|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 12, 2007 7:33:17 GMT -4
And even if it was faked, there is no evidence as to WHO faked it. It's just as easy that Al Qaeda's video department is a bit shoddy or that they don't want to show him for some reason. It doesn't mean that the CIA got a bunch of 3rd graders to do it for them.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 12, 2007 9:02:40 GMT -4
Possibly technical glitches in recording the video or changing between formats. Possibly Al Qaeda chose to use freeze frames in order to limit the amount of material the CIA or other forensic groups would have to work with. Since those "glitches" exactly coincide with the only parts of the speech that cover current events, I'd say no. They recycled an older OBL video and dubbed the new parts over it.. No the frozen part accounts for all but about 5 minutes of the video. During the part were he's moving he said something about "19 young Arab men" carrying out 9/11. So do you believe that to be authentic? We've been over that alreay here only by looking at select frames of the supposedly fake OBL does he not look like the real one. Why would the CIA do such an ameturish job, knowing the video would fac scrutiny, when the technology exists to do something much more sophisticated? Hollywood was able to get LBJ speak to "Forrest Gump" over a decade ago.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 12, 2007 11:48:12 GMT -4
Answer me this - why resort to silly video fakery when you could hire your own OBL look-alike (especially in that heavy beard) and simply have him say whatever you wanted him to? Why bother hiring an OBL look-alike when you can simply resort to silly video fakery? Well that's about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long while. The "video fakery" theory already requires that you hire a sound-alike.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 12, 2007 16:17:24 GMT -4
Inside Job, are you in-the-know? Inside Job, if someone was to say that you cannot differentiate from fact and supposition, would that person be lying?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Sept 12, 2007 22:18:08 GMT -4
No the frozen part accounts for all but about 5 minutes of the video. During the part were he's moving he said something about "19 young Arab men" carrying out 9/11. So do you believe that to be authentic? As the article said, only the frozen parts contain the mention of current events. OBL (many years on CIA payroll, don't forget) supported the official line that 9-11 was an act of Islamic "martyrs". It's no surprise he would repeat that, although he didn't take personal credit for it here either. Overall, the voice sounds like that of a younger, healthy man, not an elderly man with kidney disease. The goal would have been to make a video that looks like al Qaeda did it, not Hollywood. So amateurish is what they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Sept 12, 2007 22:26:03 GMT -4
Inside Job, are you in-the-know? Inside Job, if someone was to say that you cannot differentiate from fact and supposition, would that person be lying? Everything I write is my opinion. That should go without saying. I try to back up my opinions with facts. But there's no need to take my word for it. The video is available for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 12, 2007 23:21:21 GMT -4
Willing to back this up with anything other than speculation and claims?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 13, 2007 2:23:15 GMT -4
OBL (many years on CIA payroll, don't forget) . . . . So why isn't he still? Why isn't the simple explanation that he was paid off to create the situation? Isn't that simpler than exploding rebar, et. al.?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 13, 2007 7:53:36 GMT -4
No the frozen part accounts for all but about 5 minutes of the video. During the part were he's moving he said something about "19 young Arab men" carrying out 9/11. So do you believe that to be authentic? As the article said, only the frozen parts contain the mention of current events. Did it ever occur to you to watch the video for yourself rather than depend on what the article? You committed a logical flaw just because “only the frozen parts contain the mention of current events” does not mean “only the parts that mention of current events are frozen” do you understand the difference? It said “the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end”. By my count the motion stopped at 1:54 and I didn’t accurately clock the rest but even based on its numbers there is only 3:30 of motion in a video which clocks in at around 28 minutes thus about 88% of the video is frozen. Citation? But if he is a CIA stooge why don’t say what they wanted? (i.e. take credit for it instead of just hinting at it). So you’re such a qualified expert on voice analysis now you can the difference between the voice of a relatively healthy 45 year-old man speaking a language you don’t understand on a low quality video and the same man 5 years later when he possibly has kidney disease? I love it how CT’s can breathlessly contradict themselves. If such a low quality glitchy video is to be expected from al Qaeda then the tape isn’t suspicious. I didn’t mean to say that the clip should look like a Hollywood mega blockbuster only that the CIA could easily have made a tape like that with out such obvious flaws
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 13, 2007 9:14:50 GMT -4
Inside Job, are you in-the-know? Inside Job, if someone was to say that you cannot differentiate from fact and supposition, would that person be lying? Everything I write is my opinion. That should go without saying. I try to back up my opinions with facts. Problem is, you present none. All you present is speculation and, as you say, opinion. And as we see here in this thread, there are alternatives to your opinions. The difference is which can be backed up with facts. People like you, of course, will ignore the facts that contradict your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 13, 2007 13:06:09 GMT -4
Inside Job, are you in-the-know? Inside Job, if someone was to say that you cannot differentiate from fact and supposition, would that person be lying? Everything I write is my opinion. That should go without saying. I try to back up my opinions with facts. But there's no need to take my word for it. The video is available for all to see. Although it is entertaining and even rewarding to think this way, in my world, this is not the correct way to approach reality.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Sept 20, 2007 7:29:02 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Sept 20, 2007 9:37:44 GMT -4
That actually made me laugh, 3onthetree. Great stuff. It's not very hard to accuse the video of being fake.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 20, 2007 12:35:14 GMT -4
New Bin Laden Video: 100% ForgeryComputer Expert: Bin Laden Dead, Tape Is Old FootageThis video is pure intelligence propaganda. The only time current events are mentioned by "OBL" is when the video image is frozen. How stupid do they think we are? Quoting the article: Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Notice how the lame-stream media doesn't even mention the video freezes, assuming (hoping) most people won't take the trouble to watch it for themselves. Conveniently for the Bush regime, "OBL" now supports the theory that the US occupation of Iraq is keeping his terrorists too busy to cause trouble elsewhere. Whatever the neo-cons are paying the ghost of OBL, it's not enough. You say "neo-con" as if it is a bad word. It is a good word. People assume it is bad because of the simular sounding word "neo-nazi" and they are also right-wing. But "neo-con" is good. To be a "neo-con" is a good thing. I do not think that a neo-con would be dectptiive. You need to come up with a cast of other evil doers. Ever consider The Free Masons? Also, maybe the bin Laden people faked the video if it is faked. BTW, the Free Mason comment was a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 20, 2007 12:52:52 GMT -4
Neo-Con does not mean "New Con Artists" or "Nazi Con Artists" it means "new conservative".
Also, if Bush is so stupid, how can he be so smart to pull off these deceptions.
|
|