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

Status
Not open for further replies.

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
so that's a 'no' ? ( to Micks question)
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Mick's points do seem rational and scientific. I think sometimes "conspiracy theorists" like me can stick by claims too much just out of pride and/or worry of the broader implications.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
But then again saying that what video is the image E from then? Because even with the corrected ratio it doesnt look like it is from that video. Unless there is more manipulation that just the aspect ratio of it. Ie, stretched.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Mick's points do seem rational and scientific. I think sometimes "conspiracy theorists" like me can stick by claims too much just out of pride and/or worry of the broader implications.
I'm only going OT cause I don't want you to think I'm agreeing in a condescending way. I think CTs assume debunkers are embracing the 'broader implications' as 'debunked' with each topic debunk. which may be true for some posters but isn't at all what debunking is about at all.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But then again saying that what video is the image E from then? Because even with the corrected ratio it doesnt look like it is from that video. Unless there is more manipulation that just the aspect ratio of it. Ie, stretched.
it is from that video. everytime he turns to his right, he looks just like him. watch it again. (everytime he looks to his left he looks like my brother which is freaky)
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I'm only going OT cause I don't want you to think I'm agreeing in a condescending way. I think CTs assume debunkers are embracing the 'broader implications' as 'debunked' with each topic debunk. which may be true for some posters but isn't at all what debunking is about at all.

A lot do. The people here are mostly pleasant but out in the wild it is different.


it is from that video. everytime he turns to his right, he looks just like him. watch it again. (everytime he looks to his left he looks like my brother which is freaky)



There seems to be a different background colour and also the sharpness of the image is very different. It is actually more detailed in the apparent fake one. Just wondering why this may be?
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Looks to me that the back ground is an effect of the ratio and compression Mick was talkin about earlier Gary. To my eye the shadows and fading on the background matches pretty close, if not exactly, to the other.. looks like it's just a trick of the camera
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A lot do. The people here are mostly pleasant but out in the wild it is different.






There seems to be a different background colour and also the sharpness of the image is very different. It is actually more detailed in the apparent fake one. Just wondering why this may be?

Just different digitizations of the same video. The original was on VHS. This had to be converted to digital. Either it was done twice in two different ways, or the digital version was then reconverted. You can see the original was very low contrast. Perhaps someone decided to "improve" it by increasing the contrast.

The "detail" in the background is clearly just compression artifacts.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Just different digitizations of the same video. The original was on VHS. This had to be converted to digital. Either it was done twice in two different ways, or the digital version was then reconverted. You can see the original was very low contrast. Perhaps someone decided to "improve" it by increasing the contrast.

The "detail" in the background is clearly just compression artifacts.

It does looks like stills from the same video in terms of the composition in what he is wearing and the angle etc. It is almost identical like that.

Ok thanks for your explanation. =)
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Best and available evidence is not what usually is classified as a "theory".
extreme example.....Will the sun rise tomorrow ?

I think your term is too broad.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
questions as to its authenticity are supported by the observation that Osama E (sometimes called 'fatty Osama'); that the person seen with fatty Osama in the video is wearing a large gold ring, forbidden by Islam

Why should that person wearing a ring cast doubts as to the authenticity of the video when even Osama Bin Laden has been known to wear a ring?

ossamarings.jpg

If fact, Salafi Jihadists from Chechnya to Syria have been known to wear rings.

isilrings.jpg
 

Cube Radio

Member
The ring thing is by far the weakest objection as it's not the wearing of rings as such, it's the wearing of gold rings that is haram; silver is allowed and obviously it's impossible to determine what any of these rings are made of: personally I think OBL was wearing a silver ring because he'd promised his virginity to daddy.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
The ring thing is by far the weakest objection as it's not the wearing of rings as such, it's the wearing of gold rings that is haram; silver is allowed and obviously it's impossible to determine what any of these rings are made of: personally I think OBL was wearing a silver ring because he'd promised his virginity to daddy.

In other words, the "ring thing" is not good photographic evidence, but you decided to use it to cast doubts on the video anyway.

So what is the best evidence this video is fake?
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The main possibly legitimate objection seems to be not that the tape is fake, but that the translation is misleading.
However objections to the correct translation of the 2001 video are somewhat moot as the 2004 tape which is pretty unanimously accepted as genuine and was released and translated by al jazeera doesn't really leave any room for doubt that he is claiming responsibility.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Pete, I'm pretty certain that 'mistranslated' transcript refers to an entirely different video; Trigger, I merely summarised the most prevalent objections to the video under discussion: as I have indicated upthread I consider its provenance the most questionable aspect, a view apparently endorsed by the FBI.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Just a quick recap:
A question was initially raised, re. whether the terrorists anticipated the full amount of destruction on 9/11.

I responded that--off the top of my head--I remembered bin Laden saying, in a video, that no, they expected less damage.
Then I linked to the video and a transcript of the relevant part.

Then the issue was shifted to whether that was really OBL in the video.

I and others (including Mick) addressed that (and I mentioned that back in Dec. '01 there was some debate
about the translation in the video, but no serious debate as to whether or not it was OBL in the tape).
It's pretty clearly OBL in the video.

Another claim, that "in fact" multiple fake OBL videos had been made (with the implication that they had circulated) was refuted.

Then a "rings" angle was refuted.

Now "the most questionable aspect" is really "provenance."

Looks Gishy to me.

 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Pete, I'm pretty certain that 'mistranslated' transcript refers to an entirely different video
No it's this one.

The 2001 Osama bin Laden video released on December 13, 2001.
Pretty sure that's the same one we're looking at, and that is the one where the translation was questioned.
 

Cube Radio

Member
The issue of the video's provenance was raised at the outset; the Washington Times' report that a fake video was made was not refuted or presented with implications; and I "refuted" the ring question myself in response to Trigger Hippie: what does "Gishy" mean to you, exactly?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...the Washington Times' report...

Having once been a resident of the greater Washington, DC region...I learned to always take with a LARGE dose of salt "any" article published by the "Washington Times".

I'm sorry for (maybe again?) pointing this out but, the "Washington Times" is owned by the ("Reverend") Sun Myung Moon.

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

Take it with ALL "credibility" that it 'deserves'......
 

Cube Radio

Member
You repeat yourself: you've already made the reverse remarks with respect the article meant to refer to, which of course came from the Washington Post, upthread.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
You repeat yourself: you've already made the reverse remarks with respect the article meant to refer to, which of course came from the Washington Post, upthread.

Yes, this is very possible, thank you for noticing.

Does it in any way diminish my original intent?

(For example...as an American, I understand media bias exhibited by the so-called Fox "news" channel. Such bias needs to be exposed, does it not?)
 

Cube Radio

Member
Allow me to correct my post.

What I meant to say was: The issue of the video's provenance was raised at the outset; the Washington Post's report that a fake video was made was not refuted or presented with implications; and I "refuted" the ring question myself in response to Trigger Hippie: what does "Gishy" mean to you, exactly?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
You accuse me of "Gish Gallop" yet I post single sentences: Trigger Hippie asked for my view of the evidence.

To whom are you referring??

Just asking, and then (hopefully) back to topic?

Osama (or "Usama") bin Laden is dead.

As the late, great Bette Davis once said about the death of Joan Crawford (upon hearing of it):

LINK:
http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0000012/quotes

(DAMN!!! She was a pistol!! Miss you, "Bette Davis"!!!)
 
Last edited:

Gary Cook

Active Member
You accuse me of "Gish Gallop" yet I post single sentences: Trigger Hippie asked for my view of the evidence.

Dude this is bad evidence of a conspiracy but people the forum are more interested in debunking conspiracy theory then what is actually going on in a political way anyway. Not being rude to any forum member but it is the stated forum mission as such so I dont know why you expect different. You are looking in to wrong place to try and enlighten people in that sense. I have a big argument on here about Al-qaida being supported by the west or not even though it is clear to many despite there being no direct evidence. These people are here to only debate known evidence. Not morals or the best ways to maintain a decent civilisation. Whether that is right or wrong is not for us to decide. Its not our forum so we dont make the rules. There are others for that kind of stuff.

There are conspiracy against us the public that people should be aware of but one could also argue that there needs to be at least one forum like this where people debate actual evidence using scientific method. Although I question some people motives here myself.
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Dude this is bad evidence of a conspiracy but people the forum are more interested in debunking conspiracy theory then what is actually going on in a political way anyway.

An overly broad generalization. On Metabunk...(most) people are interested in debunking bunk. That doesn't mean we do not have interest in global politics but this not the place where we typically exercise that interest.

I have a big argument on here about Al-qaida being supported by the west or not even though it is clear to many despite there being no direct evidence.

This is fascinating- you believe something even though there is no evidence- that sounds like religion.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Gary, I know for an honest fact that its been pointed out more than once, that no one here has an issue with conspiracies or theories about conspiracies.. what we're looking for is actual, factual evidence that those conspiracies are taking place. I know Ive said it at least three different times, but I'll say it again.. its not about being right or wrong, its about putting our personal feelings and political views aside and looking at what's actually there instead of inferring based on a bunch of guesses and half concocted ideas with nothing to support them.

The issue that comes up most is that "we dont believe and are sheep" just because we have a different point of view, and dont run around screaming the sky is falling with out actually having evidence to support the fact that the sky is falling. We dont solely rely on Youtube videos, or internet blogs, or left/right leaning websites. We use all of it, then we turn around and look at the science.. does it add up? Is there another solution that is much more logical and feasible? If there is, then it negates that theory completely.. end of story. That doesnt mean that a conspiracy doesnt exist, what it means is that the premise for that particular theory is flawed and is there-fore bunk.

I'll bet ten years worth of pay that every single one of the same people you have issue with, would support a conspiracy theory IF there was any true and factual evidence (not based on supposition, intuition, superstition or false premises), and would run with it. Science and debunking has nothing to do with ego or personal gain, it has to do with looking at what's in front of you and using your brain in combination with critical thinking skills while leaving your personal bias at the door. Its not easy to do.. all of us are affected by our personal beliefs to some extent or another.. its the ability to sit back and say.. yanno what, Im a left winger/right winger/moderate/anarchist, and those beliefs are taking me down this path with this particular argument.. what happens if I remove that from the equation.. what do I see? If your views on a subject change based on that subtraction, then guess what.. RUN with it.

Why do you think I asked (in another thread) for supporting documentation other than right winged websites? Its not because I have an issue with the anyone right winged (I hold quite a few of those tendencies myself), its because I need information from more than one point of view to find any kind of intelligent consensus. That's what Mick, the others, and myse;f are getting at when we come back at people, including you (now and then) and Cube. There's no political motivation, but just the fact that the information you guys are providing tends to either be straw-men arguments or you change the "angle of your attack" to get around what's being asked of you to be delivered. Remember, the onus is on the person with the counter argument to provide the evidence and the proof, not the other way around.

Take a look at every single one of the DEBUNKED threads. They all have the EXACT same forumla... The Scientific Method. The OP finds a topic, and asks a question about said topic. Op says to himself.. hmm.. this doesnt sound right. Didnt I just read about this? OP then commits himself to several hours/days of reading and research. If he comes across actual evidence that supports the theory he's looking into, he drops the subject.. if he doesnt, he continues. Finally, he sits down and writes out the post listing everything he's found, provides all of the scientific data he can get his hands on to, along with a bibliography of where he finds his research.. most of the time multiple sources. This includes talking to people here, and people who have more information on the topic.. not just those that agree with or support his own assertations. The onus is on them to provide the evidence.. if there's a disagreement on the evidence, then counter-evidence MUST be provided to prove the assertion incorrect. Not just NOPE YOU'RE WRONG cuz the guy on TV said so! (extreme example).

Now go back and take a look at the same people who have problems here on the site.. what do they do? You have your drive by posters who come in here, yell and scream, rant and rave, throw insults and never return.. then you have those who come here so entrenched in their own ideologies they absolutely refuse to see anything else, no matter what's put in front of them, you have those that do things for their own personal gain and sling threats and insults, but dont stick around long, and you have the people who are honestly curious about how "the other side" thinks, come here with their own ideas and see what's been posted and go.. gee, that kinda sounds reasonable, I never thought of it that way.. but I still have my own beliefs.. people just like you, Gary.

There's no political motivations, there's no hatred.. sure there's anger.. especially when you're being attacked, either directly or in passive aggressive ways, but that's human nature.

This is why, ESPECIALLY in this thread about Bin Laden..and the 9/11 threads in general because its still a very touchy subject for a lot of people... Mick and the other mods do their best to make sure things stay civilized and allow for discussion of fact to take place.. This is why the comments were made about Cube being "gishy." No one was attacking him, they were pointing out that every time he's replied, his assertions remained the same, no actual evidence (for the most part) was provided, and he brings up different topics/ideas/questions but doesnt support any of it.. Which is what a Gish Gallop is.. in this case though, it was broken up over several posts instead of just being one huge wall of text bouncing around all over the place with a million questions that cant be answered. Please dont take this as an attack on you either Cube, its an explanation of events.. nothing more.

I apologize for the novel, but this is one of those things that cant really be done in just a few words.

*Edited for clarity, punctuation, continuity and grammatical errors.
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
Perhaps you could furnish me with an example from this thread where I have made a claim without citing a source: in as few words as possible.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is getting off topic. The "fake" bin Laden has been debunked. If you wish to chat about your opinions of each other then please take it to PMs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top