Cheques, Lies, and Videotape

I'm sure most of you have seen the so-called "Smoking gun" video tape that "proves" Osama Bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks. While I'm not prepared to say he's innocent, I'm prepared to say that this tape only proves three things:

First, it proves that fruits don't fall far from the tree.

Second, it proves that the US has no real case against Osama, not even one that would stand up even in Kangaroo court, and that they're desperate to do anything possible to make the most na´ve among us believe the official story.

Third, it proves that with a big enough chequebook and access to the right video and CGI equipment, anyone can make a bogus incriminating 'home video' these days.

Some of you may recall the John Delorean trial from 1986. The Reagan administration, in which George Bush Sr was the legitimately elected vice president (unlike Supreme court appointee Bush Jr), was desperate for a white face to put on trial in their fake War On Drugs. They needed to make Americans think they really were fighting a war on drugs, and not just using the DEA/CIA/FBI to disseminate crack cocaine into colored neighborhoods and then oppress colored citizens as widely as possible. So what did the Reagan Administration do?

They sent the DEA and FBI out to entrap John Delorean. They got him into a room full of scary looking guys who Delorean knew had guns. They made it obvious through their actions that something illegal was going down, and that they were badasses. Then they pulled out a suitcase of cocaine, and laid out a plan to poor John Delorean, and waited for him to say, "Yes". Then they destroyed his life.

They taped the whole thing, start to finish. But before showing it to the public, they edited the tape to show only incriminating statements by Delorean taken out of context, without showing the whole process of entrapment. Over and over and over, we saw John Delorean holding a bag of cocaine, and saying 'it's better than gold'.

Put this into context people... you have a nerd engineer that's designed cars for GM his entire life. You put him into a room with a bunch of guys he doesn't know, with Delorean there thinking this is a meeting with some parties who want to finance a startup company for the new Gull Wing car. Then he sees the guns, and guys acting shifty, and then the cocaine comes out. He barely knows these people, and they're basically pushing him into co-operating with them. In this situation, was he wrong to play along, thinking his life was in danger? Of course not.

But that's not what we saw at first, was it? We saw 'it's better than gold'... over and over and over again, until Larry Flynt saved the day.

Flynt was the publisher of Hustler Magazine. At the time, he was engaged in an all out war with the Reagan Administration over freedom of speech. Flynt was approached by a guilt ridden FBI agent, a man whose conscience couldn't stand what was being done to Delorean, and this agent sold Flynt a copy of the unedited videotape from the sting operation. Flynt turned around and showed the DEA's farce to the world, in all its glory. He proved the DEA were liars, perjurers, framers, and criminals, who carried around kilograms of cocaine in suitcases.

Our government, editing and playing with videotape to make it look like someone did something wrong, when it was really the government who was in the wrong and responsible for the evil acts.

After a long drawn out court battle over whether the jury in Delorean's trial should be allowed to see the whole tape or just the part the government wanted them to see, the judge allowed the jury to see the whole unedited tape, from frame one to exit stage left. John Delorean was acquitted.

Now, King George II has shown us a tape that's been edited, put out of chronological order, has portions of audio deliberately obscured, is so grainy that its hard to say if it's even Osama on the tape, and has been chopped so that at no time do we actually get to see the complete 4:3 or 16:9 picture... we only get half a screen. On the other half of the screen we see a questionable translation from Arabic, stamped "Government translation".

This tape was supposedly held back in order to verify the translation. If this is the case, and it was verified, why show us the government translation and not a translation from an independent Arab scholar, unless the independent translations varied from the Government one in some significant way, and are inconvenient to the government's frame up job?

First of all, it doesn't even LOOK LIKE Bin Laden from what I can see.


[Osama before he became reckless with his diet.....]

[.....and now him after eating too much kebabs!]

[Osama Bin Laden in recorded video address on al-Jazeera TV]



Now take a look at the above statement. They claim the portion before "... we calculated in advance the number of casualties" is inaudible. Bullshit.

Context is EVERYTHING people. Let's suppose the 'inaudible' part says, "When we saw the plane hit the building on CNN, we calculated in advance the number of casualties" I know what some of you are thinking..."but our government wouldn't do that, and our media wouldn't allow it". Oh no? Think back to the Nation of Islam Million Man March.

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX ran a tape from Louis Farrakhan's speech that showed him saying "this march is about me". They picked it up mid sentence... what he really said to the crowd that day was "There are those who want you to thinkthis march is about me".

Now think back to September 11. When you saw the planes hit, how many of you DIDN'T try and take a guess at how many people were dead? I know I did. I tried to figure out how many people had died, before any official announcement had been made. In otherwords, I calculated in advance the number of casualties.

Is this proof that I was the mastermind of the WTC attacks on September 11?

Keep in mind, Arabic and English are vastly different languages. Often, there are no possible direct translations, only transliterations of an entire idea or sentence. The guy on Bush's tape didn't actually say "we calculated in advance the number of casualties", he gave an Arabic equivalent that could be open to interpretation, especially since we can't hear the whole sentence. There's also the problem that in translation from Arabic to English, the 'we' could just as easily mean 'they'.

And then there's the government's deliberate obfuscation of the translation itself. They translate everything else, but leave the word 'fiqh', which looks like 'fight', leaving a subliminal implication of violence connected with Islam and worship of Mohammed. In reality, 'fiqh' means FAITH. Why leave this untranslated unless you're trying to obscure the true meaning of the videotape? Take a look at how it changes the sentence:

"Those who do not follow the true fiqh. The fiqh of Mohammed, the true fiqh."

Another troubling thing about the video is the lack of shots where you can see people's lips moving when they speak. The one section of tape where you get a clear shot of someone's lips moving, Al-Zawahiri's (or his double's) lips don't appear to sync with the sound.

One more thing... Bin Laden appears to be wearing a ring on his right hand on this new tape. I've never seen him wearing any kind of jewelry before.

According to Steven Morris of the Guardian, " Sean Broughton, director of the London-based production company Smoke and Mirrors and one of Britain's leading experts on visual effects, said it would be relatively easy for a skilled professional to fake a video of Bin Laden. The first step would be to transfer images shot on videotape on to film tape. Distortion or "noise" and graininess would be removed. A "morphing package" would then be used to manipulate the image on a computer screen.

Using such a package it is possible to alter the subject's mouth and expressions to fit in with whatever soundtrack is desired. The final step is to put the "noise" and graininess back on and transfer the doctored images on to videotape. "

www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4320578,00.html

Ask yourself... if the government is willing to alter and edit videotape of an upstanding US Citizen like John Delorean after breaking the law to entrap him, how far do you think they're willing to go to frame Osama Bin Laden? How much sleep do you think they'd lose over the NSA or CIA making this tape for public consumption?

No less than 1/3 of the current Bush Administration are people from the same Reagan/Bush administrations that framed John Delorean... they've had practice, and the technology is way better now. This wouldn't be the first time these people have falsified videotape for public relations purposes, and it won't be the last.

Something else about this tape bugs me... it contradicts the alleged letter by Mohammed Atta that was 'found' in the rental car shortly after the attacks. That letter supposedly tells the hijackers to make sure they have their last will and testament prepared, and not to fear because they're going to their great reward. This contradicts the statement on the videotape that some of the hijackers 'didn't know' they were going to die. Either the tape is bogus, the Atta letter is bogus, or both.

It wouldn't surprise me if both turned out to be manufactured by the FBI and CIA... it's not like it would be the first time. It would also explain why Bush needs a military tribunal to convict 'terrorists'... he can order the tribunal to accept the evidence and execute his enemies, but he can't get all ordinary citizens to accept night as day or lies as truth... only the peons who can't read or think for themselves.

"There are no US Forces in Laos or Cambodia" - Nixon

"Peace is at hand" - Kissinger

"I am not a crook" - Nixon

"Read my lips - no new taxes" - Bush Sr

"Wen Ho Lee is a traitor" - Louis Freeh

"I have no recollection of that" - Bush Sr testifying about Iran/Contra

Like father, like son. Liar, thief, murderer, and thug of the highest order.

2 + 2 = ?

Peace

  




Back to the Americas Menu
Back to News Archive Menu




Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.


FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.