Fake Osama bin Laden Confession Video Fraud
Politics
| July 6, 2005
| Tim
A while ago, the 9/11 blimp "captain" docked at Random Observations' Comments Field, while navigating his truth-dirgible through the clouds of dishonesty and deception which currently darken our national skies -- menacing, threatening clouds evaporated from the vast ocean of evil which is DerEvilBushAdministration, thunderheads which have temporarily blocked out the golden light of liberal truth and goodness.
The good captain set down his airship here, dispensed his load of ... uh ... enlightenment, and light did shine around for all to see:
Which is more revealing, this obviously bogus video, or the fact that NOBODY's ever noticed it: U.S. Government's Fake Osama Phony Confession Video
Sadly, the light which shone forth was, in fact, the light of hydrogen burning, as the fuel he had chosen for his airship was unstable and unreliable, and not safe for constant use or during rough weather and testing, ready to explosively self-destruct at even the slightest spark of light.
"Oh, the humanity!!!!"
The evidence offered that the OBL video confession is fake is as follows. Examine the following shots, the left is from the allegedly "fake" OBL video, and determine that the two men below appear to have different-shaped noses:
And it does indeed seem, looking only at this frame, that we are looking at two different people.
Of course, if you just look around for images of Osama bin Laden, you'll quickly realize what's going on. For example, here's another photo from the same "fake" videotape:
Suddenly, the images look a bit more similar. The comparison becomes even clearer when you compare other known images of OBL to these:
(Sorry the first & last are so washed out -- they're from "blimp captain's" site.)
Compare any two adjacent images and ask: "Is this the same person?"
Now that you you've seen this, just go back to the original and notice the many differences: Different lighting color, different contrast level, different head angle, different facial expression (smiling broadly with eyes squeezed shut in the first photo) and the nose is so badly blurred that part of the cheek appears to merge with it, apparently broadening OBL's nose into a different shape.
It's probably true that you can go through all the photos of any person and find pick two extremes in which they look like two completely different people. But it's unethical to pick only the most dissimilar pair for comparison and hide all the others in order to deceive your audience.
Next, we need to ask a question of motivation: If Muslim extremists didn't commit 9/11, and Bush really did it -- then who was behind the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center back in the early 1990s? Was that Clinton, then? Or, if we admit that Muslim extremists did want to destroy the WTC during the 1990s, then why would it be impossible for them to wish or attempt to do so after the year 2000?
Finally, this is all a bit silly anyway, since the blimp's argument is based on the assumption that OBL only confessed in one video. That's simply not true: OBL has claimed credit for the deed quite a number of times, including also in this video.
But his audience probably doesn't know -- or perhaps some don't even want to know -- these conflicting details. If deception is bad and evil, shouldn't that apply to the political left as well?
Tim,
'Blimp Man' has one of the worst conspiracy sites on the Internet. The frames of video he showcases on his site are 'enhanced' (distorted) to the point of being almost worthless. A high school student taking a class on video editing could collapse the supposed 'hard proof' offered on the site.
Conspiracy theories offer cheap knowledge. Do you have hands-on experience or a degree? No? Shoot, just create a shoddy website using pictures and frames pirated from other sites. 'Enhance' the material by altering the contrast, present cropped images as if they are individual pictures, and claim your worthless versions are real while the original frames/pictures are fake.
Nice demagoguery, T*m.
1. Tim is the one who is fixating on one or two frames (if any frame has been photoshopped, it's [too-]clearly http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/images/obl/Dec13VideoOsama.jpg ). Just watch the video! Which 911blimp provides. And which supports the frames 911blimp displays on its page. (1 rather obvious difference: Osama's face is widest at the eyes while the imposter's is widest at the cheeks.) Which is the point of the page. You just heckle from the peanut gallery.
2. 911blimp is not a "conspiracy site". It merely points out holes in the government's ludicrous conspiracy theory of 9/11, which relies, among other tall tales, upon a completely impossible collapse theory. Tom's bogus claim/label is misdirection, a form of disinformation.
So thanks for your special attention. Perhaps you'd like to take a few breaths before you try to ridicule some of the other 911blimp pages?
All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; Second it is violently opposed; Third it is accepted as being self-evident. You're just going through a stage. We understand.
Yawn, more tired conspiracy garbage that ignores what was already presented.
"1 rather obvious difference: Osama's face is widest at the eyes while the imposter's is widest at the cheeks."
Circular reasoning. It only works if you first assume that there is an 'impostor' video. Of course, Tim already explained the supposed 'differences' with reasons an average high school student could understand.
"You just heckle from the peanut gallery."
Hardly, I gave a presentation at a history conference last year on shoddy conspiracy theories and the damage they do to legitimate research. Of course, I suppose I could always create a juvenile website and post behind a silly stage name like 'dirigible lieutenant'.
"911blimp is not a "conspiracy site".
By definition, a conspiracy involves two or more people working together in secret to commit an illegal act. Unless you believe that one person created all of the 'fake' (footage misunderstood by incompetent conspiracy theorists and promoted for personal fame and/or fortune) video and such... Your site is a conspiracy site.
"It merely points out holes in the government's ludicrous conspiracy theory of 9/11,..."
Again, more circular reasoning. It is also evidence of an unstable mind. You can't complain about 'conspiracy theory' being used in a pejorative manner while doing the same thing.
"...which relies, among other tall tales, upon a completely impossible collapse theory."
Everyone, pay attention. This is what kooky conspiracy theorists do when losing an argument. They ignore already presented evidence that disproves or at least shows the conspiracy 'proof' to be neutral.
The second step is to change the subject. The goal of this is to stumble into a new topic in the hope that the other person will not be familiar with the garbage.
Of course, notice the shrill tone and juvenile language. This is done to trick the other person into responding in a like manner. As soon as you do this, the kook theorist will assume a semi-professional air and criticize you for having done so.
*the "blimp" site is an especially strange approach to 9/11 visibility efforts. It also cleverly mixes on its "links" 9/11 sites with a very careful approach to the evidence with sites that are incredibly sloppy and careless in their conclusions*
- http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html , near the bottom of the page
After seeing the video that were talking about here, I don't see how anyone could argue that the guy in the video is in fact Osama. It looks nothing like him in any frame ! They say seeing is believing. I checked out the alternative video on CNNs website , theres just one problem, That video is four years later just before the bush/kerry election as mentioned in the transcript of the video. Can anyone show me an alternative video of the correct time period ? the following is part of the second tape transcript. Now tell me that his own confession doesn't imply a greater conspiracy. Keep in mind that these are Osamas words from the video transcript.
We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.
And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.
*SIGH*
How hard is it to read this bloody topic instead of getting into a tizzy because a cherished conspiracy theory was shown to be wrong or likely to be wrong?
Will, Tim already addressed some of the false points you raised. The second picture in here, a video frame from the SAME 'fat' bin Laden video, shows...ummm, get ready for this...bin Laden.
You are dishonest and not here for a legitimate discussion.
Did everyone notice how Will tried to change the subject? If the 'fake' bin Laden video is such rock-solid proof, why go off on a tangent about a transcript?
I resent being called dishonest for the reason of giving my 'honest' opinion. I would like any readers to note that i did not personally attack Tom as he did me, but rather presented my opinions. I must have hit a nerve ....LOL...Last time i checked everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Tom obviously can not handle anyone disagreeing with him. I encourage anyone reading to watch the video on Your' own as i have and to decide for yourself wether or not the man is in fact an imposter.
just one more thing to add here.
I think face recognition software would end the conjecture. if anyone has info or has a friend that could plug the video into some good software maybe that could end the dispute.
where is you at i want to help you out we can kill everybody ok
where is you at i want to help you out we can kill everybody ok
where is you at i want to help you out we can kill everybody ok
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« New Pro-Judicial-Activism Meme? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Longing for Yesteryear »
|
Tim,
'Blimp Man' has one of the worst conspiracy sites on the Internet. The frames of video he showcases on his site are 'enhanced' (distorted) to the point of being almost worthless. A high school student taking a class on video editing could collapse the supposed 'hard proof' offered on the site.
Conspiracy theories offer cheap knowledge. Do you have hands-on experience or a degree? No? Shoot, just create a shoddy website using pictures and frames pirated from other sites. 'Enhance' the material by altering the contrast, present cropped images as if they are individual pictures, and claim your worthless versions are real while the original frames/pictures are fake.
Posted by: Tom on July 7, 2005 05:03 PM