It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bogus CIA Analysis led to Terror Alert in Dec. 2003 (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:23 AM
A CIA analysis that led to a terror alert shortly before Christmas 2003 was erroneous. CIA analysts thought they had found secret codes broadcasted within the AlJazeera program, an analysis which turned out as bogus, according to experts.
Bogus analysis led to terror alert in Dec. 2003
CIA experts saw a secret code on Al-Jazeera that wasn't there

June 27: In late 2003, the federal government raised America's terror alert level, triggering fears of a possible attack. But as NBC's Lisa Myers reports, the CIA made a major blunder.

WASHINGTON - Christmas 2003 became a season of terror after the federal government raised the terror alert level from yellow to orange, grimly citing credible intelligence of another assault on the United States.

"These credible sources," announced then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, "suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond."
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

For weeks, America was on edge as security operations went into high gear. Almost 30 international flights were canceled, inconveniencing passengers flying Air France, British Air, Continental and Aero Mexico.

But senior U.S. officials now tell NBC News that the key piece of information that triggered the holiday alert was a bizarre CIA analysis, which turned out to be all wrong.

CIA analysts mistakenly thought they'd discovered a mother lode of secret al-Qaida messages. They thought they had found secret messages on Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language television news channel, hidden in the moving text at the bottom of the screen, known as the "crawl," where news headlines are summarized.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Is the CIA now engaging in bible code techniques ?

What worries me is in fact that the existence of a certain steganographic message in such cases can be mathematically proven or disproven (with certain probability), so there is basically no way of "wrongly" receiving such a message.

Was it more intelligence fixed around the policy or is the CIA the policymaker here ?

What was the now irrefutable political motivation hiding behind the bogus terror alert ?

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Moretti]

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:13 AM
I think they looked more in the direction of broadcasting subchannels of data or video then that they were looking for codes in words said on Al-Jaz.

If you didn't know yet, television broadcasting can format their stream to incude any of the following:

Multiple video channels, they can broadcast standard tv and HDTV on seperate video channels.

Multiple audio channels, audio streams for the different spoken languages in a country AND different audio streams for Dolby Stereo, Dolby Surround and son on. The max I've ever seen used is 3 audio streams here in belgium, stereo(dutch), surround(dutch) and stereo(french). Although I have to say that surround streams are pritty rare on tv here still.

Multiple subtitle/data channels, usualy known as teletext. Subtitles that are on screen and can't be removed are transmitted as part of the video stream. But the subtitles you can enable/disable are transmitted as a teletext datapage.

Then you can also transmit analogue or digital encrypted data channels together with these streams or encrypt all of the stream, this is used by subscriber based TV channels, like Canal+ and Hallmark movie channels here in belgium.

So, there is a multitude of methods to send extra data over a TV channel, but also a multitude of things that can be mistaken as hidden data. Not to mention that theres always electronic, atmospheric and #loads of other interference on the network.

Heck, it could be the CIA picked up some teenage pirate broadcaster smack in the middle of Al-Jaz's broadcast.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:14 AM
Why does it have to be irrefutable evidence that it was for political motivations?.... it was the government itself who later found the apparent mistake, probably as they tried to find more messages in that manner.

Now, this poster does shows obvious bias in his/her introduction and in his/her headlines, since bogus would refer to something fraudulent done with intent and this doesn't seem to be the case. If you fix both the headline and the introduction I would vote for it.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:47 AM
I'm voting yes on this story...I don't find the title or introduction to bi biased whatsoever. When I see the word bogus, I think "wrong", which the intel was. No bias there from my understanding.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:07 AM
Actually, you are right. I didn't see that the article also calls it as bogus. So "technically" there is no bias in the introduction or the headline.

new topics

top topics

log in