Debunked: The "Fat" Bin Laden Video. [Wrong aspect ratio]

[Cube Radio]

This really is now entirely off topic, as you say, and I shall not post further on this thread unless I have something apposite to offer; however, the Bin Laden speaking in the video you refer to is Bin Laden E in the composite image above: I leave it to your judgement as to whether or not he can be reliably identified as the same man as Bin Ladens A-D.

Admin Edit by @Mick West : The image above is stretched horizontally, and seems to have have been chose to show Bin Laden in an unfamiliar pose. A viewing of the original video makes it quite clear that it is Bin Laden.

Which looks just like him:

A likely error is displaying a 4:3 (12:9) video in 16:9, so a 12 wide video would become 16 wide. So an exact correction for that would be to reduce from 16 to 12, or to 75% of the displayed (and presumably stretched) size.

Here's that precise adjustment on image E:

Can't find the precise frame, but this is close enough:

There are also better quality stills that were released

 

[Pete Tar]

There's a lot of compression going on, and perhaps the aspect ratio is off?

 

[WeedWhacker]

This really is now entirely off topic, as you say, and I shall not post further on this thread unless I have something apposite to offer; however, the Bin Laden speaking in the video you refer to is Bin Laden E in the composite image above: I leave it to your judgement as to whether or not he can be reliably identified as the same man as Bin Ladens A-D.

(A) and (E) are quite obviously NOT the same person.

 

[NoParty]

This really is now entirely off topic, as you say, and I shall not post further on this thread unless I have something apposite to offer; however, the Bin Laden speaking in the video you refer to is Bin Laden E in the composite image above: I leave it to your judgement as to whether or not he can be reliably identified as the same man as Bin Ladens A-D.

I see no reason to doubt it. It's lesser VHS quality, but the voice, the mannerisms...any single lo-res still frame can be atypical...
but no, it's clearly bin Laden to those familiar with the man.


p.s. Trying to get a better image...it appears as if his eyes are closed in this frame,
which may contribute to his appearing a bit different (besides the age difference)

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Camera lenses can also have an important influence...

... so can the psychology of facial recognition. The following three pictures are all the same person.

 

[Mick West]

There's a lot of compression going on, and perhaps the aspect ratio is off?

Aspect Ratio adjusted:

But as TH shows above, people can look radically different in different images, for a wide variety of reasons.

 

[WeedWhacker]

The following three pictures are all the same person.

Astonishing!! Really, I'm gobsmacked by that example. We humans are extraordinarily evolved to "recognize" faces and facial patterns, it's part of our social and related habits, since the visual senses tended to take precedence over and be more dominant than our smell senses (those senses not lost in many other species on this planet).

The way that photography and other technological methods can "alter" our perceptions shows just how limited we really are, in one sense (pun, see what I did there?)

 

[Mick West]

Astonishing!! Really, I'm gobsmacked by that example. We humans are extraordinarily evolved to "recognize" faces and facial patterns, it's part of our social and related habits, since the visual senses tended to take precedence over and be more dominant than our smell senses (those senses not lost in many other species on this planet).

The way that photography and other technological methods can "alter" our perceptions shows just how limited we really are, in one sense (pun, see what I did there?)

But we evolved to recognize people in person, generally meaning up close, in color, high definition, while they are moving, with binocular stereo vision, and often with several other cues. Blurry 2D images, with off-color, and unknown focal length, don't really fit this evolutionary model, and so can lead to confusion.

 

[WeedWhacker]

But we evolved to recognize people in person, generally meaning up close, in color, high definition, while they are moving, with binocular stereo vision, and often with several other cues.

Yes, indeed. Still, the facial recognition "software" (laugh) that is in our meat brains, and developed over countless generations of descendants isn't "perfect". Hence, we (humans) can be so easily fooled by so-called "optical illusions", etc.

One of my (recent) favorites (involving color perception):

[The checker shadow illusion. The square A is exactly the same shade of grey as square B.]



This is a classic...(It's a GIF, not sure if it will work):

 

[NoParty]

I maintain my view (in post 4) and really appreciate Trigger Hippy's samples
and Mick's adjustment of the aspect ratio. Watching the man--whose speech and
mannerisms are quite familiar to me--I never had any serious doubt it was bin Laden.
Neither did U.S. intelligence, nor Arabic translators who accused the U.S. of
mis-translating bin Laden's words. (The only real controversy in Dec. 2001,
was whether or not bin Laden's words in the scene were faithfully translated.)

Any single still frame can be incredibly deceptive...+ poor lighting + consumer level VHS camera & tape,
+ a widening of the image, and yes, bin Laden is hard to recognize from that single distorted frame.

"Remember, the camera adds 10 pounds!" -- Osama bin Laden






p.s. And yes WW, that checkerboard is one of my fav optical illusions...here's another great one:

 

[WeedWhacker]

"Remember, the camera adds 10 pounds!" -- Osama bin Laden

That actually made me Laugh Out Loud!! [Thumbs Way Up!]

 

[Cube Radio]

For clarity, the video this thread is referring to, originally cited by NoParty, is this one http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html and there is no reason why NoParty should limit analysis to the one still I represented as Osama E in the composite image upthread; questions as to its authenticity are supported by the observation that Osama E (sometimes called 'fatty Osama') is seen to be right-handed when according to the FBI the real Osama was left-handed http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden ; that the person seen with fatty Osama in the video is wearing a large gold ring, forbidden by Islam http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1912&CATE=97 ; it is alleged that the content of their conversation, for example referring to 'iron structures' is questionable http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121301murkyvideo#a121301murkyvideo ; additionally it is a fact that the CIA did fake videos of Osama to misrepresent him http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html and the source of the video itself should be called into question, as exactly how or when it was obtained as a 'lucky find' in a house in Jalalabad has never been explained http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism-july-dec01-video_12-13a/

 

[WeedWhacker]

For clarity, the video this thread is referring to, originally cited by NoParty, is this one http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html and there is no reason why NoParty should limit analysis to the one still I represented as Osama E in the composite image upthread; questions as to its authenticity are supported by the observation that Osama E (sometimes called 'fatty Osama') is seen to be right-handed when according to the FBI the real Osama was left-handed http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden ; that the person seen with fatty Osama in the video is wearing a large gold ring, forbidden by Islam http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1912&CATE=97 ; it is alleged that the content of their conversation, for example referring to 'iron structures' is questionable http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121301murkyvideo#a121301murkyvideo ; additionally it is a fact that the CIA did fake videos of Osama to misrepresent him http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html and the source of the video itself should be called into question, as exactly how or when it was obtained as a 'lucky find' in a house in Jalalabad has never been explained http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism-july-dec01-video_12-13a/

OKAY...back to more serious matters. What you have provided is (might be) worthy of examination, and will require some time and effort.

But, correct if I'm mistaken, a topic that merits discussion is worth the effort, if it has any validity. Too many topics within a particular thread "topic" simply require their own specific context and related discussion.

 

[Gary Cook]

OKAY...back to more serious matters. What you have provided is (might be) worthy of examination, and will require some time and effort.

i would say it is inclusive so unfair to say it was him like the western media promote but also unfair to claim it wasnt him for sure.

 

[WeedWhacker]

i would say it is inclusive so unfair to say it was him like the western media promote but also unfair to claim it was him for sure.

I edited with some additional thoughts on the basics of discussion protocols.

(Sidebar): This is a print forum. Has been my experience that we (well, I) cannot always properly express my 'meaning' or 'intent' in the form that we are constrained by. (Compared to how we, as humans, normally communicate one-on-one).

Savvy?

 

[Mick West]

Here's another still from the video:

 

[Mick West]

It seems quite clear that:

A) The aspect ratio in the "Fatty Osama" image is wrong
B) It is Osama Bin Laden in the video, and the images

 

[NoParty]

For clarity, the video this thread is referring to, originally cited by NoParty, is this one http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html and there is no reason why NoParty should limit analysis to the one still I represented as Osama E in the composite image upthread; questions as to its authenticity are supported by the observation that Osama E (sometimes called 'fatty Osama') is seen to be right-handed when according to the FBI the real Osama was left-handed http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden ; that the person seen with fatty Osama in the video is wearing a large gold ring, forbidden by Islam http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1912&CATE=97 ; it is alleged that the content of their conversation, for example referring to 'iron structures' is questionable http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121301murkyvideo#a121301murkyvideo ; additionally it is a fact that the CIA did fake videos of Osama to misrepresent him http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html and the source of the video itself should be called into question, as exactly how or when it was obtained as a 'lucky find' in a house in Jalalabad has never been explained http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism-july-dec01-video_12-13a/

Honestly, I really don't think there's much question that it's bin Laden...so this will probably be my last post on it.

On my way out the door, I'll quickly address what I think is your strongest point (if it were true...it clearly is not).

"...additionally it is a fact that the CIA did fake videos of Osama to misrepresent him..."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

A quick read of the story almost entirely contradicts your implications:

A) You describe it as a "fact"...but in the Washington Post--8.5 years after the fact--the story is said to not be confirmed.

B) You cite "fake videos"...plural, as if it was a trend...only one (unconfirmed) bin Laden video is mentioned.

C) If it did happen, it was obviously thrown together cheap and quick, with no genuine intent to distribute
it or fool anyone, since skilled actors were not used, just "darker-skinned employees."
(whether they spoke any Arabic or not, is not clear)

D) Lastly, this sentence put the entire silly notion to bed:
"While I can't confirm these accounts, if these ideas were ever floated by anyone at any time, they clearly didn't go anywhere."

 

[Gary Cook]

It seems quite clear that:

A) The aspect ratio in the "Fatty Osama" image is wrong
B) It is Osama Bin Laden in the video, and the images

What was the aspect ratio in the video? Everything else looks in proportion. It doesnt have a distorted'ly wide turban for example.

Our other videos submittal as evidence? Or do we have to stick with the stills in this particular claim? Literally just asking.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Literally just asking

It is a good thing to "ask" questions. This is the basis of proper inquiry (or, 'enquiry',,,I try to include all alternate spellings of the English language, when I think of them!!). Hence, this site's existence, and intent.

(I hope this is obvious?)

 

[Pete Tar]

Aspect Ratio adjusted:

How did you determine the adjustment - was it just an approximation?
The other stills from the video seem to support that the aspect was slightly squashed.

 

[Pete Tar]

Simply, the shadow on the bridge of the nose shortens it to our eyes instead of seeing it go all the way to the top of the eyebrows as we do from the front, plus the closed eyes change our visual cue of their position making them a little lower and hence adding to the shorter sense of the nose.

I know this is a bit ignorant, but what information is in the video itself? Is it more direct evidence of responsibility than other video's we have of him? In other words, why the need to discredit this one?

 

[Mick West]

What was the aspect ratio in the video? Everything else looks in proportion. It doesnt have a distorted'ly wide turban for example.

Look at the actual video. Watch the whole thing. This video is not distorted, it's the correct ratio. The single image E is what is distorted.

 

[Gary Cook]

I edited with some additional thoughts on the basics of discussion protocols.

(Sidebar): This is a print forum. Has been my experience that we (well, I) cannot always properly express my 'meaning' or 'intent' in the form that we are constrained by. (Compared to how we, as humans, normally communicate one-on-one).

Savvy?

My reply had a typo I just corrected. It didnt make sense when you would of read it sorry. And you dont have to answer to me my friend. I am just another member like yourself. If its anybody's house here its Micks. He is owner/admin from what I understand. good guy too. Very science. =)

 

[Mick West]

How did you determine the adjustment - was it just an approximation?
The other stills from the video seem to support that the aspect was slightly squashed.

Just ballparked it. A likely error is displaying a 4:3 (12:9) video in 16:9, so a 12 wide video would become 16 wide. So an exact correction for that would be to reduce from 16 to 12, or to 75% of the original size.

Here's that precise adjustment:

Can't find the precise frame, but this is close enough:

 

[NoParty]

Camera lenses can also have an important influence...
View attachment 6651
... so can the psychology of facial recognition. The following three pictures are all the same person.
View attachment 6652

"Has anybody seen my little pal, Ernie?"

 

[WeedWhacker]

My reply had a typo I just corrected. It didnt make sense when you would of read it sorry. And you dont have to answer to me my friend. I am just another member like yourself. If its anybody's house here its Micks. He is owner/admin from what I understand. good guy too. Very science. =)

I agree. Veering off-topic, but still I agree.

There is a difference in Human interaction between what we do "online" or in an "email", and what we do face-to-face.

This is a very, very important distinction to always keep in mind.

The advent of "e-mail" and other forms of Internet interactions are very recent, within just our (mostly) generation (although there are youngsters being born all the time who will grow-up with this "new reality". Think about it, please!)

 

[Gary Cook]

Honestly, I really don't think there's much question that it's bin Laden...so this will probably be my last post on it.

On my way out the door, I'll quickly address what I think is your strongest point (if it were true...it clearly is not).

"...additionally it is a fact that the CIA did fake videos of Osama to misrepresent him..."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

A quick read of the story almost entirely contradicts your implications:

A) You describe it as a "fact"...but in the Washington Post--8.5 years after the fact--the story is said to not be confirmed.

B) You cite "fake videos"...plural, as if it was a trend...only one (unconfirmed) bin Laden video is mentioned.

C) If it did happen, it was obviously thrown together cheap and quick, with no genuine intent to distribute
it or fool anyone, since skilled actors were not used, just "darker-skinned employees."
(whether they spoke any Arabic or not, is not clear)

D) Lastly, this sentence put the entire silly notion to bed:
"While I can't confirm these accounts, if these ideas were ever floated by anyone at any time, they clearly didn't go anywhere."

I dont see why you should be allowed to call peoples ideas silly.
There could be a million such videos. All claims of fakery debunked. But that doesnt mean no fake videos were made or that the motivation wasnt there or that the modus operandi wasnt.

 

[Gary Cook]

Look at the actual video. Watch the whole thing. This video is not distorted, it's the correct ratio. The single image E is what is distorted.

Isnt that more an opinion than evidence?

I dont doubt the claim ( the conspiracy theory) may be based on fake evidence but I would like to know for sure either way.

To be fair you seem correct. It wouldnt take much to stretch a frame and thats what it would look like.

Although I wouldn't want somebody to use this against me later on some other forum saying I believe the whole conspiracy theory about him basically doing 9/11.

 

[Mick West]

I have edited the OP to include shots from the actual video, and the aspect ratio correction.

 

[Mick West]

Isnt that more an opinion than evidence?

I dont doubt the claim ( the conspiracy theory) may be based on fake evidence but I would like to know for sure either way.

To be fair you seem correct. It wouldnt take much to stretch a frame and thats what it would look like.

No, it is actual evidence. The original video is clearly 4:3 format. The image E is clearly stretched by exactly the ratio of displaying a 4:3 image at 16:9. The full video shows someone who looks, acts, and speaks exactly like OBL, and nobody who actually is familiar with him has disputed this. The entire "Fatty Bin Laden" thing is either a hoax, or a mistake.

 

[Cube Radio]

The Washington Post article does not state that the reports of a fake Bin Laden video were unconfirmed, as the context of the quote: 'A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to confirm the accounts, or deny them" does not put anything "to bed"; the other questions remain unanswered, including the question of the source as a 'lucky find', and the video should naturally be viewed with skepticism by anyone who remembers (among other things) such efforts as the "babies in incubators" propoganda used to promote the first Iraq war to the US public http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

 

[WeedWhacker]

The Washington Post article...

I will "jump in" and agree here that a newspaper such as "The Washington Post" has far more credibility than, for example, its competitor in the market, the "Washington Times" (The latter being a rather right-wing biased "rag")**. Since I used to live in the Washington, DC region, I tend to be somewhat familiar.....

ETA (**)...the "Washington Times" newspaper is owned by this man: Sun Myong Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

'Nuff said.......

 

[deirdre]

I dont see why you should be allowed to call peoples ideas silly.
There could be a million such videos. All claims of fakery debunked. But that doesnt mean no fake videos were made or that the motivation wasnt there or that the modus operandi wasnt.

with that logic, there could be an unsampled area of the moon that actually IS made of cheese too. right?

No party is speaking of the specific article the box guy sourced.

 

[Mick West]

@Cube Radio, would you now concur that these are all the same person, based on the info I've added to your OP?

 

[Svartbjørn]

declined to confirm the accounts, or deny them" does not put anything "to bed

It does depending on how you look at it Cube.. If he denies it, then he's lying, if he confirms it then its a cover up for a larger conspiracy.

On the flip side: If he denies it, hey.. it didnt happen, if he confirms it.. oh hey look at that, more BS from the government what a surprise.

It all literally depends on how you view the world, by neither confirming nor denying.. it leaves the possibility open for it to happen but there's an equal chance that it didnt. Take what you will from it,but it puts it to bed for which ever side of the coin you sit on.. at least until actual evidence shows up that puts it one way or the other.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It all literally depends on how you view the world...

BINGO!!

This is indeed the basis for many "Conspiracy Theories" (and I used the word "Theory", there quite loosely.

Seems we are running in circles.

 

[Cube Radio]

If something is neither confirmed nor denied then you are free to speculate what that means, but I take it merely as nothing conclusive: it is a banal truth that whatever interpretation you choose you are a conspiracy theorist and all forum members here can be so described; I would say the provenance of the video is most important and most questionable, for as is often pointed out in debates like this even the FBI has stated it could not find a sufficient evidence to link OBL to the 9/11 attacks, including authenticating this video http://www.projectcensored.org/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/

 

[Mick West]

If something is neither confirmed nor denied then you are free to speculate what that means, but I take it merely as nothing conclusive: it is a banal truth that whatever interpretation you choose you are a conspiracy theorist and all forum members here can be so described; I would say the provenance of the video is most important and most questionable, for as is often pointed out in debates like this even the FBI has stated it could not find a sufficient evidence to link OBL to the 9/11 attacks, including authenticating this video http://www.projectcensored.org/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/

But do you think this guy (the same guy as E in your OP) is OBL, or not?

 

[Cube Radio]

I'm prepared to accept he's the same person as A-D, but then I didn't actually claim he wasn't: as I say, even the FBI is similarly non-committal, which is good enough for me to suggest there may be some doubt; my original question that led NoParty to invoke this unauthenticated, fortuitous and highly fortuitously-timed discovery was whether or not the hijackers aboard the planes that crashed into the towers could possibly have expected both of those massive structures to crush themselves to the ground as a consequence of their actions.