Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other - Page 3




 
--
 
January 23rd, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Why can I not claim to know better that the Hasbara published under threat of death, after all you claim to know better than the Israeli doctors who investigated the deaths and injuries caused by Israeli steel projectiles? One good turn deserves another.

Any person under the threat of death by IDF will say whatever he is told to say,.... wake the fcuk up. Unfortunately the Hasbara department didn't realise that the video clearly shows them to be liars. (Something we've always known anyway)

Speaking of lies, I notice that you still have not posted this "Frame 633" that shows the uninjured foot.

Nor have you posted this miracle image that shows the edges of the exit hole, "Going inwards"

We all know why don't we? Because they were creations of your vivid imagination, lies you made up as you went along. like 99% of everything you say.
Very simple. Let's look at the facts.
You show a hole in the shoe although the hole is not seen in every frame, but let's asume there is a hole, show me the moment were the hole was made, show me the impact of the bullet going through his foot. You cant. So the hole is either an optical illusion or it was there before the event.
Another fact, The person himself has testified before court that he had a blister on his toe. No mention whatsoever of a bullet going through his foot like you claim. Now who would know it better you think? You or the victim himself?
January 24th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Very simple. Let's look at the facts.
You show a hole in the shoe although the hole is not seen in every frame, but let's asume there is a hole, show me the moment were the hole was made, show me the impact of the bullet going through his foot. You cant. So the hole is either an optical illusion or it was there before the event.
Another fact, The person himself has testified before court that he had a blister on his toe. No mention whatsoever of a bullet going through his foot like you claim. Now who would know it better you think? You or the victim himself?
OK so you've assumed there is a hole, what does the rest of it have to do with this fact.

We know that despite your mutually exclusive claims that firstly the victim suffered a (highly unlikely) "Blistered toe",.... and secondly that the projectile missed altogether hitting the ground 6 meters away, a "fact" you claim is supported by geometric analysis, but certainly not by the video. So you have two lots of evidence each contradicting the other? That's typical of what happens when you get involved in telling lies. You have backed your fairy story into a blind corner.

We don't need to see the projectile going through his foot as we can see the exit hole, and if there's an exit hole that just happens to be of the right size, in the right place, at the right time, and that the hole is seen to be discharging a growing stain, I'd say your argument is completely made up.

You don't have optical illusions lasting for more than 96 separate frames. One frame, it is probably a glitch in the image, 2-3 frames is still possible but an optical illusion lasting 96 frames and staying in the same spot relative to the sole of the shoe regardless of it's movement, is virtually impossible. It is clearly visible in every frame where the sole of the shoe is clearly visible. Unlike your Frame 633 that is blurry, in shadow and unclear, yet you claim to be able to determine that the foot inside that blurry shoe is "uninjured", a conclusion that you have not as yet explained.

If your fairy stories weren't so damned pathetic, you and your deliberate lies could be the butt of a really good joke.
February 8th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
First, some info about the video.
It was filmed on 7 July 2008 in Nil'in by a Palestinian girl named Salam Kanaan. In court the girl said she gave the film (video cassette) to a Swedish activist who propably was the person that delivered the video to B'Tselem on 20 July 2008. B'Tselem immediately forwarded a copy to the Military Police Investigation Unit commander, with demand that an immediate Military Police investigation be opened, which they did.
You can find the press release of B'Tselem here.
Since the video was filmed in the West Bank the video format used must have been PAL (Israel uses PAL).
In the tread "About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and " post #12 Seno showed his lack of knowledge about video systems by declaring this :
"your version shows frame numbers at least 100 lower than mine, so obviously you are viewing a poor quality video or using a poor editor"

Little did he know that my version, from the B'Tselem website, was in the original PAL 25 fps format. He used a NTSC format which is not used in Israel, so his version must have been converted to the US system (Australia also uses the PAL system). But that's not important. It only shows his lack of knowledge.

What is more important though is that B'Tselem contacted Situ Studio to create a spatial reconstruction of the footage positioning all actors in order to create a definitive reconstruction of the chain of events

No one bothers about the so called hole in the shoe as "evidence" he was shot through the foot (he was not). Not B'Tselem, not Ashraf Abu Rahma himself (and he should know because he was the "victim"), not the forensic architecture Situ Studio, not journalists and it was not mentioned in court. Only Seno.

If he was shot through the foot then all these investigations were not necessary, the evidence would have been overwhelming. But it was not. The investigation was about the soldier's claim that he shot approx 2 meters behind the victim to scare him or much closer to his feet. The investigation was inconclusive.

A. Diagram identifying positions of rifle in elevation as extrapolated from video frame immediately preceding discharge of weapon. Note: a survey of the site was not available for this analysis and the ground between M2 and D1 has been assumed to be flat for the sake of this analysis.
B. Axonometric view of scene illustrating known positions of shooter and possible positions of detainee based on video footage of event. Dashed lines connecting plane of camera view with positions of D1, M3 and M4 shall serve as axis along which exist possible positions for these three individuals.

C. Alternate axonometric view locating key elements. Position of M2 has been established definitively from available photographic and video documentation. Positions of D1, M3 and M4 shown on this page represent possible locations and are not definitive.

D. 3 possible locations of detainee are overlayed on a .5 meter grid shown as scenarios D1A, D1B and D1C respectively. In scenario D1A the trajectory of the bullet passes the outside of detainee’s left leg at a height ranging from the top of his knee to the lower part of his shin and strikes the ground .75 – 1.75 meters behind him. In Scenario D1B the bullet strikes in the vicinity of detainees feet. In scenario D1C the bullet strikes the ground 1 – 1.25 meters in front of him.

Remember, this was on behalf of B'Tselem, not the IDF.
--
February 9th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
I notice that as usual 95% of your post is "padding", and put quite simply, the remainder doesn't answer anything at all, as it is obviously only a "guesstimation" showing a range of possibilities and neither, shows anything of interest or value in any investigation, and also in no way addresses the question I put to you regarding the two mutually conflicting reports.

(1) Nahum Shahaf stated in his Official Affidavit that the projectile missed the victim completely, you also stated unequivocally that, "the way the soldier holds the weapon when fired he can impossible hit the "demonstrator's" foot".

(2) But the investigation stated that he received a "Blistered toe.

How many official answers are there? Obviously the Israelis fabricated a number of answers ready to suit all possible questions from the Press and others, not realising that they were mutually conflicting.

So all of your fancy work above proves nothing at all, it merely shows a range of "possibilities" totally neglecting the "Official Affidavit" of Nahum Shahaf, and still ignores the fact that the Israelis released two mutually conflicting answers. One that he was hit in the toe, and also an "Official Affidavit" stating that the projectile missed by 40cms.

To demonstrate the lack of credibility in the material provided by Forensic Architecture. In the first paragraph of their page on this matter, they state that the victim was shot at a range of 1.5 metres, yet their own drawing posted by you, clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away.
There are other obvious errors in what you posted, e.g. the photo interpreter/draftsman needs a a few lessons in basic optics. In Drawing "B" supposedly showing an orthogonal view to demonstrate the view as seen by the camera, he has the lines of parallax converging as the distance from the camera increases, whereas in real life they actually diverge, a fact known and understood by any Junior High School physics student. If you were to believe this picture the camera was on the far side of the event. ???? Very amateurish.


Such a basic mistake is a clear indicator that Forensic Architecture are either skewing their evidence to achieve a predetermined result, (most likely) or they are complete amateurs with little knowledge of the processes needed to achieve a credible result.

So you posted all that BS for absolutely no benefit, what's more it never even began to answer the question that was asked... WHY?
February 9th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
may I remind you to the fact that if the camera was in the position you give the door of the jeep will block the view and the shooter will be filmed from the back.
Hint : at the lower left is an arrow with the text : camera view.
If you still don't understand: camera view is from the camera, not to.
February 11th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
may I remind you to the fact that if the camera was in the position you give the door of the jeep will block the view and the shooter will be filmed from the back.
Hint : at the lower left is an arrow with the text : camera view.
If you still don't understand: camera view is from the camera, not to.
I know where the actual camera view is from. This drawing was to demonstrate a stupid error in the basic optics by Forensic Architecture.

"Lines of Parallax "diverge" from the viewer or in this case, camera, they do not "converge". So, if you extend the lines of parallax on their drawing to their point of convergence (which I did) you will have the supposed view point, or in this case the "alleged" camera position.
Yes,... their analysis is all wrong, even a lying idiot like you can see that it is physically impossible. So much for the credibility of work provided by Forensic Architecture, they don't even properly apply the most basic rules of optics to their diagrams.

Read what I said again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
There are other obvious errors in what you posted, e.g. the photo interpreter/draftsman needs a a few lessons in basic optics. In Drawing "B" supposedly showing an orthogonal view to demonstrate the view as seen by the camera, he has the lines of parallax converging as the distance from the camera increases, whereas in real life they actually diverge, a fact known and understood by any Junior High School physics student. If you were to believe this picture the camera was on the far side of the event. ???? Very amateurish.
Hence the comment on my drawing, "Camera position if you believe this drawing" And you never answered my question "So you posted all that BS for absolutely no benefit, what's more it never even began to answer the question that was asked... WHY?"
February 11th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I know where the actual camera view is from. This drawing was to demonstrate a stupid error in the basic optics by Forensic Architecture.

"Lines of Parallax "diverge" from the viewer or in this case, camera, they do not "converge". So, if you extend the lines of parallax on their drawing to their point of convergence (which I did) you will have the supposed view point, or in this case the "alleged" camera position.
Yes,... their analysis is all wrong, even a lying idiot like you can see that it is physically impossible. So much for the credibility of work provided by Forensic Architecture, they don't even properly apply the most basic rules of optics to their diagrams.

Read what I said again:

Hence the comment on my drawing, "Camera position if you believe this drawing" And you never answered my question "So you posted all that BS for absolutely no benefit, what's more it never even began to answer the question that was asked... WHY?"
It's an axonometric view.
February 11th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
It's an axonometric view.
So parallax ceases to exist? What about the fact that they say the foot was shot at a range of 1.5 metres, and yet they clearly show with their own range bar that the sh!tbag Israeli and the victim are 4 metres apart.

Obviously they work in their own alternate reality. Say one thing show another,... and you still avoided answering the original question.
February 14th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
So parallax ceases to exist? What about the fact that they say the foot was shot at a range of 1.5 metres, and yet they clearly show with their own range bar that the sh!tbag Israeli and the victim are 4 metres apart.

Obviously they work in their own alternate reality. Say one thing show another,... and you still avoided answering the original question.
There's no need to answer the original question. Facts overwhelmingly disprove your theory.
February 14th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
There's no need to answer the original question. Facts overwhelmingly disprove your theory.
That is precisely my point, no "facts" are shown. They say one thing and show another, where are your "facts" in that?

Forensic Architecture's report is so poorly done and blatantly full of childishly obvious errors that it actually raises the question as to weather the Israelis never paid them off to put it out purely to discredit their opposition.