It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Mark Bingham's Obituary was ready 13 days before 9/11

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Hypothetical question for snowcrash911.

Suppose the "Time created" portion of the Exif/IPTC data for the Bingham photo had been appropriate for an office hours manipulation of the photo on August 8, 2001. Would that make it reasonable to believe that the CNN obit page for Bingham had been created prior to 9/11?


I see what you mean.

The premise of the thread is that Associated Press (letsrollforums say CNN, I believe, but the EXIF metadata is from AP) prepared this picture before 9/11, because the "legend" was already being created. Somehow, however, the perps overlooked the EXIF data exposing their mischief. That's the claim.

But, if the EXIF metadata was saved and Associated Press overlooked this, then why was the time not correctly saved also?

And, if the EXIF metadata was deliberately stripped from a proper time stamp, then why was the date stamp not stripped or corrected as well?

The premise that the EXIF metadata was a "glitch" in the legend/9/11 narrative creation scheme, makes the erroneous time stamp implausible. The time and date stamp were supposedly saved unbeknownst to AP; allowing letsrollforums to "catch AP in the act", therefore, it ought to have been faultless. Yet it's not.

See what I mean?

There's also a plausible reason why the AP photo was taken down from the CNN site: IIRC AP photos have a limited license which expires after a specific time span. CNN could therefore have installed an automatic removal script so as not violate AP's copyright.

I've looked at at least one other AP photo in the archive; it didn't have the same time/date anomaly. One could take that as further evidence supporting letsrollforums' claims, or not.

When judging whether this claim holds any water; that is, that it should truly confirm that Mark Bingham is a 'fake victim' ... then cumulative evidence should be considered.

No phone call has ever been proven fake; in fact, the case for phone call fakery is extremely weak. See this essay on 911blogger, by 911blogger team member Erik Larson. Obviously a big row erupted in the comment section, and those of us who didn't go along with David Ray Griffin's voice morphing theory were snitchjacketed and berated, and we responded, equally testy.

Who has seen Mark Bingham after 9/11? And how was his death (or staged death) prepared for if he boarded at the very last minute? He was supposed to fly on 9/10, but postponed because he woke up with a hangover. Not very professional. How about this?


One passenger was late. Mark Bingham had overslept and his friend, Matthew Hall, drove madly from Manhattan to Newark. They screeched to a halt outside Terminal A at 7:40. Bingham leapt from the car, lugging the old, blue-and-gold canvas bag he'd used as a rugby player at the University of California at Berkeley a decade earlier.

United attendants reopened the door to the boarding ramp and let him on the plane.

Bingham slipped into a seat in aisle 4-D, next to Thomas Burnett. Nine minutes after Hall dropped him off, Bingham picked up his cell phone.

"Hey, it's me," he said. "Thanks for driving so crazy to get me here. I'm in first class, drinking a glass of orange juice."


Source

Are the flight attendants and Bingham's boyfriend (he was gay) in on it? Of course, we don't learn the names of the flight attendants who boarded him because they'd probably be threatened and/or harassed by some no planer and no hijacker theorists as well as "patriotic" zealots who might blame the flight attendants for 9/11, because they boarded the hijackers as well as the passengers for UA 93.

edit on 14-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: Added missing source URL.




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

But, if the EXIF metadata was saved and Associated Press overlooked this, then why was the time not correctly saved also?


I'm way out of my area of expertise here (lounging around is what I am good at), but the "time created" metadata indicates that the last time that the image was manipulated was midnight, August 30, 2001 does it not?


Date/Time Created : 2001:08:30 00:00:00-05:00
Date/Time Original : 2001:08:30 00:00:00-05:00


As a layperson, that is how I would interpret it. You are saying that the null hour indication means that either the time data was erased or that the computer clock was possibly not set properly and you exclude the idea that the image might last have been worked on at midnight, correct?


And, if the EXIF metadata was deliberately stripped from a proper time stamp, then why was the date stamp not stripped or corrected as well?


Again, speaking as a layperson, I am wondering if neither was interfered with.


The premise that the EXIF metadata was a "glitch" in the legend/9/11 narrative creation scheme, makes the erroneous time stamp implausible. The time and date stamp were supposedly saved unbeknownst to AP; allowing letsrollforums to "catch AP in the act", therefore, it ought to have been faultless. Yet it's not.


I'm not sure that that is the case. It seems odd that the time data should be interfered with but not the date data, if interference took place at all. But if the photo were manipulated at midnight, then neither time nor date were touched.


I've looked at at least one other AP photo in the archive; it didn't have the same time/date anomaly. One could take that as further evidence supporting letsrollforums' claims, or not.


It would be interesting to look at all the photos for signs that anyone's computer clock was off, but I don't think evidence of anomalies of that kind will show up. It would be interesting to see if other photos were worked on in the wee hours though.

I'm only interested in evidence of preplanning of 9/11 for purposes of this discussion, but even Bingham's mother's account of her phone conversation with Mark indicates that on some level she herself thought there was something odd about the call.

I am aware of the fact that under stress people may not talk to their loved ones in their usual way, but the words spoken to his mother have raised suspicions among the conspiracy minded, not unreasonably, I think.




edit on 14-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Here is the photo for Kris Bishundet from the archived CNN memorial page:



The time and date creation metadata is as follows:

Creation date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000

Creation time: 00:00:00 - 0500

It would appear that the creation metadata for the photo was somehow simply copied, unchanged when the CNN page was produced. Interesting to note that the time is the same as the Bingham photo. That has to be a systematic artifact, not a coincidence.

I think this lends credance to the notion that the obit memorials were not prepared in advance.

The fact that the Bingham photo's date is so close to 9/11 is probably a coincidence. I can't believe that Bishundet's obit was being written almost two years before his death.

Edit: I just saved the Bishundet photo from this webpage to my hard drive and then re-read the metadata. It was the same as the data on the archived CNN site. This shows that a photo can be copied from somewhere and put somewhere without altering the metadata.

I'm assuming if I resized it in Illustrator or some such program, the metadata would change at that point. The net being thrown around the Bingham photo has too many holes in it, IMHO.
edit on 14-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm way out of my area of expertise here (lounging around is what I am good at), but the "time created" metadata indicates that the last time that the image was manipulated was midnight, August 30, 2001 does it not?


At exactly midnight, to the very second. I find that implausible.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
You are saying that the null hour indication means that either the time data was erased or that the computer clock was possibly not set properly and you exclude the idea that the image might last have been worked on at midnight, correct?


It's possible, but I find it unlikely. I've indicated some possible explanations, such as:

  • Clock error on the AP PC
  • Bug in the EXIF metadata writing routines of the software/scripts used to add the watermark, or to process it otherwise.

    And sure, you could add to that:
  • Was last saved somewhere by Bingham's family on 2001-08-30, then copied into the EXIF metadata by AP software/scripts.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
Again, speaking as a layperson, I am wondering if neither was interfered with.


I believe the EXIF data was most probably last modified by the software: Adobe Photoshop 6.0, including the creation/modification time. However, individual EXIF fields can be selective altered by other software, too.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm not sure that that is the case. It seems odd that the time data should be interfered with but not the date data, if interference took place at all.


But... I didn't claim the time data was interfered with. I feel the date and time fields, when looked at in combination, show some sort of error, due to the unusual time, which indicates a hexadecimal value of 0, which in turn indicates something out of the ordinary. It's possible it was actually exactly midnight, but again, I find that unlikely. This is programmer's instinct. It's derived from a hexadecimal 0 value. If you program enough, you'd know this, too.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
But if the photo were manipulated at midnight, then neither time nor date were touched.


If it were modified at exactly midnight, by Adobe Photoshop 6.0... who works at that hour?


Originally posted by ipsedixit
It would be interesting to look at all the photos for signs that anyone's computer clock was off, but I don't think evidence of anomalies of that kind will show up. It would be interesting to see if other photos were worked on in the wee hours though.


I see you've done so... interesting results. You tried another pic than I did.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm only interested in evidence of preplanning of 9/11 for purposes of this discussion, but even Bingham's mother's account of her phone conversation with Mark indicates that on some level she herself thought there was something odd about the call.


I don't think she did... See, e.g. here.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
I am aware of the fact that under stress people may not talk to their loved ones in their usual way, but the words spoken to his mother have raised suspicions among the conspiracy minded, not unreasonably, I think.


Well, the problem with that is what I call "falsification-speculation". First you falsify, and even if you succeed, and proceed to speculate an alternative, that doesn't make such speculation fact. In other words, two serious pitfalls. In this case, leading to "voice morphing theory". Have you read Erik Larson's essay? I recommend you sit down for it and do that some time. It's lengthy, but then again unfortunately given the scope of the claims, it needs to be.

I have another thing to figure out: the time zone, UTC - 5, ought to denote Central Daylight Time (CDT) in August/September. Otherwise, if for some reason, daylight savings is malconfigured on the PC in question, it denotes EST: NYC, Washington DC, etc. etc.

Perhaps something to follow up on.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

I don't think she did... See, e.g. here.


I'm just going by her facial expression in the video I embedded. To me it indicates that she reacted oddly to his opening words. She's reacting oddly, in the video, as she recalls what he said.

People will interpret her expressions as they see them, but to me she is indicating some kind of deviation from the norm in his opening words of the phone call.


edit on 14-12-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
This just in.

Poor quality, but it will have to do for now...



Source

Undoubtedly... this is 'fake' too... You know. Can't have theories about 'fake victims' spoiled.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
This just in.

Poor quality, but it will have to do for now...



Source

Undoubtedly... this is 'fake' too... You know. Can't have theories about 'fake victims' spoiled.



"This just in."

Now that you finally are out of the closet, it's good to see

that you openly mention the "assistants" who for so long

have supplied you with the diverse and varied information

you so eagerly have bandied around in various forums!



Cheers



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
"This just in."

Now that you finally are out of the closet, it's good to see

that you openly mention the "assistants" who for so long

have supplied you with the diverse and varied information

you so eagerly have bandied around in various forums!



Cheers


Now now now.... why all the bitterness? Have you decided on a single alias yet, rather than switching between "Señor El Once", "Herr Der Elf" and "djeminy" depending on the venue? How about the pity-eliciting gambit where you tell everybody you feel so stupid for believing Judy Woods and No Plane Theories but you just can't help yourself? Have you found this victim playing tactic to be of much use in keeping total non-starter disinfo on the table?

Why did I say "this just in" ....? Because I browsed Mike Williams' website and noticed something new under the "what's new" section. The data's provenance is NARA. Sigh. I sincerely wonder sometimes if it should be researchers or doctors who deal with no planers, because researchers who post information in contradiction to NPT delusions are simply dealt with by folding them into the conspiracy.
edit on 16-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by djeminy
"This just in."

Now that you finally are out of the closet, it's good to see

that you openly mention the "assistants" who for so long

have supplied you with the diverse and varied information

you so eagerly have bandied around in various forums!



Cheers


Now now now.... why all the bitterness? Have you decided on a single alias yet, rather than switching between "Señor El Once", "Herr Der Elf" and "djeminy" depending on the venue?



What in heavens name are you talking about, you silly silly .....silly boy??


Cheers



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
What in heavens name are you talking about, you silly silly .....silly boy??

Cheers


I won't press on. So.... Got anything substantial to contribute to the topic besides ad hominem?



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glargod
Oh how the Rabbit Hole runs deep!



'Mark Bingham was sold and told to us to be one of the heros of September 11th. The U.S. State Run media told us so. Later the U.S. Congress would also say the same by making an official Memoriam for Alan Beaven. Mr. Bingham was one of those who gathered both their wit and their courage, and allied with several other bravado's from Flight 93, stormed the hijackers and the cockpit, ejecting the hijackers, and saving what we were told was the intended target, the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. They successfully foiled the plan on this one flight, but in doing so, sacrificed their own lives. They died unbeaten, unbroken. They went down in flames. This band of brothers died as Hero's of the first class. True blue to the core. There is a problem however. All of it is was a lie. None of it ever happened.'


9/11 Flight 93: - Who Was 'Let's Roll Hero' Mark Bingham When 'His Picture, Profile And Obituary Were Ready To Go 13 Days Before September 11th'?

Hero Obituary?
interesting. how much evidence has to pile up before people start asking questions?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by newfound
 



interesting. how much evidence has to pile up before people start asking questions?


I think the appropriate answer here would be "any".




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join