of from CNN.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Big Raging Loner]

Edit: Fixed Video

[edit on 24-6-2010 by lifttheveil]

What I can glean off the conversation going on here is, that Twitchy is claiming that the Israeli's have created artificial cleats via CGI.

Have you asked the obvious question of "Why would they do that?"

Seriously, cleats aren't weapons or dangerous objects, why would they actually spend so much time to CGI in cleats on a ship? If they were trying to tamper with footage then why don't we see RPGs and AK-47s strewn to and fro? It makes no sense.

Furthermore, the MV Mavi Marmara is littered with cleats. You could say it has a grip of them. This picture below is of the Marmara docked in Istanbul. If your browser supports zooming in, I highly suggest you do it.



It is kind of hard to see in this picture, but down at the bottom on the bow you can see four large black pylons, also known as CLEATS. Looking even closer, you can see numerous smaller cleats. This is one of the few pictures you can find of the MV Mavi Marmara showing its deck, complete with rigging and cleats, as they probably didn't want to go publishing pictures of the ship's intimate details. (How convenient.)

And thus your claim of the Israeli's digitally inserting a cleat into the video, is false.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Dnevnoi]

Here's a brief animation of the guy walking through the cleat...

reply to post by lifttheveil


Thank you for adding the video on the thread.
I added the gif of the second miraculous walk through solid metal for the benefit of those who claim they weren't able to see it, nothing but crickets in response so far, but can you guys see it now?
If the largely turkish contingent of activists aboard the Mavi Marmara were so violently inclined and ready to fight the heavily armed IDF pirates with sporks and sticks the it begs the question, why the need to fake this footage? It's a rhetorical question, the answer to which is damage control.

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
I don't see anyone walking through iron.

All I see is a man walking between two boulards.

I watched the video, looked at the pics and like you, I didn't see anyone walking through steel either.

reply to post by aboxoftrix


LOL
I'm sure you're right, the guys' right thigh is obviously transparent to light and matter, so when he walks through metal objects, most people can't see it. Turkish mysticism, or IDF fakery, hmm...
When do you suppose the IDF is going to give these activists their cameras and footage back so we can finally lay all of this to rest?

So here's the deal- You've got this crappy low quality footage, and now people are seeing what they want to see- If you're pro Israel, you're blind, and if you're against it, you see this compelling evidence that Israel is faking footage.
First of all I'd like to say I see it. I see what looks like a guy with his body somehow merging with the barrel. But here comes analytical thinking- How can you be sure? It's a guy, with black pants and a black shirt walking in front of something that's black, on low quality footage..
I also saw your analysis of the scene, which is interesting, but still, can you be sure? It couldn't have been that he just went beside it and we can't tell because of crappy quality?

The more important question is what was edited? Was the guy added using CGI effects? Were all the people on the boat added with CGI effects? How did they do that? Are these all actors? So activists waving rods and knives in other videos and photos are also actors planted by Israel?
I don't get what is it exactly that you're proving here..

The whole video was poorly analyzed.. The whole part where activists are waving their rods at the boats was with the caption "What a comedy" as if that's enough to explain anything.. I wouldn't have been surprised if he wrote "The activists are offering the Israeli navi a friendly game of baseball"

And lastly there has been a 1 hour long uncut video snuck off the ship and released by the activists that completely proves no shots were fired prior to boarding and you can hear when the first shot was fired and everything..

In the end I think this is futile- Those who are against Israel will always see what they want to see, and those that are for Israel will always see what they want to see.
As long as there's room for doubt no body wins.

With respect,
Eliad.

Originally posted by Eliad
I don't get what is it exactly that you're proving here..

I'm proving that this whole piece of footage released by the IDF is as fake as a three dollar bill and was used by their lying butts to justify live fire. They sold this crap to the world as their sole justification for their act of piracy and the premeditated murder of peace activists in international waters before they even reached the blockade.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by twitchy]

I love the word obviously.. In this forum it means- Something is confirming my opinions, and therefor must be true..
I just don't get it..
What exactly was edited? An iron cleat? The protester? But you see many protesters with sticks like that in movies that were sneaked out and released by activists? So what's the point of this clever eleborate editing? Why not just put a gun in his hand instead?
This is stupid.. The activists have already released a 1 hour long video of everything that happened, unedited, and you can tell from it that no shots were fired prior to boarding, that the activists had knives and rods and were ready to attack, and that they were attacking soldiers prior to boarding while they were approaching on the boats..
And if that's not enough to plant just a bit of doubt in your heart then I guess there's no point in this debate, is there?

I'm not going to take a side on the issue itself in this post, but I wanted to weigh in on the technical aspect of analyzing this video (and videos in general).

I think it would be impossible to make a definitive assessment of your claims based on this current video. You would need the original source video to make a conclusion.

From the looks of it this video has been compressed.

You had mentioned earlier that you have some experience with video, so you should know that what you are seeing could easily be a compression artifact.

For those of you unfamiliar with how compression works, the quick explanation is that each frame is analyzed and data is selected to be removed to reduce the quantity of data therefore reducing the size of the clip.

Obviously, if there is motion that data needs to be kept. If there is little or no motion the compressor will use previous frames to reduce data quantity.

What can happen, especially with higher compression, is that you end up with part of the frame being the current real time frame, and another part being the previous frame as the compressor works with macroblocks of pixels.

Oh, but he's moving!!

Yes he is moving, but he's moving his dark leg over a dark object that the compressor is reading as black. When the black of his leg moves over the black of the object the compressor is probably reading that as no movement in that block and repeating a frame.

There is more to compression than just that and, depending on the type, it will also affect color in the blocks as well.

Further reading on compression technology for anyone interested.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by twitchy
Brightness and Contrast adjusted to emphasize the black area of the metal, then photo negative added...

See the brownish area going around the guys leg? He's in there.

No, IMO, compression cannot account for, nor explain the leg in the solid metal, as the above image indicates, compressed or not, the video is clearly able to differentiate between the man's leg and the metal, if it hadn't, the colors would be similar in the negative image.

If, in your opinion, compression can not account for what you are seeing then you do not know all that much about compression technologies and how they can produce a multitude of strange artifacts.

Temporal, spatial interframe and intrafame compression all can produce weird artifacts if they are not properly qc'ed and are absolutely capable of producing the effects you are seeing.

I bring this up because this is what I spend a lot of time on in my job as a film editor. I do many compressor passes per job. I have to manually frame through projects to watch for things like this and with the higher compression this sort of artifacting happens frequently.

As stated earlier, I don't have a dog in the fight on this issue, but purely from a video analysis angle what you are seeing could absolutely be due to compression.

Originally posted by lellomackin
As stated earlier, I don't have a dog in the fight on this issue, but purely from a video analysis angle what you are seeing could absolutely be due to compression.

And it could also be due to CGI.
Compression produces some weird anamolies sure, but the RGB differences in the leg and the metal are signifigant enough to clearly differentiate between the two objects, being the leg and the metal. Also, if you will notice, it isn't the only example in the video of this, and the odds of compression accounting for both examples are pretty slim. If you doubt my credentials, that's fine, but I've done enough editing to draw my own conclusions from the video and I implore you to do the same.
This is pretty clearly a hastily prepared CGI job.