TA-ANALYSIS: 'Code' Found in Latest bin Laden Video Could be Hoax

PurdueNuc: you are right.
I was wrong in thinking that the encoding had anything to do with the ISO string.
But the more important part of my findings remain untouched: The 'magic code' is nothing
more or less than the string 'americanpitbulls' as it is expressed in a AOL URL. How and why
AOL does things like this? I don't know. I think that only the bug in twexus (aka clipgate) did
bother to record the resulting string. 'americanpitbulls' is an extremely rare variation. It's one of these many terms and words where people search and do not find. If people would add a space where it should be, then they would have a better chance in finding what they were looking for.

My theory is, that this code got picked from twexus and put into the video. It's just the most likely thing, specially when I look at the events from January 2nd of this year:

www.nj0y.com...

So this is not your first run in with the good folks at FR? Seems they want very badly to implicate you or your site as something more nefarious then what it may actually be.

Reading your blog, I couldn't happen but to think of a flock of pidgeons in the park. If one gets spooked and flies off, every other pidgeon will too.

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
So this is not your first run in with the good folks at FR? Seems they want very badly to implicate you or your site as something more nefarious then what it may actually be.

You have NO idea.
I've seen the Twexus "thing" come up over and over again, always with Andreas and his site being accused of something quite nefarious.

Out of respect for Andreas being a member here, I'll not explain in detail.

As it is an interesting spinoff of this "code" saga.... Andreas, if you're comfortable talking about previous accusations regarding Twexus (specifically from the EOM&D boards), I think ATS members would be interested in hearing it.

Jeff Rense just put this story up and is linking directly to the forum topic.

OK heres the deal.


1) We have a video that was found by Jill St. Clair

2) This video was sent by Jill, to Laura Mansfield for translation. (Laura Mansfield is an Analyst over at NEIN)

3) In Lauras process of Translation she found numerous codes in the video. (This was claimed by Jill in this thread, and then Laura herself claimed finding it on Free Republic.

4) The image was supposedly sent to the JTTF, and then posted on NEIN.

5) We have seen Muppets, and others work on here as to the debunking of this code originally being in this video.

6) No one else, other than Jill, has come here to make any statements or Back it up.

These are the FACTS of this matter as of now, If I have missed anything, please u2u me or post it in this thread.

I do not believe anyone on this site is throwing Blame at Jill, Laura, Freepers or NEIN. Since none of these people have come here, replied to E-Mails, or contacted any staff (that I have been made aware of) regarding this matter, I believe their Credibility is in question, but we do not have enough evidence to assert anyone "Doctoring" the video.

I just want everyone to keep the Professionalism up. The "Truth" will only come out by the hard work of the people here at ATS, and those who have now found their way here. It will not by speculation and theories, although they may lead to something, take that lead and then come with the evidence.

Trick


*This post may be edited with "New" information*


I have been in contact with someone at Threat Matrix since this broke. I want to assure everyone that TM is not involved in this video, and "Code Hoax", they are merely caught in the middle because NEIN anaylsts and Jill are posters over there.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

I have received a reply from Doug Hagmann, owner of NEIN. This was sent to a member over at FreeRepublic and then posted over there. I had seen this post before, but wanted to confirm it was from him and not someone else posing to be him.

Sean Osborn might be a member as I recall, but I am not. I was notified of
the same controversy at "Free Republic" this weekend, an apparent
"spillover" from your forum and sent a personal, pointed response to a
member there based on our relationship. I am forwarding my reply, in its
entirety, to you below. Frankly, if I had to "defend" myself or the
information we submit to the authorities every time someone had questions, I
would be able to do little else. Feel free to re-publish my response - in
its entirety, but I am not inclined to join or post to other forums as I
simply do not have the time. Below is my response to member at Free
Republic:

The Above was his reply to my Email, He is talking about sean being a member on ATS, not him.


I just now had the time to check you alerting me to the discussion on FR TM
thread, which apparently had grown quite a bit since your original
notification. I also followed the links to the external sites, and see that
there are a lot of people who claim to have all of the answers about this
video. Perhaps I can help clear up any misconceptions about the video and
other related issues. Please read the following very carefully, and feel
free to quote me publicly, but only without editing my response or
excerpting anything as I wish nothing to be taken out of context.

1. As a FR member myself with no time to post and only skim headlines there
at best, I had NO idea there was such a controversy over the video. Quite
simply, both Laura and Jill found the same video, except that Jill was able
to save it to her hard drive while Laura was not at that time. Jill
graciously provided the video to Laura in its complete and unedited version.

2. While going through the video, Laura stopped it at a certain point to
grab a frame for illustration purposes for our site. The point where it was
stopped was somewhat arbitrary, but based in part on a subtle difference in
the "flow" of the video. It was at this point that the video was advanced
slowly to a frame where the alpha-numeric code was found on a single frame.

3. Following that find, Laura contacted me by cell; at that time, I was with
another investigative analyst and we went to his office to view the video
that was now present on our server. We found the frame and code (as well as
other code stings in additional frames later). I notified two of my federal
LE contacts in DC by telephone, and subsequently provided the video and
frame capture to one federal agent at his request.

4. Upon returning to my office, we had a conference call between analysts.
It was at that point we opted to post the image (code included) on our site
for public viewing. Based on a series of previous events NOT PUBLICLY KNOWN
or stated anywhere, including in our fee-based newsletter, we did so with
the belief that it could have the potential to alert those who might have
placed the code as an operational command that their plans were detected,
thereby giving LE time to act or react. It was purely a judgment call on our
part.

5. A careful analysis using video analysis software suitable for court
presentation and authentication, I found several additional frames
containing different alpha-numeric strings, an endeavor that took me most of
the night. I notified my federal contact of the exact locations of each
frame and forwarded the results to him in a second email the next morning.

6. Approximately 36 hours later, I received an informal request to remove
the frame from the front page of our website as we cooperate with legitimate
law enforcement requests. One might ask why it remains on other sites - I
cannot answer that question or speak for other site operators. During the
contact with LE, however, he stated that this is not an atypical method of
communication by computer-savvy "terrorists" and has been in use long before
the events of 9/11.

7. The implication (and in some aspects, outright accusations) that Jill
from her own site, Laura, myself, or anyone else connected with the
Northeast Intelligence Network either fell for an elaborate hoax or
perpetuated the same is unfortunate - and totally incorrect. If that were
the case, apparently federal LE officials are complicit in the hoax as well,
which is ludicrous.

8. As an aside, I find it interesting that some members of FR, an
organization which promotes capitalism and free enterprise, have a problem
with our organization offering a fee-based newsletter. The newsletter
contains information relating to in-depth investigation of terrorist issues
dropped by the media or completely unreported. All critical information is
NOT shielded from the public and is always reported on our site for
everyone's use. Our newsletter provides in-depth reporting, in many cases
where I or other qualified investigators actually travel to locations,
conduct in-person interviews, and THAT takes time and money. It does not
contain regurgitated Internet information, People want information for free?
Simple answer - don't subscribe.

I hope that clears up most of the questions raised.

My best,

Doug Hagmann
Director, Northeast Intelligence Network

[edit on 26-7-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

A thought occured to me, that perhaps there are 2 different versions of this video in existence.

Possible

We have had an expert who is a member of our ranks look at the video he received and found nothing on the frames that were assumed to be in question based on the screen cap posted on NEIN.

I would suggest a swap. The links that muppet posted to the video he looked at should still be here, so any analyist would be able to pull it and review it for themselves. They could determine if the correct portion of the video was reviewed, and if not point out which frames they are in.

What I would like to see is an exact copy of the one analyzed by the folks at NEIN be made available to muppet as well. It is obvious from following this thread that muppet did not receive the video through the exact same channels.

So, my offer is this, if the good folks at NEIN would be willing to provide an exact, complete copy of the (version) of the video they reviewed to muppet for his review I believe we could clear this all up.

Once muppet has reviewed it, and if he were to observe them same things as NEIN, well obviously we would have no recourse other then to completely reverse our conclusions, and to make a full apology.

I would be more than happy to be wrong on this, and would gladly retract every statement ever made.
I'll even sweeten the pot... I'll make a pants down public apology!

Heres where a problem arises. As in Dougs Email, Jill was able to download the video, and Laura was not. Jill forwarded her video to Laura. This could be were something could have been edited in. Since this has happened Jills hard drive is either no more, or on the fringe of being no more.




I do not have a contract with my server, I pay by the month. Anyone else know about having to sign a contract to a webserver???

[edit on 26-7-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

According to reverse DNS lookup, this is her hosting company.
www.lowesthosting.com...

[content temporarily removed my muppet]


[edit on 26-7-2004 by muppet]

EDIT: retracting my snide comment.

see my next snide comment

[edit on 7/26/2004 by phreak_of_nature]

Darn, you wish to see the possible good in people and you end up hearing.....

The toilet flushing.......

Originally posted by muppet
According to reverse DNS lookup, this is her hosting company.
www.lowesthosting.com...
The current "cheapskate" option they offer is $4.95 for 200MB.

So she's lying. Actually in the UK it's called "obtaining monies by deception" and is illegal.

Just checked it our muppet. If you go beyond the first page, to here. The packages are all 100MB packages. But the price is still $4.95/month. 100 for html, 50 for mail, 50 for db.

HOWEVER I spend about $4.95 for a pack of smokes. So couldn't she skip lunch one day a month?

Well spotted Phreak. I got the figures for the storage limits from the front page of the hosting site, not the small print!!

I was wrong. the basic limit IS 100Mb and not 200Mb as said in the previous, now editied post.

That said, there is no contract so she is still lying in an effort to get people to give her money, which would be illegal if she had been in the UK. (obtaining monies by deception)

Thanks for the head's up Phreak. my mistake.

www.lowesthosting.com...

Free Domain or 1 Year Extension
Unlimited Hits Upto 200GB Transfer
Unlimited POP-3 E-mail Accounts
200 MB of Web Site & Email Storage
No Commitments...Cancel Any Time
Free & Fast 24 x 7 Customer Support

and

Q: WHAT IF I REQUIRE MORE DISK STORAGE?
A: We include 100mb of website storage, 50mb of email storage and 50mb of MySQL Database storage with every account. Few websites ever exceed even 2 megabytes (For example this entire 17 page site is only 1.2 megabytes) however, in the rare event you require more disk space you can expand your account for an additional $1.00 per month per additional 20MB.

you can also upgrade 20mb of storage for an extra dollar a month. I have contacted the hosting company questioning signing a contract. I personally have never heard of this. I pay $20 a month have 25 Email accounts(why? idunno) 25gb of data transfer, $5 extra for an extra 500mb, 100mb of storage space, $5 for 50mb more. I can leave when ever I want.

Speaking of the devil:

Hello Kevin,

We understand from your message that you are interested in our company.
There is no contract you have to agree for signing with us.If you are
not completely satisfied with our excellent high value package, you can
cancel your hosting at anytime. Unlike other firms, we offer a fully
prorated refund based upon the balance of months not used.

Please visit www.lowesthosting.com...!orderhosting.html for our
package and pricing details.We are here 24/7 to assisst you.
Thank you.

Let us know if you require anything else.

Regards,
Santos
Lowesthosting.com support Team

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember if you need to respond to this email, simply REPLY to it as
this keeps your unique support ticket tracking number in the subject
line of the ticket allowing us to track and respond to this issue.

---- Original message ----

> Kevin H Wrote:
>
> I was wondering if you are required to sign any type of contract,
> whether now or in the past. If I was to use you as a webserver, would
> I be able to leave at any time, or be committed on a yearly basis?

I guess that answers that question.

How did Jack phrase it???

The sounds of a toliet flushing?

So no contract, $1 a month more for more space, and only $4.95 to begin with?

The email response only tells us that you don't need a contract, not that they have never entered into 12month contract with client. Perhaps Kevin H. should have posed the proper question. We don't need to know if it's possible to obtain webhosting without a contract. What we need to determine is if there has ever been an instance when the company has used 12month contracts, such as to lock in a specific rate or discount. If they deny ever using a multi-month contract, only then should we question Jill's credibility.

I was the one who sent the Email, then also talked "Live" to someone there. With the info posted above directly from the site, and my Email questioning:
"I was wondering if you are required to sign any type of contract,
> whether now or in the past."

Now or in the Past, and they siad in the Email, and over the phone that they do not require contracts, you are free to leave at any time.

First she needed money for a new hard drive, now she needs money for hosting. There are plenty ways for advertising and the like for her board, It's only $1.00, One Dollar, A BUCK!!! Each 20mb increment, I find more than a dollar on the street in a month. Besides info on her site has gone back to 2002, Why not save the info to your hard drive to free up space on your server, than if anyone requests it she can Email it to them, or put it on her server for a minute. The simple fact she knows about this thread, and countless attempts of contacting her for a reply, have not been replied to. Her actions here, TM, and her own site have been Very Questionable to her credibility. If there is not a problem, then why not talk?

Hi ghostship,

Fair point, but the terms and conditions say a full refund is available for unused months in the case of an annual billing cycle.

Account Cancellation by User
You must notify us via e-mail at [email protected] from the same email address used when signing up for services or the one updated by you to provide proper authentication or via the cancellation link inside the client area labeled "billing" that you wish to cancel your account. Notification may be made at any time and is without additional cost or pentaly. It is the customers responsibility to confirm the cancellation was received by Lowesthosting.com. Once notice of cancellation is received, Lowesthosting.com hosting shall provide a refund via credit card, paypal or check at its discression.

Cancellations within the first 30 days will receive back 100% of monies paid less only the cost of the domain if a domain or domain transfer was supplied. Cancellations after 30 days will receive a prorated refund for the full balance of any unused annual billing cycle based upon the number of months of service remaining in billing cycle. Setup fees, domain costs, and consumed hosting services are non refundable. In the event the customer attempts to circumvent the cancellation procedure by forcing a chargeback or reversal of payment or other dispute Lowesthosting.com shall retain rights to the domain name(s), website files, stored email files untill such fees are and any penalties imposed by Lowesthosting.com are paid.

Modification
Lowesthosting.com reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any provision of this Policy at any time without notice. The date of last modification to this policy is 1/09/2004

There's no statement saying this applies only to certain customers or billing contracts, so it seems to be across the board.

It may seem harsh but offering fabricated reasons to get people send money is simply wrong, at what ever level. She's posted further comments now regarding her reasons, which is fair enough... I'm happy to leave it at that, although it doesn't alter history.

as to the other issue of Jills involvement in the code hoax, she may well have been an innocent party to all of this. She never claimed to find the code, just the video itself, which she said she then sent to Laura and NIEN for analysis.

She also posted a copy of the video herself or her site, which various people downloaded and made available to us.

She may have had every faith in Laura / NIEN. and never checked the video herself.. many didn't, It's quite possible she really thought there WAS a code in the video, which would explain her vociferous defence of the hoax. Without the relevant technical knowledge, the explaination as to how the code was "found" probably sounds quite reasonable.