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.


Loose Change setup to be debunked!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:11 AM
You just compared another profile shot to (somewhat) frontal shots. So you're comparing the side of Fatty's nose, to angled and frontal shots of known Osama's nose, again.

What I'm asking for, is for you to take any shots from either of the Fatty tapes, find a known pic from the same angle, and compare those. That's what I asked for earlier. From the side they look similar enough, I'll give you that, but from angles is where they show irreconcilable. And to get a fair comparison, you sort of have to have a shot taken of the same angle of his face.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:37 AM
It's not very good and not proof of anything, but I played around with the widths of the images to see if they matched up better. The 'fatty' ones may very well be stretched due to the settings used when the video was put onto the computer, edited, saved as a video file, etc. It happens to me frequently whenever I try and do any video editing from my camera stock.
It's such rubbish quality and so compressed anyway that I don't feel it's very accurate as pictorial evidence.

I realise some people will tihnk that altering the width of the images is cheating - but as we do not know if this was done either accidently or on purpose to the 'originals' it is something that has to be considered.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The 'fatty' ones may very well be stretched due to the settings used when the video was put onto the computer, edited, saved as a video file, etc.

So I'm guessing that you're seeing the width differences too. And it's not just the nose. The guys look pretty damned similar in general, but then at the same time I can at least tell (and I know I'm not alone) that something fundamental and irreconcilable is off between the two. The nose is just an easy way for me to express that.

Look at the timing and other background info of these videos, too, to put them into context. The 2001 Fatty vid was allegedly found by US forces in the basement of a bombed-out house in a large Afghani town. So not the usual airing on al Jazeera here (guess the US doesn't have corporate control of that network quite yet), but just happening to come across a home video that Osama decided to tape and was then left behind, and found by some freak chance, and it just happened to have Osama talking about doing 9/11 when he had already stated several times publically that he was not involved. And this was the first video to be contested for Osama not looking like Osama.

A lot of coincidences, I guess?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 08:07 PM
youre falling into the realm of "non-sequitor."

we are discussing whether or not it looks like him, and ive made the case for it. what he had to say in the video, to you is non sequitor, therefore the way it was found is non sequitor as well. enough with your fatty bin laden shots. there are other stills for people to look at. ive made the case well enough and if youre still stuck on ONE(!) fatty bin laden image...
well, in your words...
"youre grasping at straws."

[edit on 15-5-2006 by blatantblue]

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:16 PM
So then post those images I asked you for, BlatantBlue. If anyone wants to look at the bigger picture, we've now both posted additional info.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:01 PM
ill get to that tomorrow, one last final early, sorry.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:25 AM
ThHis is an interesting website:

YF: But there is another thing. You know I was interviewed on CNN on the eve of the first anniversary of 9/11 and Jonathan Mann, who was interviewing me for his program "Inside," challenged my information during the taped interview, when I referred to the case of a group of Israelis taking pictures with a clear view of the World Trade Center, waiting for the first plane to hit. I told him that I had it on record from Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former chief of operations for counterterrorism, and off record from the FBI and I used it - that the Israelis were there in position before the first plane hit. Well Jonathan Mann refused to accept this and he kept saying that was impossible and I kept telling him to go look at my footage for Part I which was already in CNN's hands in Washington DC.
SAS: This is the story, rather hushed up at the time, about a group of Israeli intelligence agents posing, I believe, as art students. According to the ABCNEWS website version which ran late in June and which also quoted Vince Cannistraro, the Israelis were taking pictures of the World Trade Center in flames, from the roof of a white van and of themselves with the trade center in the background, and they were arrested, held, and eventually deported. Nothing in that report about Israelis being there pre-positioned.*

SAS: Your documentary is built around the actual voice of Ramzi telling you how Al-Qa'ida pulled it off. And there was the much earlier amateurishly filmed video tape that the American government says they found in Afghanistan, and which was not intended for public viewing, in which a militant Saudi sheikh, visiting with Bin Ladin leads Bin Ladin into an acknowledgement that it was Al-Qa'ida operatives known only to him and a few others, who staged the operation and Bin Ladin re-enacts his great joy when the operation succeeded well beyond his expectations. My intuition as a journalist told me when I watched the tape on CNN that it was authentic and that it was Bin Ladin but my intuition also told me that the Sheikh was an intelligence agent, probably for the Americans and the their taped conversation a sting operation. A few days later a respectable British newspaper confirmed it was a sting but they said it was set up by Saudi intelligence. And certainly the former head of Saudi intelligence has made it clear in no uncertain terms that 9/11 was an Al-Qa'ida operation. Now despite all of this and other documentation, so many Arabs were in a state of denial and many are still in a state of denial, insisting that Al-Qa'ida or any Arabs for that matter could not have had anything to do with this operation, that this was a Mossad or CIA operation.
As for that tape you mentioned that we didn't screen, I have some news for you. Until I got to meet Ramzi and Khalid there was a lot of doubt as to the possibility that that tape might have been fabricated. But I got it on videotape from one of the other people from Al-Qa'ida who were there at the apartment that the tape was legitimate. I asked him whether that tape was genuine and he said it was. And in the end when I went back I put that Saudi Sheikh's video tape with Bin Ladin on and listened to it for four or five times, and certain bits and pieces that Bin Ladin said on that tape fit in very nicely with what Ramzi and Khalid had said to me. You know like the first time that they knew of the zero hour.
YF: Well, until this very day I get some emails from some people actually questioning whether the voice I had on the tape was actually Ramzi's voice. And I get the feeling it's a waste of time for me to try to assure them, to convince them, that, yes this tape has all of the same answers that he made to me face-to-face when I was with him.

I'm not surprised it's the first video to be contested to be Osama, there are a lot of people who don't want to believe he had anything to do with 9/11 and it is the first one where he ackowledges it's what he wanted.
All I'm saying is that if you compress the width of the image any slight discrepancies mysteriously vanish, and knowing that when recording video and resizing/compressing/etc it on PC can cause these effects it sames a strange coincidence that by making the image, which looks stretched anyway, narrower they disappear.

Besides (and credit to for the leads on all of this) it looks like the Americans used a little artistic licence when translating the video anyway, begging the question why would they fake something that doesn't actually say what they want anyway?
Because if we accept that it is genuine, it looks like it's no where near as incriminating as they wanted us to beleive anyway:

A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the "confession" video was not only inaccurate, but even "manipulative".
Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up: ?The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it.?

Meanwhile the US press has not picked up on this story at all, reporting instead that a new translation has revealed that OBL even mentions the names of some of those involved. But the item is all over the German press, from Germany?s Channel One (?Das Erste? - the ones who broke the story, equivalent to NBC or the BBC) to ZDF (Channel Two) to Der Spiegel (the equivalent of TIME or the Economist - visit,1518,174025,00.html
if you can read German). More surprisingly, as I write the following site appears on Lycos in German: - but nothing under in English.

So I, as always, think it is genuine - but sadly it does little for promotion on 'The War on Terror' anyway.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:29 PM
How can someone look at this and say that they are the same? They clearly aren't the same person, the top right image and the bottom left image are that of the real Osama, the top left one and the bottom right one is the imposter, the impostor's nose is no where near as high as Osama's, even his skin color is noticeably darker:

I guess some people just refuse to see the truth

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:46 PM
have you read this thread?

id say his nose is pretty long there, in the same tape.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by blatantblue]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:20 PM
Pick out the fake Bin Laden:


posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:43 PM
Ok lets take picture D, leto, and Ill show you how he is Osama Bin Laden..

thats one you keep referring to. Notice the kalishnakov and the pillow next to him.

notice the pillow and the AK. look like osama? id say so.

so, we have D as Osama.

Now for E,

the middle image is the unenhanced version of the image you keep babbling about.

yes! the nose looks different. in that one still image..
but does it look different from osamas ...
pretty sure thats osama

look at his lips and nose
are they not like... the lips and nose there?

now you tell me,

are you going to be hung up on a "fatty" face, while all the other stills look like bin laden?
and im continually told im grasping to straws.

one still frame from a video (E) with other shots looking exactly like osama, and one picture (D), while other shots of D look exactly like osama. there is not much to say its not osama

[edit on 17-5-2006 by blatantblue]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:54 PM
You're still comparing pics that differ too greatly to get a good look and make a good comparison.

The two pics that do make a good comparison, that are from about the same angle, you say are somehow wrong and not a good comparison. I don't understand how you think you're proving it's OBL.

You do understand that the two stills that are being compared are from about the same angle, right? You know what "angle" means, right? And you see that whoever took the footage was, or the two different people shooting those, were standing about the same angle from Osama's face? You see that, right? You understand what I mean when I say all of this? You understand why it's important; why you would want to have comparable angles?

None of the images you're posting are nearly as good of a comparison. How can you keep rejecting a better comparison for worse comparisons, just because the better comparison shows clearly that they're not the same person? Do you realize how little objective sense this makes, and that you're blindering yourself?

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:01 PM
Blatantblue, I guess you didn't understand, I did not say those are fake Bin Ladens, I asked for you to pick out the fake one. All of them are the real Bin Ladens except for E.
So you telling me that D is the real Bin Laden is really funny because no where did I say that D is fake.

This photo is clearly photoshopped:

This photo is clearly photoshopped:

This is the real Bin Laden:

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Leto]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:07 PM
How come, if it's fake, they didn't actually have him incriminating himself in the video? Because as I pointed out the translation was pretty inaccurate... You'd think if it was fake they'd at least have them saying what they really want instead of lying about it later.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
How come, if it's fake, they didn't actually have him incriminating himself in the video? Because as I pointed out the translation was pretty inaccurate... You'd think if it was fake they'd at least have them saying what they really want instead of lying about it later.

I don't even bother wasting time with that, I can easily see from this set of photo that A-D are the real Bin Laden, and E is an imposter:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:28 PM
I dunno, but that question doesn't make their noses any more similar. The US media manipulating information without their audiences knowing about it isn't new anyway. As long as the videos alleged to have Osama talking about involvement on 9/11, it would've been news, because up until then "he" had always denied any involvement whatsoever.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:17 PM
leto, did you look at other frames of the supposedly fake video?

like that?

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by blatantblue
leto, did you look at other frames of the supposedly fake video?

like that?

You're not listening, or perhaps you don't understand why that image shouldn't be used. For a good comparison, you need two images with similar angles, the image you are referring to isn't good for comparison because we don't have an image of the real Bin Laden in the same angle.

But anyways I decided to compare them closely, resized the images to similar dimensions, and this is what I got, the real Bin Laden is in the left, the impostor is in the right:

*First thing you should notice is their nose. The real Bin Laden's nose is longer, period.

*Second you should notice their cheekbones, they are clearly different, the impostor has a fatter face and a more pronounced cheekbone.

*Third you should notice their forehead. The real Bin Laden's forehead is longer.

*Fourth you should look at their ears, even though the angles aren't equal you can still clearly tell that their ears are positioned differently because their facial structure is different.

*Fifth you should look at their skin color. Their skin color simply don't match at all.

I think it's obvious to anyone who isn't blind that the individual in the right is the impostor.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Leto]

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:05 AM
I guess you're convinced now that he was an impostor

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:45 AM
please bro, dont sit there and flatter yourself..

1) if you can honestly say the left pictures nose is longer than the right then you must have some sort of cornial disarray in your eye.
or 2) you dont have eyes.

2) the forehead looks less lengthy to you because its not a straight side profile..
this is despite the fact its barely shorter anyway.

3) his ear looks pretty ok there to me, but i guess its photoshopped. and

bro they arent positioned diff, the one on the left you cant see the bottom, the one on the right you cant see the top. a straight line from the bottom of the right osamas ear will lead you to his mouth, just like the one on the right

4) so what if his skin color is off some. next time the president speaks, i want you to flip through fox cnn msbnc, etc, and look at the difference in skin color and tone.

5) his cheek bones are more pronounced because of the way the light is falling on him
next time youre camping, and your friends start telling you ghost stories, and they do the cliche flashlight under the chin pointing upward, youll see what i mean.

and good job explaining how the other photos, that still look like bin laden, are "clearly photoshopped." ill just take your word for it

good job!
you go on and congratulate yourself, you really got me

[edit on 19-5-2006 by blatantblue]

we should just end it, because we arent going to convince each other, and i cant improve peoples eyesight.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by blatantblue]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in