Dont be conned by another FAKE OBL message

Please see the entire first message here.

http://worldanalysis.net/postnuke/html/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=525

Its clearly a computer generated image.

And read this analysis from a website that is RIGHT leaning...


http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/OBLTranscriptdate

By Sean Osborne, Associate Director, Military Affairs & By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

7 September 2007: According to official U.S. government sources, the video from Osama bin Laden was reportedly obtained and transcribed today - 7 September 2007. The complete transcription, obviously transcribed after the video was obtained, was presented to news outlets in PDF format. One such copy can be downloaded in its entirety below. (Click on article title or "read more" above for complete article)

When analyzing the transcript, however, it was noted that the date of transcription is yesterday, 6 September 2007, one full day before the video was allegedly obtained. The date is prominently displayed in the lower left hand corner of the document in a traditional U.S. format (MM/DD/YY). Usually, an official government document will use the DD/MM/YYYY format.

Additionally, the transcript begins with the number "2" on the bottom center of the document, which was apparently scanned as a picture file and formatted into PDF. Although this is not unusual, we note that the cover page appears to be missing based on the page numeration.

On the left-hand margin the format is M/D/YY, or it could just as easily be D/M/YY. This is a widely unacceptable, non-standard format where the month/date are ambiguous during the first 12 days of any month of the year. (is 9/6/07 September 6 2007 or is it 9 June 2007).

On the right-hand margin the format is YYYY/MM/DD. This date format is the "complete date" of the ISO 8601 format (The accepted International Standard) first published in 1988. This completely unambiguous formet was redacted from some copies of the .pdf.

What does this all mean?

We don't know. Combined with other oddities related to this video, however, it does make one wonder.


These NUTS in Washington are up to something. Hold on to your hats!

:kick:

The CIA says this is OBL's voice, whatever that actually means (voice print, or some politically appointed 'expert'?), but there are so many problems...

I think the greatest problem, however, is that the video goes STILL FRAME FOR 10 MINUTES JUST when he talks of all of the current events - mortgage crisis, Democrats not stopping the war, etc.

To be sure, given a powerful PC, enough time and money such a thing could be done. In fact, the frozen part would make it quite easy to do. (I suppose a "Clutch Cargo" effect wouldn't be acceptable?)

Others have posted their suspicions that the *entire video* could be computer generated - pasted together from photoshopped parts of other Bin Laden videos.

The curious things to be asked are who would have done this and why, and why hasn't the MSM made these obvious issues (esp the 10 minute freeze frame) more public?

Why is it up to ME to prove it a fake? Why isn't it shown how this is REAL?

I do appreciate the fact that, in the absence of any MSM coverage, I can see such questions becoming the part of "conspiracy kooks", which makes me empathic to THEM!

It's a translation, isn't it? The transcript of what is said on the tape would **necessarily** be in Arabic. I have to admit, it's possible that we'd expect "here's the transcript" to head the page in the right context. (Say, when it's being contrasted with something else, and both things are known to be translations: "here's what the text on the opening page of the video says ... and here's the transcript.") But it sounds either rushed or unprofessional, possibly because it was meant for in-house use only, possibly for some other reason.

I'm not sure what to make of the first page of the PDF: It's the wrong dimensions. As though the letterhead were cut off, or the first section removed prior to scanning (by, tada, Scanwizard 5.0). It's scanned to the same size as the other pages, but the page number is way too high. It was, at least, scanned the evening of 9/7 (document properties say as much), so there's no reason to suspect that the grunt who did the scanning got it before 9/7.

It's also not a translation made by a native speaker of English--or, if it was, it's made by a novice or a translator under a lot of pressure. Too many errors of the kind native speakers find difficult to make by accident. Now, the US employs--contra good translation practice--a lot of translators going into their second or third languages. You'd expect an English native-speaker to edit the thing, but that doesn't always happen, and I've seen non-native editors 'correct' a native speaker's English to include errors, sometimes of meaning. So this isn't necessarily meaningful. All the less meaningful because it's likely that any translator given the task of producing a transcript and then a translation would be under a lot of pressure.

However, there are possibilities as to why there's a date problem, leaving aside the trivial "Oops, did I actually have my computer thinking it was April fool's in September?": Either the video was obtained earlier by some branch of the government, those folk produced the translation and forwarded it and the video to those who suddenly 'received it' on 9/7 ... the WH, for example. For that, we'd have to have evidence as to what "we" meant when it was said, "We got it on 9/7"--anybody in any branch of the government (whether embassy, undercover, lawenforcement, intelligence, or WH staff) or some subset. Or maybe it was a translation produced by the provider of the tape, one made (or at least printed) the day before. Hard to know. Can't even tell if it was originally produced on 8.5x11 or A4 paper.