Busted!! fake news on libya- movie sets, fake videos and pics, death threats to journalists

reply to post by xuenchen


For one it uses the same "evidence" that has been debunked here about Libya. That's the only bit of evidence that is shown. Rest of it is just dribble.

reply to post by PsykoOps


debunked? or 'debunkers' agendas exposed......

epic fail..

Feel free to prove the debunking posts wrong. I'm looking forward for your contribution if you actually have any. Untill you do that your point is moot.

reply to post by xuenchen


From your link:

That's right: fake cities, built in Qatar by Al Jazeera, occupied by hordes of actors, under the direction of filmmakers to create a false impression of what’s happening on the ground in Syria. Or at least that’s the spin.

Or perhaps more accurately, propaganda. As this post from The New York Times mentions, the station that ran the allegations on September 9 is closely tied to the ruling regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

“Addounia TV is owned by Mohamed Hamsho, who is the brother-in-law of Maher al Assad, the commander of Syria’s Republican Guard and the brother of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

This thread is a case of herpes on the ATS community. Send it to the HOAX bin.

253 people Flagged this thread as worthy??

ATS community is not very smart.

Breaking News. The people of Libya have taken up arms and are fighting back against the evil rebel scum & Nato. Fighting has broken out in Tripoli. Go Libyan people, take back your country from these evil scum.! Go Libya!

Fresh fighting erupts in Tripoli
www.herald.ie...

So much for the NTC declaring liberation. Go Libyan people, send these evil rats back to the gutter.

Liam Fox (Israeli political prostitute who butchered thousands of innocent people for blood money quits) If there's any justice in this world, I hope he burns in hell.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Who dictates British foreign policy - Israel? Liam Fox connection to Israeli secret donors.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

David Cameron stands by Liam Fox (Why doesn't this surprise anyone. The gutter is the only thing Cameron can relate too.
www.kenyalondonnews.co.uk...:david-cameron-stands-by-liam-fox&catid=45:london-top-stories&Itemid =45

reply to post by Gorman91


Are you trying to say that a shot from an assault rifle a mile away has the same sound as one fired from a matter of yards away? Please provide us with some scientific proof of this from a credible source. My only reference for this is with .308 rifles and they sound a lot different from a mile off. But maybe AK rounds behave differently, or maybe my ears are screwed.

It seems highly unlikely that the noise of a bullet exploding does not diminish over distance considering the opposite is true of explosions of cars loaded with hundreds of pounds of Semtex.But maybe the explosive used in bullets has unique characteristics.

reply to post by blah yada


Unless you can actually see the guns being fired for the sound, there is no way to prove anything. This is, in effect, a trap that fails because it is a logical fallacy.


I for one find it rather fascinating the sheer volume of so-called false news from Libya. I never actually believed in this "paid internet people" crap, but damn this makes me think that Libya's agents were as insane as her leader.

reply to post by Gorman91


You are trying to sidestep my question. You made an assertion that the acoustic signature of a bullet is the same regardless of distance from source.Back it up please.I'm not saying you are wrong. It's just that based on personal observation, I find it difficult to believe.

reply to post by blah yada


The same reason why a fire truck sounds the same distance away after a few blocks. Doppler effect only works for the area present. After a while, it's amplitude alone is heard. The echo is all the same. Just go out and find some traffic if you don't believe me.

Now if you can explain things such as why a soldier ought to be all that shocked to hear bullets compared to the media, or how you can claim the bullets were different distances without actually seeing, I'd be happy to know.

reply to post by Gorman91

Still avoiding the question. Who said anything about sirens a few blocks away? We are talking about gunshots here.Given the fact that they were in a speeding car for at least a minute, I'd say they were more than a few blocks away.Anyway, a siren and a gunshot are hardly comparable sounds.Lets stick to gunshots. Now how is it that a shot from say 200 yds(being generous) could sound identical at over a mile, no noticeable decrease in volume, no distortion or degradation at all?

Given the number of shots fired, that was some awful shooting.Not one hit.If I had been shooting,had there not been 4 or 5 corpses lying on the ground, there would have at least been 10 rounds or more pumped into those cars.Their windows would have been smashed, their bodywork peppered.

If the danger was as imminent as the reporters make out there is no way a soldier would remain prone and unflinching with his back to the action. nobody with a will to live would remain that calm egardless of how used they were to the sound of gunfire.

Either the gunfire was totally not a threat to them or it was added later. Either way deceit is in play here.

reply to post by blah yada

Still avoiding the question. Who said anything about sirens a few blocks away? We are talking about gunshots here.Given the fact that they were in a speeding car for at least a minute, I'd say they were more than a few blocks away.Anyway, a siren and a gunshot are hardly comparable sounds.Lets stick to gunshots. Now how is it that a shot from say 200 yds(being generous) could sound identical at over a mile, no noticeable decrease in volume, no distortion or degradation at all?

Because a bullet goes hundreds of feet a second and is designed to quickly travel to the air.

Given the number of shots fired, that was some awful shooting.Not one hit

Or the arabic tradition of shooting randomly up for celebration.

If the danger was as imminent as the reporters make out there is no way a soldier would remain prone and unflinching with his back to the action. nobody with a will to live would remain that calm egardless of how used they were to the sound of gunfire.

See above. Locals know tradition better.

Either the gunfire was totally not a threat to them or it was added later. Either way deceit is in play here.

Or a foreigner was dumb.


And this, is why Libya, and all its conspiracies, are a joke. Because the people making them up are about as ignorant as the theories are.

Toodles.

Originally posted by Gorman91

Because a bullet goes hundreds of feet a second and is designed to quickly travel to the air.

So what? You are talking abot the projectile, which doesn't make a sound other than that of cutting through the air. The sounds heard in the video come from the weapon not the projectile.

When a believable sound is matched to a picture there is never any doubt in anyone's mind that the sound is not authentic. If the sound is a shade to fast or slow, it will cause many viewers to think that "something" was not quite right.

filmsound.org... --- This site gives the answer you are trying to avoid giving me. The quote below is just an example. The site explains the nature of attack/sustain/decay of sound.

When a believable sound is matched to a picture there is never any doubt in anyone's mind that the sound is not authentic. If the sound is a shade to fast or slow, it will cause many viewers to think that "something" was not quite right.
Not one viewer, not one critic, not even the scientists who actually developed the (atom)bomb complained about this odd mixture of sounds when they appeared on the TV news in the early 1950s. What everyone heard matched convincingly the picture.

Btw, signing off with a condescending term like "toodles", allied to the inclusion of an ad hominem attack betrays your lack of a support argument for your claim.

No point arguing about sound without knowing what the surrounding enviroment is like and where it was shot exactly. You know that sounds do bounce of everything they hit?

If the sound was injected into the video,

it's all phony anyway.

it's all about perception.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
No point arguing about sound without knowing what the surrounding enviroment is like and where it was shot exactly. You know that sounds do bounce of everything they hit?

Are you suggesting they bounce off things with no effect on acoustics? Obviously you didn't visit the site I linked to.How could you make such a claim given the different compositions of "everything they hit".

Are you claiming that sound behaves the exact same way no matter the surface/body it impacts? If this was so, studios would not require acoustic dampening or insulation.The acoustic performance of foam is not even slightly comparable to a concrete wall or a sheet of metal.

Reading comprehension??? I said that it's pointless to argue if you dont know where the shot is made. I said the exact opposite of what you read. Sound waves bounce of everything not to mention possibility of obstacles etc. that affect it. Pointless to speculate if you cant see those.

reply to post by blah yada


Yea, maybe you don't get it.


When an object rips through the air like a bullet, it carries with it the wave pattern that it came from, because the sound wave of the explosion inside the gun is slower than the sound wave of the bullet. The displacement of the air from the bullet is like a huge sheer of the sound wave itself from the gun. Different atmospheric density affects the carry speed of the sound, and especially when the thing doing the displacement is going the speed of a bullet.


This is why, for example in my own life, while walking up a steep hill and hearing a shot from an unknown weapon above, I heard the explosion from the gun in the wake of the bullet cutting through tree leaves before I heard the explosion of the gun from its actual source.

First came the woosh of leaves snapping, the light hint of an explosion in its wake (the displaced soundwave from the bullet's origin), then the actual explosion from the chamber. This creates a double "pa PA" sort of sound.

I don't honestly care what you think of my sign out. it does not make me right or wrong, and calling attention to it is merely you unable to counter what I say.

Thus, either go to the place and see for yourself, or Toodles.

reply to post by PsykoOps


So, if we can't identify the exact location of shooter and vehicle, we can't discuss the science of acoustics?You are the one who has a problem with comprehension.I am arguing against the claim that there is no decay over distance in the sound of a gunshot.Are you claiming that no decay occurs?Even when the point of perception is moving at 50- 70 mph away from the event?

Obstacles would only serve to dampen and redirect the sound(eg echoes) making it even more distinguishable from what would be heard at or close to source.

There is no way that the decibel level at source is the same as at a kilometer let alone a mile or more.That is in essence what I am arguing about.So you can try and negate my argument all you want with the "unknown location" argument, which is impertinent, but it doesn't change the above fact.

And exactly how are you going to determine the route of the sound then? You're assuming all sound travels directly into the recording device.