PDA

View Full Version : Fake or Real?



k-otic
11-27-2007, 07:32 AM
A few month ago i was talking about faked combat footage in world war 2 and todays Iraq documentaries/reports and a lot of people start to arguing in other forums with me that this can`t be true

well i do say that at least 90% of all combat footage you see today at the history cannel or any other place are fake .. re-enacted or taken from firering ranges or field maneuvers

i`ve seen so many raw footage that i can say that the only real combat footage are the one made by guncamera and some of the footage taken in the pacific theatre.

this is an good example of an entirely re-enacted propaganda movie made by John Huston in 1945 called "The Battle of st Pietro"
http://208.75.230.43/kotic/stpetro.swf
defining the boundary between “re-enacted” footage and “real” footage is, of course, a sticky problem, but the degree to which the filmmaker, John Houston, worked to mask the re-enactment footage seems a little unethical to me, especially the attempt to “mesh seamlessly” re-enactments with footage taken at the actual event.


you know of other footage or photo`s that might be fake too ??

Man of Stoat
11-27-2007, 08:17 AM
Practically any footage in which people are supposedly under fire which is not shot from almost ground level, behind cover, running, or from a trench or foxhole is most likely re-enacted.

k-otic
11-30-2007, 04:38 AM
sure, but don`t you think that it is a bit off?
i think re-enact dead soldiers or let american wear german uniforms to act as captured german soldiers is way off and lame.
even today in iraq they re-enact battle situations for the tv camera.
destroying whole towns just for the sake of having something to show at the 8 o`clock news.
i mean, would you play this game when you where an correspondent ?

Man of Stoat
11-30-2007, 05:15 AM
Name one occasion where a whole town was destroyed purely for the cameras.

Failing that, keep taking the pills...

k-otic
11-30-2007, 05:51 AM
The town of Karbilah, June 2005 during Opretion Spear
The destruction were carried out by the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment

pdf27
11-30-2007, 07:52 AM
If you're referring to Karbala, I think you'll find it's still there. As (so far as I can tell), having googled a bit more, the town of Karabillah to which you seem to be referring.
I concur with MoS about the pills...

k-otic
11-30-2007, 08:35 AM
If you're referring to Karbala, I think you'll find it's still there. As (so far as I can tell), having googled a bit more, the town of Karabillah to which you seem to be referring.
I concur with MoS about the pills...
That`s true it`s still there, but large areas were destroyed in 2005

Nickdfresh
11-30-2007, 08:26 PM
Practically any footage in which people are supposedly under fire which is not shot from almost ground level, behind cover, running, or from a trench or foxhole is most likely re-enacted.

Very true. Actual combat footage is rare and precious. Especially the variety that shows both combatant sides in the same frame. At the moment, I can think of only two instances regarded American forces in WWII.

The first was when a cameraman was surprised by a Japanese squad running on another side of a waist-high level wall in an urban setting on what I think is Okinawa circa 1945. US Marines taking cover behind said wall pop up and promptly gun them down...

The other is posted in the "M-26 Pershing" thread and is entitled "High Noon in Cologne."

Rising Sun*
12-01-2007, 04:02 AM
Very true. Actual combat footage is rare and precious. Especially the variety that shows both combatant sides in the same frame. At the moment, I can think of only two instances regarded American forces in WWII.

The first was when a cameraman was surprised by a Japanese squad running on another side of a waist-high level wall in an urban setting on what I think is Okinawa circa 1945. US Marines taking cover behind said wall pop up and promptly gun them down...

The other is posted in the "M-26 Pershing" thread and is entitled "High Noon in Cologne."

Can't give reference, but I recall a pretty gritty piece of film of Americans in Italy in WWII, pretty much ground hugging and fire and movement on a ?bushy slope, with the enemy unseen and the grunts working hard.

Digger
12-01-2007, 06:21 AM
I think the two most common examples of Real footage are fighter gun cams used over Europe extensively and of course US naval operations in the Pacific.

digger

k-otic
12-01-2007, 07:12 AM
You think the bodys going into the body bags in the film you posted are not real? There real..look at the eyes..hands..fingers..thats what they look like. What are you trying to prove?
These footage were taken in sicily
I was referring to the COMBAT footage you can see in this movie

what i try to prove is, that at least 90% of all combat footage is FAKE and i wonder why those cameramen did this.
They had all the horror of war right in front of them and still they choose to re-enact it
most of the poeple who`r watching the history channel today think that they see the real thing



The first was when a cameraman was surprised by a Japanese squad running on another side of a waist-high level wall in an urban setting on what I think is Okinawa circa 1945. US Marines taking cover behind said wall pop up and promptly gun them down...

actually that footage was taken at TARAWA in 1943... interesting thing is that Stanley Kubrick used that footage as idea for one of the scenes in his movie FULL METAL JACKET in 1987
In fact, they don`t get any of the japanese soldiers because when the japanese past a small spot, between two bunkers, most of the US Marines were out of amonition and reloading :mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
12-01-2007, 07:23 AM
most of the poeple who`r watching the history channel today think that they see the real thing

How do you know they're not?

k-otic
12-01-2007, 07:39 AM
because i`ve seen the raw version of the footage .. the way the film material did came out of the camera
you can see very easaly that most of the footage where taken waaaay behind the front line ... soldiers left and right smoking .. so drunk they even drop their guns etc :mrgreen:
pretty funny stuff

Rising Sun*
12-01-2007, 08:12 AM
because i`ve seen the raw version of the footage .. the way the film material did came out of the camera
you can see very easaly that most of the footage where taken waaaay behind the front line ... soldiers left and right smoking .. so drunk they even drop their guns etc :mrgreen:
pretty funny stuff

Must be a nice army where soldiers coming out of the front can get so drunk they're dropping their weapons but still manage to re-enact action.

Do you have any examples of this footage that we can view?

k-otic
12-01-2007, 08:36 AM
sure.. only problem is that i`m in the process of moving ... but i`ll see what i can find

k-otic
12-01-2007, 09:47 AM
Fake or Real?????? You ask... Its real, what's with you? I'm still waiting for you to post film that shows the women and kids getting blown away by strafing U.S. fighters in one of your earlier post.
About this footage .. you must understand that i have 8 reels of guncamera footage
Each reel has approx 2hr30min of footage normaly the sequences are only some seconds because the camera were syncronized with the guns and most pilots did only fire short bursts
now i`ve really trouble to find that seqeunce... but i`m on it
only thing that i can recall was that he was flying very slow and low the poeple were fleeing from the train towards the camera(fighter) i think that they were hoping that he`s going for the train but he opens fire on the area in front of the train waving from laft to right with his plane to strafe the whole area

k-otic
12-01-2007, 10:19 AM
Must be a nice army where soldiers coming out of the front can get so drunk they're dropping their weapons but still manage to re-enact action.

Do you have any examples of this footage that we can view?
You can see the scene with the drunken soldiers in the movie "St Petro" they hade some spaghetti and red whine and some had more red whine than spaghetti :mrgreen:
BTW that`s why they all shewing their gums in this movie .. they can`t stand the gerlic ;)

k-otic
12-01-2007, 11:00 AM
i`ve nothing against good editing..it`s the salt good movies are made of.. but re-enacting is something totally differend don`t you think?

k-otic
12-01-2007, 12:18 PM
as you allready said ... it`s the editing ... if you did know the original raw footage you would know that 3 of the crew actually made it out of that phanter not only one ;) ...

The first video shows at least 80% of footage that has nothing to do with the event that the storry covers

the second video is even worst ... it`s edited that way that it looks like that the tank comander get killed by the second shot .. but on the other hand you can see clearly the two other crew men (driver and co-driver) running for cover :mrgreen:

The original raw footage shows that after the tank get hit the first time the comander jumps down the tank running for cover then the driver jumps out and then the co-driver, the last two under heavy mashingun fire and third anti tank round sets the tank on fire ..

Nickdfresh
12-01-2007, 05:50 PM
Can't give reference, but I recall a pretty gritty piece of film of Americans in Italy in WWII, pretty much ground hugging and fire and movement on a ?bushy slope, with the enemy unseen and the grunts working hard.

I think you might be referring to John Ford's propaganda masterstroke of "Why We Fight." I recall the very brave editorial stance was taken to include footage of actual soldiers killed in combat being sewn up into shrouds...

k-otic
12-02-2007, 08:05 AM
Fake..Reenacted combat scenes is a whole lot different than edited combat scenes. Are you saying 90% is FAKE / Acted for the camera OR 90% is real footage edited? Edited combat action is still real combat action.

Well, i was referring to re-enacted footage made during the time of world war two

But watching the two samples you have posted makes me think...
editing real combat footage the way it was done there is simply beyond me.
Editing already real intense combat footage like this, for the sake of getting more gore out of it and lie to the poeple who are watching this, is pervert

http://th197.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/KoRn_MuNK_E/th_thWWIIClown.gif
if you think what can be done with editing by using the technique we have on hand today, i think you`r better off with the "boring" raw footage ... ;)

Tony Williams
12-02-2007, 08:22 AM
You ask... Its real, what's with you? I'm still waiting for you to post film that shows the women and kids getting blown away by strafing U.S. fighters in one of your earlier post.
I don't know of any film of it, but I don't think there's much doubt that it happened. I have read (IIRC, from the actual pilots involved) that late in the war, when there wasn't much Luftwaffe opposition, P-51 escort fighter pilots were told to use up their ammo by shooting up ground targets on the way home - and they basically shot at anything that moved. From a plane closing at 400mph they would have had little idea of exactly what they were shooting at, of course; I doubt very much that any of them would have deliberately targeted women and children. But a vehicle could have held anybody.

Tony Williams
12-02-2007, 02:03 PM
This is what I was responding to Tony..I'm not saying there were never any women or children killed by pilots ground strafing, like you said hard to tell what your shooting at going that fast....I'm just questioning the way Kotic is trying to portray the U.S. fighter pilot of WWII..What do you think of the above post?

That's a tough call. Obviously, if it did happen it's not the kind of thing that people would want to brag about after the war (and I don't suppose camera gun footage would be likely to survive either). I do have a connection with some people who lived in Dresden during the bombing and they say that what angered the people most was not the bombing (they kind of expected that) but being shot up by US fighters when they were trying to escape the city. But they weren't eye witnesses to that and, of course, all sorts of rumours get spread in those circumstances.

You also have to bear in mind that war has a brutalising effect on those taking part (just think about some of the things that Coalition troops have been found guilty of in Iraq) and after several years of total war I don't suppose many pilots cared too much about what happened to German civilians.

So I suppose what it comes down to is individual personalities. I would expect that most pilots would not deliberately fire on women and children. But all you need is an Abu Ghraib type of personality in the cockpit...

Man of Stoat
12-03-2007, 02:24 AM
There is a simple reason why most footage is re-enacted: it is very difficult to get good "combat" footage in actual combat without the camera crew getting shot.

pdf27
12-03-2007, 04:25 AM
There is a simple reason why most footage is re-enacted: it is very difficult to get good "combat" footage in actual combat without the camera crew getting shot.
I'm sorry, am I supposed to have a problem with this? ;)

Rising Sun*
12-03-2007, 06:11 AM
There is a simple reason why most footage is re-enacted: it is very difficult to get good "combat" footage in actual combat without the camera crew getting shot.

I'm not so sure about that, at least at the section or platoon level.

There's plenty of pieces of what are essentially fragmentary episodes around, captured by cameramen who were there.

Neil Davis, an Australian cameraman who did some great work in Vietnam is one example I know of who was up at the sharp end and got some interesting footage, and died getting his last frame (a particularly haunting piece of film but it seems the internet doesn't have it), but there must be many others. http://www.awm.gov.au/people/2684.asp http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=tAXSSq6sxxg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAXSSq6sxxg

Just as an aside, you mightn't be able to pick up what the Asian soldiers have in their mouths. They're Buddhas, worn around their necks and put into their mouths in action in the belief they'll go straight to their heaven.

Davis tried to understand what was going on, as he does here about the famous film of the police chief shooting the the VC in the head http://video.aol.com/video-detail/frontline-1979-clip-3-too-many-pictures/3330018733

Davis took the memorable film of the tanks ramming their way into the Presidential Palace, which symbolised the end of the Vietnam war.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/a-newsman-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time/2005/09/11/1126377206273.html


The bigger war scenes, where there is cohesion and minutes of film, are the ones that I suspect.

k-otic
12-03-2007, 10:11 AM
I'm not so sure about that, at least at the section or platoon level.

There's plenty of pieces of what are essentially fragmentary episodes around, captured by cameramen who were there.

Neil Davis, an Australian cameraman who did some great work in Vietnam is one example I know of who was up at the sharp end and got some interesting footage, and died getting his last frame (a particularly haunting piece of film but it seems the internet doesn't have it), but there must be many others. http://www.awm.gov.au/people/2684.asp http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=tAXSSq6sxxg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAXSSq6sxxg

Just as an aside, you mightn't be able to pick up what the Asian soldiers have in their mouths. They're Buddhas, worn around their necks and put into their mouths in action in the belief they'll go straight to their heaven.

Davis tried to understand what was going on, as he does here about the famous film of the police chief shooting the the VC in the head http://video.aol.com/video-detail/frontline-1979-clip-3-too-many-pictures/3330018733

Davis took the memorable film of the tanks ramming their way into the Presidential Palace, which symbolised the end of the Vietnam war.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/a-newsman-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time/2005/09/11/1126377206273.html


The bigger war scenes, where there is cohesion and minutes of film, are the ones that I suspect.

He could make this because he wasn`t an embedded journalist... it`s almost impossible to take footage like that in todays conflict

because that kind of footage had such an great impact at the folks back home the military "invented" the embedded journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalist) ... short for "you only show what we want you to show the folks back home"

to give you an idea what this means i`ll show you some edited and some raw footage of re-enacted combat scenes made for this kind of "journalists" AFTER operation spear june 18 2005

but first here`s some footage made during the real operation spear between 11-13 june 2005
i call it BIG BOYS WITH TOYS having fun:mrgreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHIBZKo-z8U

k-otic
12-03-2007, 11:21 AM
Very cool..and edited too.
yep, pretty cool .. but i doubt that there was any danger at any time to the guy operating the camera .. the only danger for him was get hit by friendly fire ;)
but that`s ok.. i don`t have to pay for that, so let`em have their fun

one week after this footage was taken 3 tv camera teams arrived in karabilah ... the town was completly cleared at that time and some of the civiliens already did come back to look for their homes
anyway, the comanding officer decided to put up a show for the cameras

pdf27
12-03-2007, 01:02 PM
but first here`s some footage made during the real operation spear between 11-13 june 2005
i call it BIG BOYS WITH TOYS having fun:mrgreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHIBZKo-z8U
How can you be so sure - did you take it yourself? There wasn't a single incoming round in the entire clip, nor was there any sign or any enemy activity in any form. Also, the troops shown were as my DS so kindly describe it "monging it" - hanging around in the open, and when they move doing so with no urgency. The armoured vehicle crewmen shown are practically hanging out of their hatches sightseeing.
This video is most likely of some form of training exercise, which may or may not be in Iraq. There is NO sign of an ongoing battle.

k-otic
12-03-2007, 02:20 PM
How can you be so sure - did you take it yourself? There wasn't a single incoming round in the entire clip, nor was there any sign or any enemy activity in any form. Also, the troops shown were as my DS so kindly describe it "monging it" - hanging around in the open, and when they move doing so with no urgency. The armoured vehicle crewmen shown are practically hanging out of their hatches sightseeing.
This video is most likely of some form of training exercise, which may or may not be in Iraq. There is NO sign of an ongoing battle.

you are right, basicaly all you can see are american troops destroying large quantitys of private property...
Unfortunately that`s the way american troops do enter a city .. by using their imence firepower.. regardless if there is or there is no enmy fire :roll:
that`s one of the reason why most coalition forces reject to take part in such operation

MAIN OPJETIVE OF OPERATION SPEAR:
Provide proof of foreign fighters, mainly Syrian, passing through the borders between Iraq and Syria.

k-otic
12-03-2007, 04:36 PM
here are the first 3 EDITED versions of the CNN News report on operation spear in Karabillah from june/18/2005
8 days after "battle" started ..
http://208.75.230.43/kotic/cnn1.swf

the second version
http://208.75.230.43/kotic/1.swf

and here`s the thrid ...
http://208.75.230.43/kotic/cnn3.swf

Nickdfresh
12-03-2007, 05:22 PM
I have seen actual combat footage from Iraq, including an incident where insurgents attempted to attack a Marine patrol in a bus and were promptly gunned down.

k-otic
12-03-2007, 05:23 PM
I'm just amazed that so many WWII combat cameramen died filming fake/reenactment events, but thats okay too because you didnt have to pay for that either...

the majority were killed in the pacific theatre .. and i said the majority of the 10% of real combat footage were taken there ;)

pdf27
12-03-2007, 05:58 PM
you are right, basicaly all you can see are american troops destroying large quantitys of private property...
Whose private property? For all you know they could be on a FIBUA range in the States, in which case it is their own private property that is being destroyed.
From that video, I'm 80% certain that is some form of FIBUA/MOUT range in the majority of the video - the action takes place in a very small area of buildings with desert all around.


Unfortunately that`s the way american troops do enter a city .. by using their imence firepower.. regardless if there is or there is no enmy fire :roll:
How do you know this, because you saw it on YouTube? Have you ever actually had anything to do with the military, or thought properly about the problems involved in FIBUA/MOUT? The answers to all that are rather blatantly obvious from your posts, but being as I'm a moderator I figure I ought to be at least polite and give you a chance to dig yourself into an even deeper rhetorical hole.


that`s one of the reason why most coalition forces reject to take part in such operation
I call bullshit. All coalition forces deployed in Iraq regularly find themselves in similar situations and act in similar manners. There are few cases where forces from multiple coalition countries act together, but they are rare in any ops in theatre - it's a simple C2 issue, and the same reason the US Army and Marines rarely work together. A force with homogeneous doctrine and equipment will always find it easier to work as a team, and FIBUA/MOUT (or Fish & Chips* if you have a sense of humour like mine) is one of the most difficult of military operations to maintain command & control in. I've done it in training as a platoon commander and it was absolute chaos - and I've no doubt that some of the other board members have done it for real.
Finally, there are cases where coalition forces work together on individual operations, but they're mainly limited to special forces work where the unit sizes involved make C2 less of an issue. As an example, a number of UKSF personnell are deployed to Baghdad and work closely with the US troops there.

* Fighting In Someone's House & Causing Havoc In Public Spaces

Rising Sun*
12-03-2007, 07:44 PM
I'm just amazed that so many WWII combat cameramen died filming fake/reenactment events, but thats okay too because you didnt have to pay for that either...


"Don Morrow and some of his photographic colleagues in Italy were tired of frontline troops dersively teasing them about being rear echelon men, so they did a little checking. Line infantry units normally had about 10% casualties, but photographers took 25% casualties." Peter Maslowski, Armed with Cameras: The American Military Photographers of World War II, The Free Press, New York, 1993, p.301

Maslowski notes some other casualty rates:

Marine Photo Corps sections close to 50% casualties Iwo Jima and 37% on Okinawa.

OIC CPU #10 wounded twice and two of his three men received Purple Hearts while serving in Sicily, Italy and Southern France.

Six KIA in 163rd SPC, and 30 more, not all cameramen, got Purple Hearts.

Photographer Edward H Peterson had a Purple Heart and three Oak Leaf Clusters.

k-otic
12-04-2007, 05:58 AM
Whose private property? For all you know they could be on a FIBUA range in the States, in which case it is their own private property that is being destroyed.
From that video, I'm 80% certain that is some form of FIBUA/MOUT range in the majority of the video - the action takes place in a very small area of buildings with desert all around.


How do you know this, because you saw it on YouTube? Have you ever actually had anything to do with the military, or thought properly about the problems involved in FIBUA/MOUT? The answers to all that are rather blatantly obvious from your posts, but being as I'm a moderator I figure I ought to be at least polite and give you a chance to dig yourself into an even deeper rhetorical hole.


I call bullshit. All coalition forces deployed in Iraq regularly find themselves in similar situations and act in similar manners. There are few cases where forces from multiple coalition countries act together, but they are rare in any ops in theatre - it's a simple C2 issue, and the same reason the US Army and Marines rarely work together. A force with homogeneous doctrine and equipment will always find it easier to work as a team, and FIBUA/MOUT (or Fish & Chips* if you have a sense of humour like mine) is one of the most difficult of military operations to maintain command & control in. I've done it in training as a platoon commander and it was absolute chaos - and I've no doubt that some of the other board members have done it for real.
Finally, there are cases where coalition forces work together on individual operations, but they're mainly limited to special forces work where the unit sizes involved make C2 less of an issue. As an example, a number of UKSF personnell are deployed to Baghdad and work closely with the US troops there.

* Fighting In Someone's House & Causing Havoc In Public Spaces

I doubt that ... don`t think that you can act like that on an OPSERVET FIBUA/FOFO firering rage by rambaging and firering like crazy on cats and dongs the way this guys doing it.

just show me one picture of an FIBUA/FOFO firering rage in the united states that have this kind of buildings .. their are normaly made of simple concret buildings and your not suposed to destroy them in the way you see in this video .. they are there to train troops in close rage combat ..

btw here`s the whole video ...
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-8387475482766805845&q=operation+spear&total=69&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

Rising Sun*
12-04-2007, 06:33 AM
FIBUA / MOUT / FOFO

One of the many things I detest about the modern world is the endless generation of pompous long-winded terms and subsequent acronyms when there are perfectly adequate terms with more meaning.

Collateral damage. WTF does that mean?

Surgical strike. (Note how people collaterally damaged in a surgical strike look different to the intended targets. E.G. Their shrapnel wounds don't hurt and their burns are superficial, and collaterally damaged dead just get up and resume life like nothing had happened.)

As for FIBUA etc, house to house fighting conveyed meaning even to those with no military knowledge.

The function of much modern management / government / military language is to conceal reality. Often from the idiots who spout it to each other. Which enables them to delude themselves that defeats are just temporary reverses, strategic withdrawals, etc etc.

32Bravo
12-04-2007, 11:04 AM
FIBUA / MOUT / FOFO

One of the many things I detest about the modern world is the endless generation of pompous long-winded terms and subsequent acronyms when there are perfectly adequate terms with more meaning.

Collateral damage. WTF does that mean?

Surgical strike. (Note how people collaterally damaged in a surgical strike look different to the intended targets. E.G. Their shrapnel wounds don't hurt and their burns are superficial, and collaterally damaged dead just get up and resume life like nothing had happened.)

As for FIBUA etc, house to house fighting conveyed meaning even to those with no military knowledge.

The function of much modern management / government / military language is to conceal reality. Often from the idiots who spout it to each other. Which enables them to delude themselves that defeats are just temporary reverses, strategic withdrawals, etc etc.

'Foo-Foo Lamour' used to run Foo-Foo's Palace in Machester. :)