First, find out what isn't true…

June 5, 2010

Faking it for Israel…(again). Pathetic propaganda 101. Alleged remarks from the Mavi Marmara


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-vD

This has become a bit of a work in progress, as info is released. Last reviewed 5th July 2010 See also reviews in comments See Review 1

Samples taken from Haaretz
Audio conversion for analysis 44100 16bit wav mono
Samples taken from regions shown right bottom corner of the pics.
The analyzed wav file is 31.5 Mb. No I am not going to convert it to anything lower quality and/or upload it.

When I first started I said “Unless other information is made available, it seems likely to be another absolutely PATHETIC attempt at propaganda by some LYING IDF schmuck (who hasn’t got a clue about faking audio)”. The IDF have since released the alleged un-edited version of events. More ‘explanations’ = more ‘revelations’ (cute word, I think I’ll use it :-)

The IDF have patched together variety of transmits, designed to give the impression they were calling the Mavi Marmara. Yet NONE of the released transmits can be accurately attributed to either a call to the Mavi Marmara or from the Mavi Marmara

Rev 1
Revelations 1 : 00.00.15.325 – All transmits from this ship should have the same transmit sound between words. (see earlier postings)
Rev 1 Defne Y, Defne Y, this Israeli navy warship calling you on channel 1 6 do you read me?”

Rev 1The Defne Y call sign will have it’s allocated call frequency recorded somewhere. It’s NOT the Mavi Marmara!

Revelations 2: 00.04.33.995 – “..have had their good dayevening, sirr are you ready to invite us on board or not yet?”

Revelations 3 : 00.00.195.597 – Note the transmission noise between words on this transmit……

…..compared to
Revelations 3 : 00.04.37.283 transmit…..

These must be transmits on an intercept, from a different IDF vessel and a different Activist Vessel, not the Defne Y.

Revelations 4 : 00.04.37.849 – Activist Vessel reply : “no not yet, we have Rev 1 ??change over a saddle board ?? minutes to 15 minutes time “

Revelations 5 : 00.04.43.817 – Israeli Navy reply : “That’s good your stairs, that’s fine about that you have one off, time when you will should be stand by along aside the gangway with his lugguage and the passport after first the Rev 1 pilot will be come board, Ok?”

We know it was a large vessel, needing a ‘staired’ gangway.

However, the navy signal noise is not the same as that for the initial navy Defne Y, Defne Y call on the released transmits. and it’s a friendly boarding, with pilot and letting a passenger off!!

——

A) the IDF first releases a false accusation, purposefully edited to give the impression the transmission came from the Mavi Marmara. They claim it came from a ‘passenger’ of the Mavi Marmara. They know the inflammatory alleged statements will spread like wildfire (it is still spreading un-corrected) and these remarkably clear transmits will bolster their claim that the activists on the Mavi Marmara were aggressive. It’s PROPAGANDA.

B) the IDF releases an alleged unedited version of alleged transmits, in order to prove their ‘material’ is genuine, at the same time admitting their ‘claim’ of the origins is inaccurate.

C) the other transmits from activist vessels are cordial, all have interference and in places are almost un-intelligible

D) All the other vessel radio transmits are full of interference. Isn’t it AMAZING, that the derogatory remarks, are SO CLEAR? Clearer than anything else transmitted and with a different transmit noise from all the others. Almost as if they’ve been purposefully recorded and inserted.

E) the IDF has yet to explain how exceptionally clear onboard communications from passengers, got onto a maritime channel. Fact is, THEY CAN’T. An open channel would be totally flooded, rendered inoperable, an impossible mess. The IDF open channel is an open MARITIME channel, for vessel transmissions. Onboard communications are not on a maritime band.

Conclusion. The IDF proof does not ‘prove’ anything other than the now confirmed fact – their alleged material was edited to give the impression it came from the Mavi Marmara.


—————
Link to this section

Earlier postings analyzing the first alleged transmits same methods/sample rates.

IDF video shows flotilla passengers tell Israel Navy to ‘go back to Auschwitz’ screams the Haaretz headline……Published 23:28 04.06.10

“Army releases audio recording of exchange between Israel Navy ships and passengers on the Mavi Marmara, the central ship of a Gaza aid flotilla raided by Israel on Monday”

It’s doubtful the messages came from the one ship’s radio, a spectrum analysis of the transmission ‘white’noise, i.e., taken from the small gaps of silence BETWEEN their words, shows three different levels of transmission ‘white’noise, with three very different frequency ranges. Furthermore, onboard/passenger communications are completely separated from a ships transmits. Completely different radio communications systems, band, frequencies.

“We have permission from the Gaza Port Authority…”

(alleged) “Go back to Austwitz”

(alleged) “We’re helping Arabs…”

Gap between words “We have permission from the Gaza Port Authority…”

Gap between (alleged) words “Go back to Austwitz”

Gap between (alleged) “We’re helping Arabs…”

Note the difference in the end of transmission noise. Frequencies different..
(alleged) “Go back to Austwitz “ – end of transmission


(alleged) “We’re helping Arabs…” – end of transmission

Unless other information is made available, it seems likely to be another absolutely PATHETIC attempt at propaganda by some LYING IDF schmuck (who hasn’t got a clue about faking audio)…See Review 1

Comments are closed. If you don’t get it from the existing comments, you’ll never get it
Advertisements

19 Comments

  1. […] The assumption here is that the US actually have a phone call they believe to be between a Syrian government offical and a commander but that they were fabricated by Israeli intelligence. Alot of people might be willing to dismiss this as “too conspiratorial” but remember, Israeli intelligence have been caught manufacturing phone calls before. […]

    Pingback by The Intercepted Phone Call Proving Syrian Governments Ties to Chemical Attack - FSACrimes — September 6, 2013 @ 8:51 pm


  2. Hi Talknic,

    here is something for you, hope you like it. Google for this:
    “Message intercepts by the [United States Ship] Liberty made it clear that Israel had never intended to limit its attack to Egypt. Furthermore, we learned that the Israelis were themselves intercepting communications among Arab leaders. The Israelis then retransmitted ‘doctored’ texts to encourage Jordan and Syria to commit their armies in the erroneous belief that Nasser’s army had repelled the Israeli invaders. To destroy this incriminating evidence, Moshe Dayan [Israeli Minister of Defense] ordered his jets and torpedo boats to destroy the Liberty immediately.”
    –Wilbur Crane Eveland, CIA operative in the Middle East during 1967

    Comment by Michael — October 24, 2010 @ 9:42 am


  3. Hi Michael

    From the first line “ Samples taken from Haaretz

    The IDF claims …. Kinda like soiling their own pants, then wondering where the smell comes from.

    Comment by talknic — June 14, 2010 @ 7:20 am


    • Hi Talnic,

      Thx. But forgive me. Does the IDF in any article claims EXPLICITLY, that the communication at 4:37 is between Navy and Miramara or other any ship of the flotilla? Or is it just an assumption we make and are lead to believe, because of the context?

      Comment by Michael — June 14, 2010 @ 8:09 am


      • Hi Michael,

        Uh oh, I have meantime edited some bits…. it is a WiP.

        00:04:37:283 – It is something I have considered. The samples of transmit noise of the ship being intercepted are different from the Mavi Marmara. I didn’t mention this, but was in the analysis visual.

        Comment by talknic — June 14, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

        • Hi Talknic,

          ok. Here is something for your WiP:

          Revelation 1.) Change “DAFDY” into “Defne Y”. It’s the ship were the female flotilla operator is on.
          Revelation 2.) Change “have had their good dayevening, terror” into “ha[p] had no good day evening sir”.
          Revelation 4.) Delete “Activist” in “Activist Vessel”. Delete “we have no decks at the back or front. 30 minutes”, because it is hard to prove, what hes said. Change “70 minutes” into “15 minutes”.
          Revelation 5.) Change “That’s good your stairs, that’s fine about that you have one off, time when you will should be stand by along aside the gangway with Israelis and the passport after the first sailors will be come board, Ok?” into “had good sir sir if you dont mind about you have one off saying that you’ll should be stand by along aside the gangway with his laguagge and passport after the first pilot will [bick] on board, ok?”
          Revelation 6.) Change “Activist vessel” into “vessel” and “Thank G-d for nice present too, thank you” into “Thanks ‘lot for nice coorperation sir, thank you.”

          Now ask yourself, what a “pilot” is and why the beginnings of the Israeli operators messages don’t make sense, assuming hat they could have otherwise included information about location, daytime and channel of communication.

          Comment by Michael — June 14, 2010 @ 3:03 pm


          • Hi Michael.

            Four ears are better than two :-) I’ve now listened on studio equipment, spkr array & headset, rather than tiny laptop spkrs. Also I gotten used to the 2nd Navy guy’s heavy accent & English peculiarities in press release 2.

            I agree with some of your assessment.

            2nd ‘un-edited’ news release. The first Navy transmits have an accent with a strong American characteristic. The second has a thick M Eastern characteristic and a tendency to add ‘a’ to some words, such as “along’a’side the gangway” and an ‘American’ “r” as in “evening sirrr” and stuff like “you’ll should be”.

            The 2nd release tells us the Navy is transmitting to one vessel, the Defne Y, on marine channel 1 6 and listening to Navy and flotilla transmits on an open channel.

            An analysis of the background of each transmit shows different transmit noise from each vessel, navy and activist. The IDF itself tell us they don’t know where the very clear alleged remarks came from. (Onboard communications are not transmitted on a Marine band)

            The IDF also now tells us “..the audio recording was edited to reduce long periods of silence and to eliminate incomprehensible comments”

            Yet they BEGAN the 1st press release with information on the Defne Y, not the Mavi Marmara. It also included activist transmission from the female flotilla operator on the Challenger 1 (good work), also irrelevant to 1st press release about the Mavi Marmara.

            In the 2nd release, there is evidence of at least two different Navy vessels and at more than one activist vessel, NONE of which can be positively identified as the Mavi Marmara NOR is there any evidence it even came from the flotilla. It’s amazing that the derogatory remarks happen to be so clear, yet all other transmits from the flotilla have a lot of interference in the transmit noise between words, sometimes obliterating what has been said.

            ——-

            We were supposed to believe the derogatory remarks were transmitted from passengers on the Mavi Marmara before it was intercepted.

            OK. Let’s believe it.

            We’re shown the navy calling a ship. “Defne Y” (for the life of me, EQ’d or slowed down the Navy transmit ‘sounds’ like DAFD Y)

            But you’re right, with a search for “names of flotilla boats” or some such we now know.

            However, it’s irrelevant to the 1st claim. If one didn’t search the net to find out, the impression being generated is “see, here’s the Navy, calling ‘a’ ship”. Impression created – they’re calling the Mavi Marmara with a call sign.

            The 2nd release, tells us the 1st release was PROPAGANDA, cut together to give the impression the derogatory remarks came from activists on the Mavi Marmara BEFORE the intercept.

            To what was said as best we can hear it

            Revelation 1.) Defne Y – Agreed. Albeit completely irrelevant to the original claim.

            Revelation 2.) 2nd Navy guy’s thick accent… Perhaps “I..’ve? had a(rr) good day. Evening sir, are you ready to g’ui’de us on board or not yet” Notice pronunciation of ‘ui’ in guide.

            Revelation 4.) Why delete ‘activist vessel’? They cooperated, arranging for a pilot, BEFORE the alleged remarks showing the activists were ” determined to attack the soldiers who boarded the deck, and that the soldiers were acting in self defense” ?? At that point in time they could not have known the activists attacked boarding IDF.

            “Delete ‘we have no decks at the back or front. 30 minutes’, because it is hard to prove, what hes said. Change ’70 minutes’ into ’15 minutes'”

            Applying heaps of EQ filters and compression on what’s left and slowing it down to 50%, I hear it as “No not yet, we have to change over a saddle, board in 20 to 15 minutes time” or ..change over a saddle board, in 20 to 15 minutes time.

            ‘saddle (board)’ An old ship’s carpenter’s term for a small ‘gangway’, usually no hand rail – goes between ship’s landing and the gunwale of smaller vessels that have no specific boarding point or opening in the bulwarks . The name is now commonly used for the board between different floor levels or materials of adjacent rooms.

            http://www.bghome.ie/products/SaddleBoardhttp://www.bdfs.ie/machinedtimber.html#Saddleboard
            (also a term used in roofing joists)

            Revelation 5.) Slowed to 50% I now hear it as “That’s good, sir, seriousness. Fine about you have one off. (a passenger to disembark ?) Finally(?) you’ll should be stand by along’a’side the gangway with his luggage and passport after the first pilot will be come on board, ok?”

            Still not relevant to the ‘passengers’ derogatory remarks originally attributed to the Mavi Marmara AND it seems, AFTER the Mavi Marmara intercept, it was intercepted first, no?

            Revelation 6.) “Change “Activist vessel” into “vessel” Again, why? It’s supposed to be before any violence took place.

            “and “Thank G-d for nice present too, thank you” into “Thanks ‘lot for nice coorperation sir, thank you.””

            Slowed to 50% Perhaps “Thank both for nice c’operation too, thank you.”

            “Now ask yourself, what a ‘pilot’ is and why the beginnings of the Israeli operators messages don’t make sense, assuming hat they could have otherwise included information about location, daytime and channel of communication”

            I now agree it’s ‘pilot’ luggage etc, The Mavi Marmarma was intercepted first. If this radio sequence is not the Defne Y (different Navy guy transmitting) and its not the Challenger 1 and it’s a cooperative exchange, AFTER the Mavi Marmara intercept. It’s also irrelevant to the first press release claim and the 9/11 comment came after it.

            We seem to have alleged evidence tabled by the IDF, of events after the Mavi Marmara intercept, to prove an incident they allege happened before the Mavi Marmara intercept. Inserting their own falsified derogatory remarks isn’t far off… given their remarkable clarity for alleged onboard radio equipment, leaking somehow into a marine channel, illogical time line etc

            Comment by talknic — June 17, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

            • Hi Talknic,

              Yes, four ears can hear better than two. And of course, headphones are necessary.

              They first Israeli operator and the second are definitely not the same. The first navy operater is also the same guy we hear in the other video communicating with the Mavi Marmara which ends with “Negative, negative. Our Destination is Gaza”.

              I agree that “Defne Y” sounds like “Daf D Y” at 0:17. But doesn’t this also sound like a result of a cut?

              The female flotilla operator also claims that the flottila message was edited and that the port permission part couldn’t be from this (9th) mission, because they were a 100 miles out when communicating. Wouldn’t someone ask port for permission, only if he would have at least reached coastal waters?

              Don’t assume all transmits are from navy and activist and not also from port or hobby operators living in coastal area. And don’t assume that the timeline of all transmits is real and not a whole fabrication.

              About the communication inluding “pilot” and “his lagguage and passport”.

              We cannot prove, that this is navy to flotilla communication. It could also be a port to nonactivist vessel communication. If I had to make it believable that there was something between the flotilla message and the 911 message, what would I have to insert? A few small radio messages wouldn’t do, even if there was nothing more in reality. That’s the irony. This whole thing is about believability, not reality! This could could be a result of audio maniupalations of this specific transmit and that could be the reason why we surprisingly have such difficulties to understand what they are saying, even if the signal of the Israelis operator is quite clear. Parts could be glued together, sometimes word by word and sometimes also heavilly distorted to cover up parts or deletion of them to hide the truth about real location, real daytime and real channel.

              I think, there are at least five parts in the answer, which sound seperated: “No, not yet”; “we have”; “just […] the/a […]”; “twenty minutes”; “fiveteen minutes”. Even “No, not yet” and “fiveteen” sound like glued together words or syllables. I still don’t hear “saddle”. To me it sounds like a word beginning with a plosive like “p” or “b”. And I still think he said “‘Thanks’lot for nice c’operation” But I hear something like “both” when I place the beginning to short before the “o”. Beware of this! It is crucial where you place the start, because it can change the sound dramatically and lead to wrong conclusions.

              But I also I think it’s a compleste waste of time to find out, what they said. I would concentrate more on indications of audio manipulations like cuts, pitch shifting, etc.

              Why don’t you have a closer look at:
              1. … the background noises in the major gaps of the Auschwitz part and if you hear anything. Also look for something which could indicate a cut.
              2. … the voice interrupting the flotillas message (“Navy is the best”) and the guy talking about 911. I would suggest to change the former messages pitch and speed to adapt to the latter. Check also, if both messages are compressed or not and compare it to others.

              Btw. Use the free Sonic Visualiser 1.7.2. for spectrograms, because it can also change the speed variably during playback and it uses granular methods to maintain pitch while doing so.

              Comment by Michael — June 18, 2010 @ 10:56 am


              • Hi Michael,

                I’ve used a variety of professional programs for analysis & listening.

                There are a lot MORE questions raised than answered by the 2nd press release.
                A)The 2nd press release seems to have been ‘normalized’,

                which could have used some compression.

                In the 1st press release,

                the ‘end of transmission’ noise for ‘go back to Auschwitz’ is higher than everything else.

                B) As you’ve said, the transmits could be from anywhere….Off loading a passenger, with luggage and passport, seems odd in respect to an intercept of the flotilla.

                Same here listening to individual words. ‘both’ (or ‘boatth’ – maybe he’s Argentinian :-)

                Searched for ‘glitches’ nothing much that can’t be also attributed to interference.

                An assumption by myself re-‘saddle’. Looking at the things they might have had to ‘change over’ in order to accommodate a boarding….a ‘saddle board’ is one item. The IDF guy then refers to it by the common term ‘gangway’. Perhaps a difference in ages and experiences. Whatever, it’s unrelated.

                In all, the 2nd release does not ‘prove’ anything.

                Comment by talknic — June 19, 2010 @ 1:04 am


                • Hallo Talknic,

                  A.) I didn’t know that the 1st version wasn’t normalized. That’s very interesting, because have a look at all the uncompressed or unnormalized messages at:

                  1. 0:49 Repetetion (or pitch-changend duplication?) of the normalized message at 0:25

                  2. 1:56 (“Go ahead navy”)
                  2:23 (“Go ahead navy”)
                  3:21 (“Show’em navy”)

                  3. 2:00
                  2:10 (which seems to be a duplication, incl. same change of background noise after the second “if”.

                  4. 4:02 (“Navy is the best”)
                  4:21 Guy cursing in russian
                  5:41 (“9/11”) which seems to be the same voice like “Navy is the best”. The accent could be russian.

                  5. 4:09
                  4:16 Same Operator, different messages

                  6. 5:38

                  I also noticed that there’s an unnatural gap between “Go” and “back” in the Auschwitz part and that if I record “go back” the “go” has not the same loudness as “back”. Maybe “go” was normalized on its own. The backgroundnoise at this point is also different than the background noise between “up” and “Go” and between “back” and “to”. These two background noises change themselves in their middle.

                  B.) It is odd and I assume that this was just port to vessel communication.

                  I don’t think that the glitches are because of interferences. There is a click right after “not that” indicating a cut. After “we have” the distortion increases too suddenly for my taste to be a coincidence and is covering up, what the message is. Then we have “[…] twenty minues” and “fiveteen minutes” which both have a a different rhythm flow. The speech melody also doesn’t sound to be a natural flow.

                  But like I said. To me it’s just a waste of time to further go into details there. But did you notice the pitch shifting try outs at 4:27? And why does the message 4:34 begins right in the middle of a sentence? The preceeding message is something like “It’s very very bad now”. But there’s no communication about the subject.

                  Comment by Anonymous — June 19, 2010 @ 7:59 am


                  • Hi there,

                    Need to be working on the same full length audio tracks. I’ve not chopped any off the beginnings or ends. Saved as mono wav 44100 16bits

                    Full length of the 1st press release – 00:05:58:00 – from here.

                    Full length of the 2nd press release – 00:00:26:566 – from here.

                    Comment by talknic — June 19, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

                    • Yes, I’m also working with the same files, which are provided by ifnadesk on Youtube:

                      1st release: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ
                      2nd release: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dE2StbDL_Q

                      I used the “Free Youtube to MP3 Converter 3.5.11.158” to convert the video in to a stereo-wav-file which I then converted into mono-wav 16 bits. What is your conversion software? I could use yours to make sure we have the same time stamps.

                      P.S. If you change the name of this site, it could generate more search engine hits. It should include the title of the second video: “Unedited Radio Transmission Between Gaza Flotilla and Israeli Navy.”

                      Comment by Michael — June 19, 2010 @ 1:44 pm


                  • Could go on forever. Suffice it to say, the re-release ‘proves’ nothing.

                    Comment by talknic — June 20, 2010 @ 8:11 am


        • Sorry, the female flotilla operator was on the Challenger 1.

          Comment by Michael — June 14, 2010 @ 4:31 pm


          • Noted

            Comment by talknic — June 17, 2010 @ 8:59 pm


  4. Hi Lyn.

    The analysis thus far, is of transmission noise only because very one’s voice has different characteristics. Can you tell me what was said, as best you hear it?

    (Have added more info at the head of the post)

    Cheers

    Comment by talknic — June 12, 2010 @ 6:51 pm


    • Hi Talknic,

      who claims, that this “is verification from the intercept of the Mavi Marmara.”?

      Comment by Michael — June 13, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

  5. Some of the comments on the tape by the Israeli navy sound almost identical. E.g. the sections beginning about 1:36 and 3:09. Is it possible to compare those sections to see if they actually are identical?

    Comment by Lyn — June 11, 2010 @ 9:33 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: