Fat Bin Laden Caused By Differing Video Standards!
It's not often that I commend the Deniers for their debunking skills, but every now and then you come across people in this movement who are really interested in the truth, as compared to the "Truth". So it is today with the Muckraker report, which reveals that the "Fat Bin Laden" is an artifact of the different tape standards used in the USA and that used in much of the rest of the world.
Basically, the reason why Osama bin Laden looks fat in the video, and in some frames particularly fat, is because of the camera angle, shadowing and lighting, and the fact that the PAL to NTSC conversion squashed the vertical by 17 percent while the horizontal proportion remained the same as the original.
Of course, the fact that the confession video shows Bin Laden is going to cause quite a ruckus in the Denial movement.
posted by Pat @ 7:12 AM
34 comments
34 Comments:
He forgot how various standards of video tape cause translations in Arabic to allow translators in America to insert their own statements, mistranslations, and errors to fit the OS. Wow, I didn't realize video tape standards chanage the meaning of Arabic words. That is too cool.
Why does it take the Muck to inform us all of this say compared to other media outlets? I guess all those angles cause a completely different bone structure as well.
Kudos to video tapes a new translation standard for the world.
Another analysis of the bin laden tape by someone who works in the audio/visual industry.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
/osamatape.html
If it is authentic, and Muck makes a good case, why doesn't the FBI consider it evidence?
"due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."-OBL From confession tape.
Apparently OBL isn't aware that jet fuel fire doesn't melt steel, nor do office contents. But golly that sure sounds like the official conspiracy doens't it.
"Apparently OBL isn't aware that jet fuel fire doesn't melt steel, nor do office contents."
That's right. Are you suggesting he built a computer model and did an engineering study to determine what would happen, rather than just concluding that flying a plane into a building would do lots of damage and start a fire?
If it is authentic, and Muck makes a good case, why doesn't the FBI consider it evidence?
There is no chain of custody. Before you talk about laws, make sure you actually know them first.
The transcript of the translation can be found here: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/
This transcript was independently prepared and they found no inconsistencies in the translations of those prepared by the U.S. Govt.
I don't know how anybody can call that tape a fake, even if that didn't look like UBL, there are two other famous faces in the video which nobody can deny. Bin Laden's son also makes an appearance.
This transcript was independently prepared and they found no inconsistencies in the translations of those prepared by the U.S. Govt.
Yeah, the whole "inconsistencies" thing comes down to a series of tiny idiom differences which bitter-ender terrorist supporters like SD grasp at like straws as the larger parts of the conspiracy story they tried to plant crumble around them.
Swing Dumpster's incoherent babble here says it all. The conspiracy liars' house of cards has tumbled.
Speaking of Swing, I see him listed as a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice @ http://stj911.org
Is that your real name? Or are you telling me you can list a screen name instead of your real name and be listed as a member?
It shows you with a Masters in Education and being an Educator. No college listed though.
Please enlighten us on the membership process, I'm curious how they verify membership at Scholars.
Swing Dangler said...
But golly that sure sounds like the official conspiracy doens't it.
No, because neither the FEMA preliminary report or NIST report conclude that the collapse was due to melted steel. Do you actually read anything you present?
The most telling line in muckrakers article comes at the end:
"If the independent media can further substantiate the actual taping date and that the taping was indeed part of a sting operation – what we will have on our hands is a provably case of high treason against the Bush Administration"
In other words, if they can prove 9-11 was a conspiracy, the Bin Laden video will prove that 9-11 was a conspiracy. =P
Manny Are you suggesting that paying income taxes is supporting terrorists?
House of cards? Well hell, OBL thinks jet fuel melts iron. See a problem with the science? He must not have been a very good construction guy.
And you also failed to mention the translations issues many experts have brought up and the whole conspiracy surrounding Muck's post.
Which is it? Fake OBL tape, or the taping was a sting operation that involved U.S. and Saudi and/or Pakistani intelligence – which means that the United States had Osama bin Laden in its sights prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan but passed on capturing or killing him in favor of invading. This is paramount! If bin Laden would have been captured or killed prior to the invasion of Afghanistan there would have no justification remaining to invade Afghanistan. If the independent media can further substantiate the actual taping date and that the taping was indeed part of a sting operation – what we will have on our hands is a provably case of high treason against the Bush Administration that will not be easily dismissed.
Again, which is it? Or are you cherry picking one point but refuse to acknowledge the other one?
TexasJack, are you an online predator stalking me? ROFLMAO!!
I see your interest is racing? Very nice. Favorite track?
Trust in the Lord, Rev, I know exactly what NIST and FEMA conluded. They don't know what caused the tower's to collapse globally.
Actually Manny, for a change, you got me thinking...
Since I paid income taxes in the 1980' then yes I suppose I did support the terrorists, the Mujahadeen as we were channeling covert funds and weapons to OBL. And technically if you are old enough to have paid taxes at that time, you supported them too.
On the other hand, I've never financially supported Al-Q.
Do you support the EPA and the Bush Administration which has been proven responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens in New York City?
So there is no chain of custody, proving that the tape could or could not be a fake? Ok, thanks. One more reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape.
Texas, go read independent analysis of the tape instead of the propaganda. We were lied to once about reasons to go to war, why should I expect this to be any different? Nevermind, I shouldn't.
SD, first, Muckraker didn't have a point. He speculated that the video was made in a sting op rather than just filmed by Al-Queada themselves and just left it at that. He made absolutely no effort to prove there was a sting op and provided no evidence.
Second, I notice you left the last thread alone after Jmes B and I handed your ass to you over Ford's role in the war effort against Nazi Germany.
Did we embarrass you or are you talking your usual sweet time coming up with a pseudo-smart alec that fails to draw attention away from the fact you got owned?
I didn't realize video tape standards chanage the meaning of Arabic words. That is too cool.
Swing, I have the oddest feeling you don't know Arabic.
You going to tell me al-Qaeda means the "toilet", too?
Nice find, there. Of course, now the tinhatters will probably label Muckraker a government shill or a disinfo agent :D
Is that your real name? Or are you telling me you can list a screen name instead of your real name and be listed as a member?
I like the guy named "test test". Those are some pretty strict membership requirements there. I want to join, I am going to put down a PhD in Conspiratoriology.
"TexasJack, are you an online predator stalking me?"
No Swing, don't flatter yourself. Just pointing out what a joke organization Scholars is if there members can be screen names. Are you going dispute this or just keep on babbling? Can anyone join and just list anything they want? It sure appears that way to me.
Swing:
calm down buddy...4 posts in a row. if I didn't know you better (lol) I'd swear a nerve was hit here.
TAM:)
Ahh lets see, perhaps a member of an organization doesn't want there real name published for various reasons: say identity theft, etc. etc. but it in no way implies a poor membership standards.
Two, I haven't revisited the Ford deal.
Three, how come you aren't clamoring for professional analysis to support the Muck's video analysis? Double standard don't you think?
Your right Tam, I should have included it all in one post so as not to mislead you on my emotional feelings on the subject.
Any explanation for the translation issues?
Swing, I have the oddest feeling you don't know Arabic.
Maybe he read a book...
"Ahh lets see, perhaps a member of an organization doesn't want there real name published for various reasons: say identity theft, etc. etc. but it in no way implies a poor membership standards."
Identity theft??? Swing, we don't want a person's credit card number, we want to know if they are qualified to write or speak about 911. It's helpful if you are truly a Scholarly organization, to provide their real name, educational and professional background, and the institution you graduated and/or work for. But thanks for implying to me that Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice is a joke organization.
"how come you aren't clamoring for professional analysis to support the Muck's video analysis?"
We already have true experts, we don't need Muck. It's actually your job to discredit Muck. Good luck. I just think it's just funny how your own ilk is turning on you.
"This from the guy who think Danny Jowenko is a genius when it comes to WTC7 but completely wrong on the WTC towers."
And lets not forget the Chemtrail thing.
I mean!!! Chemtrails for gods sake!!!!!! I brought it up as an example of kooky CT concepts, and this guy buys it!!!
What's Next? Fake Moon Landing?
WAIT!!!! You do know we DID land on the moon Swing?
Swing Dangler said...
Trust in the Lord, Rev,
I'd rather not, He's notoriously unreliable
I know exactly what NIST and FEMA conluded.
Then you intentionally lied when you stated that bin Laden discussing the melting of steel columns sounded like the scientific explanation? Why would you do that?
Identity theft??? Swing, we don't want a person's credit card number, we want to know if they are qualified to write or speak about 911.
Well what qualifies a person to speak on 9/11?
American citizenship?
Are you qualified? Is anyone here qualified to support or attack the OT according to your criteria?
If so, please list the credentials you hold that qualifies you to speak about 9/11? Yeah, didn't think so.
Would that include the articles at Journal of Debunking with tour guides and college students as being qualified to speak on 9/11?
Truthiness-I brought it up as an example of kooky CT concepts, and this guy buys it!!!
Please link to where I 'bought' the chemtrail issue?
If not, I will consider you a fraud for lying by trying to attack my character.
So the next time you post nonsense, I can't point out how you lie in order to discredit any particluar point that you have.
Two, I linked to an NBC affilate website that investigated 'chemtrails' in a particluar city along with their program uploaded at their website.
Three, the people interviewed and the newsreporter didn't fit the 'kooky ct types' that I'm aware of.
Nice try at Ad-hom, Truthy. Can you debate in a proper manner or do you simply ignore everything you don't support? Nevermind, I know the answer.
We already have true experts
Please link to those experts. Thanks!
melting of steel columns sounded like the scientific explanation? Why would you do that?
How hot does jet fuel burn? How hot does office contents burn? At what point does Iron melt?
What does the OS state? Fire started the collapse, as did what OBL stated in the dubious video.
Both have no clue what caused the global collapse. I do. And if you would open your eyes, visit
www.911truth.ning.com you might find some further evidence as well.
Please point to the lie? At the young age of 20, I would expect you to read more during your studies.
Sword, here is your ass back.
'Well what qualifies a person to speak on 9/11?
American citizenship?
Are you qualified? Is anyone here qualified to support or attack the OT according to your criteria?"
You see Swing, the burden of proof is with you and your ilk. You're the ones that want to change the official version. So please tell me what qualifies you to speak about 911? I didn't think so.
Nice try at another of your diversionary tactics, but the topic was Scholars. Do you admit they are frauds? Do you admit you don't have to be a Scholar to join? Are you a fraud? Yes, I thought so.
If so, please list the credentials you hold that qualifies you to speak about 9/11? Yeah, didn't think so.
Some of us have relevant qualifications, but we don't generally mention them, or base our arguments on them. Otherwise this blog would be called "Scholars for Screwing Loose Change". If we went around claiming to be "experts", you'd be perfectly justified in asking us to prove it. Ditto for your "scholars". If you're going to use the word "scholar" to try and impress people, you'd better be able to prove it. The problem (for you) is that when these "scholars" start providing their names and fields of expertise, it quickly becomes apparent that their education offers them no real insight into any of the events of 9/11.
It's funny, because this exact same issue is what got Kevin Ryan fired. The guy used his position as a UL employee to attempt to sound like an expert on the subject he was discussing. When UL discovered his intellectual dishonesty, they canned him. The "scholars" are doing the exact same thing, except some of them (ie. YOU) are not only using irrelevant qualifications to make themselves seem more qualified, but are also hiding behind pseudonyms. You've taken Kevin Ryan's dishonesty, and multiplied it twofold.
Some of us have relevant qualifications
Now that has to be the most comical thing I've heard from you since.
Please link to where I stated was an expert Alex?
OOOOhhh wait you can't! Another one of your blatant lies again. Wow, when will you ever stop? You use to be fun to play with but now its just a bunch of lies. Maybe that is why I will let CHF entertain me.
And again, none of you have posted the qualifications to speak on 9/11?
Oh you also forgot to link to those videotape 'experts' as well.
And let me ask you this, Alex? When will you be going to Iraq or Afghanistan to serve your country? That is your area of expertise, right? Why not put it to use?
Actually, CHF, you were proven a fraud. But your off the hook. I got find someone else to debunk besides James since he is going to China and Alex doesn't play nicely anymore by lying.
Texas How can I tell you if I'm qualified if you won't post the requirements?
Change the official story? The one that was set up to fail? The one that was lied to by the DOD? The official story that 100 people have things to hide?
What that tells me is you accept the failure of the official story and you accept the lies provided by the official story. You definition of democracy is really more like facism, isn't it Texas?
Here is what I think qualifies most of you to speak on 9/11.
You hear well. You repeat well.
Hmm sounds about the same qualifications that this debunker has.
Debunker
Swing Dangler said...
Please point to the lie?
I believe I already did:
Then you intentionally lied when you stated that bin Laden discussing the melting of steel columns sounded like the scientific explanation?
I'm not sure why this is especially difficult for you to understand. Bin Laden also claims that he believed the area below the towers would not collapse; only the floors above impact. And yet you claim it sounds like the 'official conspiracy', even though it contradicts it.
"Texas How can I tell you if I'm qualified if you won't post the requirements?"
Don't worry Swing, you're not qualified, your posts prove that. But congratulations, you do qualify for Scholars of Frauds--all you you need is your own screen name and make up a degree, name of college is not required.
Now that has to be the most comical thing I've heard from you since.
Please link to where I stated was an expert Alex?
Can you please learn to speak proper English? This mix-and-match shit has got to go.
And let me ask you this, Alex? When will you be going to Iraq or Afghanistan to serve your country? That is your area of expertise, right? Why not put it to use?
When are you going to rise up and overthrow the government, rather than sit around masturbating to V for Vendetta all day?
Post a Comment
<< Home