Bin Laden Dead?

[The Fool]

Because it's such an obvious possibility.

Do you disagree?

I agree....(start the fireworks display, brass band and dancing girls)

I remember quite some time ago reading that he would die without a kidney transplant or constant dialysis or something equally dire.....and I must admit in the last vid I saw he didn't look like he was particulary vibrantly healthy....plus living in a cave full of insects rodents and mound of your own poo would not be all that good for you..

 

[BeAChooser]

The video doesn't "freeze in those portions." Almost the entire video is still-frame. But a few minutes are not.

The video entirely freezes at the 1:58 mark and remains frozen until 12:30 with only the audio track continuing during that time. And then it freezes again between 14:02 and 26:26, which is the end of the tape. And if you call 23 minutes out of 26 minutes a "few minutes" you have a very distorted sense of time as well.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It's also logical to suspect the video when the person, clothing, background and desk are IDENTICAL to that seen in a 2004 video.

Why is that a reason for suspicion? Spell it out.

LOL! If you can't figure it out, that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And it is also logical to suspect the authenticity when the image of the person doesn't look all that similar to an image we actually do know to have been bin Laden.

It's logical unless Osama might have very good reasons for changing his appearance. Can you think if any?

Well if you are going to change your appearance as a disguise, wouldn't it make sense to make the change significant rather than only subtle as is the case?

Here he is as seen in one of the 2001 videos:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/bin-laden-in-his-nov-3--2001-vid-2604-20071101-70.jpg

Now here he is in the 2004 video:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/143099/4_22_102904_binladen_450.jpg

It's not extremely obvious but there are differences that are significant ... that might reflect differences between the real thing and a close double.

No, if you are out to disguise yourself, why not do what KSM did and really try to change your appearance?

http://d21c.com/TheHeatons/billie/mohammadmug.jpg

In fact, here's how the US government suggested bin Laden might now look if he were trying to disguise himself (from http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/tag/facial-features ):

http://www.thaindian.com/images/usama-age-pro-no-hat-or-beard-flat-small.jpg

Now THAT is a disguise (even if he has to retain a beard).

But if we are to believe you, he hasn't even tried to change his appearance in any significant (at least to those who might be trying to find him) way. So much for your logic.

My point is that it's not an obvious fake.

Well I think you are wrong. For all the reasons I stated.

And here's another:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html

September 12, 2007

On the Friday before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden appeared in a new video, his first since prior to the U.S. presidential elections in 2004. In analyzing the video, Neal Krawetz of Hactor Factor, an expert on digital image forensics, said in his latest blogs that the video contained many visual and audio splices, and that all of the modifications were of very low quality.

Most striking is bin Laden's beard, which has been gray in recent images. For this video it is black. "As far as my tools can detect, there has been no image manipulation of the bin Laden portion of the image beyond contrast adjustment. His beard really does appear to be that color." … snip …

Krawetz says the inner frame of bin Laden was resaved at least twice, and not at the same time. The images show fine horizontal stripes on bin Laden and a background indicating these came from interlaced video sources. In contrast, the text elements, such as the As-Sahab logo, appear to be from non-interlaced sources.

The September 7 video shows bin Laden dressed in a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater. Krawetz notes "this is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical." Krawetz also notes that "if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years--only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted."

More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.

 

[Marduk]

LOL!

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/9/9/61032/95401



And this is the first video purported to show bin Laden since October 2004, when, by the way, he was still wearing the same clothing, seen in the same studio and sitting at the same desk as in the current one. Is that likely? Or is it likely this is tape from that 2004 session? And in the 2004 video it was widely noted that his beard appeared to be dyed or even pasted on, and his face structure appeared different. Was that tape even authentic? Many have their doubts given that he doesn't even look a whole like bin Laden did in 2001, when the last real video of him was probably released. This one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1729882.stm

Lol Osama has become the Dread Pirate Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dread_Pirate_Roberts

 

[casebro]

Speaking of necromancy, anybody heard from Fidel Castro lately?

 

[Gazpacho]

The video entirely freezes at the 1:58 mark and remains frozen until 12:30 with only the audio track continuing during that time. And then it freezes again between 14:02 and 26:26, which is the end of the tape. And if you call 23 minutes out of 26 minutes a "few minutes" you have a very distorted sense of time as well.

Almost the entire video is still-frame. But a few minutes are not.

Sorry about your reading comprehension.

Well if you are going to change your appearance as a disguise, wouldn't it make sense to make the change significant rather than only subtle as is the case?

Shaving or trimming his beard, if that's what he has done, is not subtle. It's simple, but not subtle in its effects. If he has disguised himself, then that is more reason he would need to "disguise the disguise" when he wants to make a video, and be seen as something like Osama 2001 rather than Osama 2007.

You think, if he were in disguise, he would make a video that gives away his current appearance? Really now.

 

[Gazpacho]

Speaking of necromancy, anybody heard from Fidel Castro lately?

If Chavez could be fooled with a soundboard, who couldn't be?

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry about your reading comprehension.

Well then I don't understand why you even commented on that, since you apparently weren't disagreeing with what I had noted in the first place. And by not disagreeing, you certainly weren't supporting your initial position, but mine.

Shaving or trimming his beard, if that's what he has done, is not subtle.

Just look at the video images I linked. What was done is subtle ... not an effort to prevent oneself from being recognized.

You think, if he were in disguise, he would make a video that gives away his current appearance? Really now.

Ah, so now you are claiming that he doesn't look like that now, he's just wearing *makeup* to make himself look like he used to look like. Now THAT argument is more along the lines of the 9/11 Truther hologram argument.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree....(start the fireworks display, brass band and dancing girls)

Hey, maybe this is the tiny first step that marks the beginning of understanding between us, that lays the foundation for mutual respect and ultimately friendship. A friendship that inspires others on different sides of the Israeli/Arab conflict to really look at the other side and try to resolve their differences and understand the other point of view. An understanding that spreads, throughout the world, and ultimately heals the rift between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and brings peace to the Middle East.

Or...maybe not.

 

[Gazpacho]

Ah, so now you are claiming that he doesn't look like that now, he's just wearing *makeup* to make himself look like he used to look like.

He wants to be recognized as himself, but not caught. It's not complicated.

Your whole line of argument is typical JAQ. You want Osama to be dead, and you have thrown out some half-considered reasons in support of that, but examining those reasons in the context of his situation does not lead to your conclusion. The person made up to look like Osama can be Osama. The voice that sounds like Osama's can be Osama's. The clothes that look the same can be the same clothes.

 

[Loss Leader]

Because it's such an obvious possibility.

Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I don't think there is anything "obvious" about the way the fundamentalist-terrorist mind works. I don't think that such a person requires proof of anything in order to be fervently dedicated to the cause. I don't think that such a person would even recognize proof that in any way conflicted with his beliefs.

Witness the conspiracists on this forum; and they at least share common cultural and religious references with the rest of us. Yet, their minds are completely closed to any information that conflicts with their beliefs and communication with them is impossible.

So, it is ridiculous to think that we know anything about what effect evidence of Bin Ladin's death or continued life might have on other fundamentalist-terrorists in his own country, let alone all of the far-flung reaches where similar people may be found.

 

[themusicteacher]

I do disagree. I don't think there is anything "obvious" about the way the fundamentalist-terrorist mind works. I don't think that such a person requires proof of anything in order to be fervently dedicated to the cause. I don't think that such a person would even recognize proof that in any way conflicted with his beliefs.

Witness the conspiracists on this forum; and they at least share common cultural and religious references with the rest of us. Yet, their minds are completely closed to any information that conflicts with their beliefs and communication with them is impossible.

So, it is ridiculous to think that we know anything about what effect evidence of Bin Ladin's death or continued life might have on other fundamentalist-terrorists in his own country, let alone all of the far-flung reaches where similar people may be found.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Though it is difficult to get into the head of any fundamentalist if you're looking for "why's," it is not hard to believe that the one thing they are is totally committed to their cause. Nothing will change their mind and everything you do to oppose them simply strengthens their resolve.

 

[BeAChooser]

You want Osama to be dead, and you have thrown out some half-considered reasons in support of that

So you think the very detailed reasons given in http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html , an article you completely ignored, are "half considered reasons"? LOL!

I'll tell you what was "half considered" ... when you jumped into this thread to claim that in 2007 there was full motion footage of bin Laden making reference to recent events. Which there isn't. When I posted the video and sources noting that most of that video is in fact a still image and all of the comments about recent event occur when the image is frozen (and audio is a lot easier to fake), you indicated that you knew that is what the video showed. So it appears to me that you were trying to deceive people in your initial post. Make people think there was full motion video of bin laden commenting on recent events (which would be very hard to fake). Which leaves me wondering why you want Osama to be alive?

 

[INRM]

Even if Bin Laden was dead, it would never be admitted. The US needs it's boogeyman to proceed with it's Global War on Freedo--- er Terror.

 

[funk de fino]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 11.

 

[Cleon]

Meh. There's circumstantial evidence that could lead people to believe he's dead. There's also some semi-reliable evidence indicating he's alive.

We probably won't know for certain one way or the other for a good long time yet--if we ever know at all.

 

[Darat]

He is very much alive. I suspect he is under BeAChoosers bed.

Don't be silly - everyone knows he is sat behind the desk in Oval office right now!

Seriously:

As for "Where is the evidence that he is alive?", it doesn't quite work like that - we know he was alive at some point of time so it is the one making the claim that he is now dead who has the burden of proof.

 

[Loss Leader]

We probably won't know for certain one way or the other for a good long time yet--if we ever know at all.

We'll know the moment they start showing those public service commercials. "I'm Osama Bin Laden. I'm dead now. Don't smoke."

 

[Gazpacho]

I'll tell you what was "half considered" ... when you jumped into this thread to claim that in 2007 there was full motion footage of bin Laden making reference to recent events.

I didn't claim this, and there's a big difference between "could maybe, conceivably be faked" and "is obviously fake."

Which leaves me wondering why you want Osama to be alive?

See, here is where you go wrong again and again. You think that what you or I want is somehow relevant to what is or isn't.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I'll tell you what was "half considered" ... when you jumped into this thread to claim that in 2007 there was full motion footage of bin Laden making reference to recent events.

I didn't claim this

Well here is your opening claim:

The video from 7 Sept. 2007 includes full-motion footage of Osama and makes reference to recent events.

That sure sounds like you were claiming that. You certainly didn't tell all the facts about that video if indeed you were aware that most of it is not full-motion and the only references to recent events occur during the still image portion as you later claimed. Sounds like an attempt to deceive to me.

 

[Gazpacho]

You certainly didn't tell all the facts about that video if indeed you were aware that most of it is not full-motion and the only references to recent events occur during the still image portion as you later claimed.

I can't give all the facts about a video in a text comment, and I can't anticipate all of the doubts someone will raise. I apologize that some of my responses have been sharply worded. It doesn't indicate that I want Osama to be alive, or whether I trust the al-Qaeda leadership or western intelligence (I don't, on all counts). To paraphrase Rumsfeld, I think the question should be considered based on the evidence we have and not the evidence I might wish we had. What I see is a rather amateurish video depicting a man who, if he is alive, is in a situation that limits his ability to make sophisticated videos.