Willravel

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-977....html?tag=head

Okay, I've reviewed the video myself and I can see exactly what Robert Vamosi is talking about. I'm not a video expert, and even I can pick up on the problems. So we have a few questions:
1) Who was responsible? It could have been the al Qaeda, it could have been a government, or it could have been some asshole. It's hard to say.
2) Why was it faked? I'd say that depends on who created it. If it's the al Qaeda, it was like a Brady Bunch reunion: just reminding us that the whole organization isn't dead yet. If it was a government, it was clearly intended to re-instill fear that has become either numb, or that people have figured out is nothing but an illusion.
3) How shitty does the mainstream media have to get before we all stop watching? I mean really, it's either as if fact checking has gone out the window or they're so massively corrupt that they think they can even make huge mistakes and no one will know.

Racnad

It may be faked. The video image was fuzzy & poor quality. Any 19 year old with a camcorder and a computer could have done better.

My thoughts:

bin Laden has been rumored to be in poor health or even dead for several years. The fact that he hasn't been seen on video until now since 2004, and the strange things about this one support those rumors. One commentator said it would be strange to dye his beard, since in Arabic culture a gray beard connotes wisdom (although I've noticed that the aging Saudi leaders tend to have jet-black deyed breads).

His faced looks weird. He could have make-up to make him look healthier, or it might be someone else. The poor quality of the image could be to conceal this further.

Voices are harder to fake convincingly. When you hear comedians do impressions of George Bush or anyone else, you can usually tell it's not the real person. What I heard sounded like the high-pitched, airey bin Laden voice, but I don't understand Arabic and you really have to listen to the nuances of pronouciation to tell if it's the same person, or an impersonation.

Editing sound usually produces detectable splices, and editing phrases from recorded at different times is difficult to conceal because of acoustical differences of different recording environments.

So I think a fluent Arabic speaker listening carefully to this tape and previous ones should be able to determine how genuine the audio is.

If it is a fake, who did it? I'd say Al Quada. If the US governemnt fakes it, it would be higher quality. Plus, if bin Laden is alive he could discredit it by relasing a higher quality tape looking more like he did in the 2004 tape. If if not, the other Al Quada spokesman, Dr. Zhawari(sp) could denouce it as fake.

trickyy

why is it an issue that bin laden's background (interlaced) and the logo (non-interlaced) came from different sources? the logo wasn't added by the TV station?

fastom

I don't think they (Al CIA-Duh) need to make a high quality tape, the crappy ones seem to fool enough people to serve the purpose.

ubertuber

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Honestly, I think the sarcasm masked your meaning - why did you write "Al CIA-Duh", and what are they fooling which people into believing? I'm genuinely curious.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

seretogis

Clearly something that belongs in Paranoia. Why even bite? :P

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Sun Tzu

It would seem like it should, and in the context of the usual discussion here it does. However, at what point does something stop being considered conspiracy THEORY? If facts (while they can and are interpreted in several directions) present a point that may rank to be pulled out of that area and brought into the threads where debates of a subject aren't so focused on whether there is any truth to them.

Perhaps at some point there could be a policy that is created, agreed, and practiced by all community members (especially the ones that visit both the political and paranoia areas frequently). This proposed practice would be a set of criteria that has to be met to bring something out theory and openly agreed as fact. The reason I bring this up is because we are living in strange times. They may or may not be any more intense than past decades because there has always been war. Its the IT factor that makes our time different.
For myself, I really don't know what to believe in the way of news anymore. I feel like there has been so much lying from all directions.




I'll give you one example:

Since the subject is the legitimacy of the Bin Laden video, lets look at another video of his. The infamous one that opened Pandora's Box, his confession of 9/11.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/1...den.videotape/

*I'm not using CNN out of preference not that it should matter as the article promotes the generally acceptance that it provides the evidence that makes his guilt an open and shut case; Osama himself claiming responsibility. What more do you need?

I pretty sure that to suggest that video may not be him would be openly seen as material best placed in paranoia.

In that section I could take this theory and provide links that show and tell information as to why it is fake. Then comes the problem that is common even with mainstream media, what is real? If anyone else is like me, perhaps they scan the material and then scan who created the site. Who are their sources , maybe even their sources' sources if they are available, and try and piece together how this person connected the dots that any particular TFP member is providing a link to as what they are presenting that factual enough for them to view as truth. Perhaps just material at least strong enough to question what is being passed as truth.


So starting a thread here that questions the Osama Guilt video would be moved. Understandably so, if that were true there would be serious issues (at least more serious in a different direction. It wouldn't matter how many links or photos posted, it's not considered "mainstream truth".

That is exactly what I mean when I say if there were criteria that could be agreed by all that has to be met that at least paranoia residence should be reconsidered.

An example of criteria could be a source link that everyone aside from their political preference is going to accept as being valid. If the subject passed then it is no longer seen as THEORY or material for the paranoid. The only potential conflict is the persons that would remain by the stance if it is not being cast on all networks is must not be true.




That tape was used as the President's primary piece of "evidence" linking Osama to 9/11. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which then Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.” What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.”


The FBI. In this case speaking hypothetically because I'm not sure if everyone would consider the FBI as a valid source. For this example Ill just assume it would. Currently the FBI, several years and a few bombs later still does not have any hard evidence linking Osama to 911. Am I saying he didnt do it, no. I'm saying the FBI states there to no clear evidence to proves his guilt.

Something is wrong here.

Why is a tape accepted by all, not considered credible by the FBI? The bureau uses tapes as evidence in a alot of its cases to show guilt. Catching drug dealers on video, and similiar crimes are used in court to secure a guilty verdict. Even more compelling; this video has the alleged CONFESSING. Open and shut case.

No it's not.

To this day he has not been charged with the crimes of 911. The sheriff put a bounty on his head for sure, but not for 911.

It is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence?

June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11.”


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm


That ends my example. Touchy subjects like this of course create other thread problems. In if a subject like this were to be debated on the level of acceptance that the rest of subjects in Tilted Politics it would then open other questions that might not have the same information. It would be like saying well if that tape is fake then it means there is media control, government corruption, and all the other elements that conspiracy theorists thrive on. But perhaps if it fit the agreed criteria of those here then perhaps questions like the one I brought up here would be rethought opposed to having to walkover to the cyber closet where the tin foil hat is hanging.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

fastom

OK, guilty of that. Though taking the government word as the truth is naive at best. Not believing them isn't being paranoid.

The old Bin Laden tape is a ridiculous joke. They could have had Johnny Depp doing that tape, he'd look more like Bin Laden.

When stuff like this is so instrumental in shaping policy it needs the harshest scrutiny.