I blogged about the possible fakery in the recent Bin Laden video four days ago on September 9th ("Is the Bin Laden Video a Forgery?") and again two days ago on September 11th ("Both Recent Osama Bin Laden Videos Are Sock Puppet Fakery"), and now it's been confirmed:
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." The Washington Post has the full video here.
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.
As I wrote on September 11th:
There is no plausible explanation for Bin Laden's video image to be frozen in two separate videos while he is speaking of recent events-- except for video fakery.
I'm more convinced than ever that Bin Laden is dead or that he has dramatically altered his appearance and seeks to avoid detection. Either way, the video images we are seeing are years out of date.
Given the strange references to liberal hot-button issues like global warming in the latest Bin Laden video and other oddities, I think it more likely that Bin Laden is dead and that the "Bin Laden" videos are being entirely ghost-written.
As a practical matter, the West should proceed on the working assumption that Bin Laden is dead unless and until Al Qaeda produces credible video of Bin Laden in which his lips are moving when he speaks of current events.
When we fall for sock puppetry, we are being played for chumps by jihadists. In addition to lending aid and comfort to America's enemies by our naivete, we waste precious, irreplaceable time foolishly debating the wrong questions such as "Why haven't we yet caught Bin Laden?" and whether we should withdraw from Iraq in order to look for Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
If Bin Laden is alive, let Al Qaeda prove it. Their video sock puppetry suggests otherwise. Either they are engaged in an elaborate double hoax to lead the world to believe that Bin Laden is dead when he really is not (a hoax which the world has yet to even recognize), or, more likely, Bin Laden is indeed worm food and the jihadists are working with their dwindling supply of old videotape and one of Bin Laden's many male relatives to record the audio track.
I am surprised that more in the blogosphere, especially on the right, have not yet sounded the alarm about the apparent Bin Laden video fakery. In their defense, it has been a busy news week with General Petraeus's testimony to Congress and the 9/11 anniversary. Further, the conclusion that the videos are fakes is a matter of opinion, although one supported by the evidence in hand.
As we have learned through one media mistake and distortion after another in the war on terror discovered only by the blogosphere, we cannot rely on the Associated Press or Reuters to recognize a fake when it is presented to them. That is our job. I'm calling foul.
Remember, you read it here before you heard it from the AP, Reuters, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times.
Let's see how long it takes them to catch up.
Update: Consider all the foolish stories being uncritically printed and broadcast by the media this week that make no sense in light of this evidence. Journalists are reporting that Osama Bin Laden is "taunting" the U.S. in his latest video.
No, some dweeb with video editing equipment in a back room is "taunting" the U.S., while Bin Laden is mouldering in the grave (or -- remote possibility -- while he is cowering somewhere afraid to make a video that shows his current appearance). That Bin Laden is long dead is far more likely. It's a better fit with the facts and with what we know about human nature and the nature of terrorists.
But why does it matter?
Let me ask this in return: Should America be sending more troops to hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Or would that be a colossal waste of time, money, soldiers' lives, energy, and resources -- because Bin Laden is already dead?
Are we better off staying to fight Al Qaeda right where we are in Iraq?
It's rather an important question, wouldn't you say? It's more important than any other lead story you'll find in the print or broadcast media today, isn't it?
And yet we have total silence from the print and broadcast media on this story so far. What's their excuse? They have yet to even recognize that the issue of video fakery exists, let alone report the evidence that confirms these videos are fakes.
Update: A little example of Bin Laden video fakery for your amusement.
__________________________
THE IMPLICATIONS ARE HUGE
THE MOST IMPORTANT (1) Al Qaida is in a deep state of crisis, with no leader, no figurehead, no messiah, no messenger. Without Bin Laden, there is no charismatic leader. Just a tired old Ayman al-Zawahiri, droning on about nothing. (2) They have been lying for six [6!] years about Osama. Although Islam considers it acceptable to lie to non-Muslims, especially in wartime, Al Qaida has been lying to Muslims everywhere, and their own people. (3) The US government must have known this for some time. To some extent this is understandable, because they could not be the ones to step forward and claim a ‘kill’ at Tora Bora. No one would believe them. They have probably been waiting for the blogosphere to initiate these revelations.
(4) The nature of the war on terror is very different now. Al Qaida is now a headless, friable, indistinct organization prone to collapse at any time. There is no viable second in command. Without Al Qaida, Islamic terrorists regress to become an aimless, pointless rabble, as they were before Osama. (5) The Taliban now has almost no chance of winning in Afghanistan. Without Osama’s unifying influence, and the vision of the ‘War for the Caliphate’, Afghan violence can be seen for what it is, intertribal bickering, rivalry, and conflict as it has existed in Afghanistan since before recorded history.
(6) Al Qaida also has much less chance of winning in Iraq. In all tyrannies, the ‘head man’ is everything. Obeisance is shown to him, power streams into his hands, and the entire social and political structure is organized around him. With Bin Laden’s leadership and guidance, Al Qaida in Iraq hoped to usurp power, seize control of the country, and either install Bin Laden as the new ruler, or at least someone chosen by him. Now, none of that is possible. Al Qaida is no longer a springboard to Islamic world supremacy, it is a springboard into an unmarked grave. Al Qaida in Iraq are just another violent rabble, engrossed in murdering and terror, as some hot-headed Muslims have been since the beginning of Islam.
(7) The ‘Democrats’ plan for anti-terrorism now becomes even more meaningless, since they strongly emphasized the need to find Bin Laden. They were certain it would make a difference. Instead, it turns out Osama has been dead for six years, and the threat of terrorism has not gone away. Furthermore, with Bin Laden gone, it becomes even more crucial to quell the civil strife in Iraq. If a new Bin Laden is to appear, he will almost certainly come from Iraq.
There are many more implication indeed, these only scratch the surface.
Posted by: DemocracyRules | September 13, 2007 at 07:14 PM