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.

 

Cronkite:Karl Rove behind Bin Laden tape

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nikosmo

Originally posted by marg6043
From day one, you have to notice that the face in the video is not bin-laden, unless he had some fight and broke his nose.



Yup, the nose. Look at the lenght of it, quit different than on the older pics...


how do you know the older pics arent the fake UBL and this recent UBl the real pic? okay, old UBL has been seen many times and we get his standard face but is he really real?




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
If you look at the polls these video messages have done NOTHING for Bush and CO.


It wasn't meant to to offend, I am guilty of the same thing myself, we all are. Saying that noone is, is a lie. Did you get a chance to check out RANT's article with the comments from the Republican Party officers? They said anything instilling nervousness in the American voters or bringing up the war on terror is good for Bush. It's back on page 1, don't worry, it's not too hard to find. That is the core of your argument, isn't it? Yes, go check it out.


LL1

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
You are correct
stated he committed 9/11 BEFORE this new video/tape

As for there being a watch on his left hand, no, if you look closely
at the al Jazeera photo of the video, both OBL's right and left hand
show a dark colored shirt underneath the traditional clothing.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Well, I could just be dancing on words here, but in that article he never readily admitted that he was behind 9/11. Even the article tries to prove to the reader that he was stating he was behind it. Though, he never gave an outright statement saying that he did do it. As well, there is some discrepancy about whether it was actually him.


LL1

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
See his raised right hand? He has a shirt on that is dark in color.
So it appears to be a watch on his left hand, when he usually wears the watch on his right wrist.

Look at OBL wrists



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Now this is the problem with our media today. You have some sources saying he did claim responsibility, and then some say he denies it.



In a statement faxed to the pro-Taliban Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) agency, Bin Laden yesterday denied having anything to do with last week's attacks in New York and Washington. "I am residing in Afghanistan. I have taken an oath of allegiance [to the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar] which does not allow me to do such things from Afghanistan," he claimed.

"We have been blamed in the past, but we were not involved," he said. The fax, written in Arabic, was sent from a secret location, AIP said.

Full Story dated Monday September 17, 2001



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
So it appears that the majority of people on this thread think That its not OBL in the new video. Im so glad im not the only one
Are any of you a photshop person? The reason I ask is you could take the new pic and transpose it over the old pic just to see how nothing matches up. I did a side by side comparison and the shoulder and head measurments are not the same. The hight from eyes to shoulder ar different, the width of the head is different. Even the spacing of the eyes are not the same. I am not an expert at this stuff and I could spot it. Whom ever chose this person to portray OBL should loose his job



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I'm not an expert, just some thoughts, YMMV, yada yada.

1. Aspect ratios can and do change in video streams and still images. The image in the title post seems to be vertically compressed -- probably due to a format conversion, making Osama seem shorter and wider. Accounting for that, it looks very much like the same man to me.

2. Osama has appeared in previous videos with apparent lack of movement of his left arm, probably due to an injury. His left arm may be significantly impaired, requiring him to rely on his right arm for things like writing. If this is so, that would explain why the watch is now on his left wrist.

3. A convincing forgery of a Bin Laden speech would need to consider not only his left-handedness, but also his speech and mannerisms which are very distinctive. They appear to match previous videos and images of Bin Laden very well.

I suppose only the CIA knows for sure, but this looks like the same guy to me -- just a little older.


LL1

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
This would account for the swollen face in the new tape.
The shoulders are short, and end off rounded down in both pics.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
1. Aspect ratios can and do change in video streams and still images.


I dont think this is the case here as the video on the net, and the vid that has been aired both look identical. The aired video is not streamed. Its a tape thats put in a high end VCR and is broadcast to TV's. Also, nothing else in the vid looks like its short and squat. I do agree that they look similar to each other, but there are many differances that just stand out to me.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
It's probably why they have him standing behind a podium, so you can't really judge his height.

Don't forget, OBL is 6 ft 8in tall. That must be a really tall podium!



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Has anyone examined the CNN/Larry King transcript yet? Something interesting I noted when reading it - Cronkite had to ask what year the last election took place in and then later on in the same interview had to be corrected when said the last election was in 19...

From Larry King transcript


CRONKITE: Who's to blame for it really is the intensity of this campaign. Plus the fact that we have a preface to this in the last campaign. What year was that now?

KING: 2000.

CRONKITE: 2000. Thank you very much.


and


KING: Will Ralph Nader be a factor?

CRONKITE: He certainly could be. He was very serious factor with 3 percent of the vote, not quite 3 percent of the vote in 19...

KING: 2000.

CRONKITE: 2000, that is. I've covered too many presidential campaigns. In 2000. And, look, Ross Perot had 9 percent the year that he ran seriously. Just think if Nader got anything like that. He can certainly upset the vote across the nation.


Looks like the old boy ain't functioning on all thrusters anymore.
Now I know this is not going to change the opinion of the "govt. did it folks", but it should be a part of the discussion.

B



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Bleys : Thanks for that post - it does give a clearer picture of the situation under which his comment was made. He was a great reporter but we all get older and our faculties dim.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Your right , so lets discuss it. If you were older than Mathusela, and you had covered God knows how many elections, would you be anle to keep them all straight? Yes he is getting old, and yes as age sets in, your synopsis dont fire as quick as when you were 18, but it doesnt change his credability or his charactar.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The man turns 88 this week. I have respect for his body of work and his age, but that doesn't mean I can take his opinions seriously when he can't keep the date of an election of 4 years ago straight in his head for 5 minutes.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys


From Larry King transcript


CRONKITE: Who's to blame for it really is the intensity of this campaign. Plus the fact that we have a preface to this in the last campaign. What year was that now?

KING: 2000.

CRONKITE: 2000. Thank you very much.






CRONKITE: 2000, that is. I've covered too many presidential campaigns. In 2000. And, look, Ross Perot had 9 percent the year that he ran seriously. Just think if Nader got anything like that. He can certainly upset the vote across the nation.


.

B
He knew what Ross Perot had- I dont think so. So now the man is senile?

Anytime anyone says anything anymore they're senile, if they're not pushing for Bush.
If this is so, then Bushs lack of intellect and his unability to form sentences proves that he's a dummy.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by Bleys
CRONKITE: 2000, that is. I've covered too many presidential campaigns. In 2000. And, look, Ross Perot had 9 percent the year that he ran seriously. Just think if Nader got anything like that. He can certainly upset the vote across the nation.


He knew what Ross Perot had- I dont think so. So now the man is senile?



No my dear, Cronkite was wrong about this too. But thanks for pointing it out. The year Perot ran seriously (to use Cronkite's terminology) he got 18% of the vote not 9%.

As to your question - do I think Cronkite is senile - probably, do I think his comments were politically motivated - you betcha.

B

Perot, Clinton, Bush vote count



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Until this footage is verified, the time stamp examined, the sources proven, it remains a big "so what" and "what if".
The CIA has an entire department devoted to nothing but video and film production. Hell, I have a video I made recently of my kids light sabre fighting in the living room, it looks real though...
And just so you know, our CIA was meeting Osama in an american hospital in Duabi a few months before the attacks. What does that tell you? We turned down numerous offers of his extradition, what would that allude to? Get real folks. Osama=Goldstien 1984.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
They said anything instilling nervousness in the American voters or bringing up the war on terror is good for Bush.


Well if they planned this out they were sorely wrong. Bush has lost points since these videos have been released. The theory was that if people stay scared for terrorism that they will rally behind Bush. The reason why is that they don't know anyone or anything else since this "War on Terror" has started. The point I was trying to get across is that the Bush administration has really tried to keep shut up about UBL and throw the concern into Iraq where "All of Al Qaeda" seems to be. They didnt want you to think about UBL cause they didnt think they could get him. More and more people were beginning to think he was dead and then he appears in a video nearly taunting the American public.

Eh, its all a matter of speculation. Its good to keep these things in mind anyway you cut it. But I really think somethings are much more tranparent than they seem. But then again I could be wrong!



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Bush wins boost from terror tape


A Newsweek tracker poll published yesterday suggested the momentum may be moving in the incumbent's way. The poll predicted Bush to win by 50 per cent to Kerry's 44, compared with a 48-46 gap last week.


observer.guardian.co.uk... ml

Seems that Bush is helped by the tape according to some polls. Good timing too, don't you think?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join