Was Bin Laden's last video faked?

2004 Bin Laden video .............2007 Bin Laden video
from October 29, 2004............ from September 7, 2007


By Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco

When al-Qaida’s media arm released its first Osama Bin Laden video in nearly three years, most of the media attention was focused on Bin Laden's beard. It appeared either dyed — or perhaps even pasted on. He was ridiculed and a variety of theories were offered to explain it.
But now, there is a running debate among video analysts about whether al-Qaida faked the video altogether —that rather than being new, the September 7 message may have been something recorded at the same time as his last video in October 2004 (and then released with new audio).

The point of departure for the debate is something not noted at the time: ( WE NOTED IT ) that of the 25 minutes of video tape, only three and a half minutes, were moving video. The rest was covered by a still image or a frozen still. Moreover, the still covered the only time references on the 25 minute of tape— references to political developments in Iraq, Britain and France. This lead to the suspicion that the video is not new, but disguised to appear as new.
A senior U.S. intelligence official says they believe the message is authentic, adding “it remains our view that the September 7 Bin Laden video is, in fact, new… interesting but not compelling.”
The leading proponent of the theory is a computer scientist and self-described hacker Dr. Neal Krawetz of Colorado. Krawetz, who makes his living a computer security consultant, tells NBC News in interviews and e-mails that the similarities between the October 29, 2004 tape and the September 7, 2007 tape are too great to be coincidental.

“Here is Bin Laden in the same clothing, same studio, same studio setup, and same desk THREE YEARS LATER,” wrote Krawetz in his blog, hackerfactor.org, and in an interview with NBC News. “In fact, his stack of papers that he reads are moved between the exact same stacks. If you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years -- only his beard is darker.”
What’s his theory on the beard color? “The contrast on the picture has been adjusted.” He notes it’s not the just the beard that is darker. Bin Laden’s eye sockets are darker as well. Krawetz does not think that the beard color has been digitally manipulated however. According to his e-mail: “As far as my tools can detect, there has been no image manipulation of the Bin Laden portion of the image beyond contrast adjustment. His beard really does appear to be that color.”
”What are the chances of nothing changing (except his beard) in three years? Virtually zero. The clips appear to have been recorded three years ago,” adds Krawetz.
Krawetz does not believe that al-Qaida used the exact same video it did in 2004. Instead, he suspects that al-Qaida had recorded much more video than it released in 2004. There may have even been two sittings. “The main thing I am getting at: I am not saying that they are the same recording,” he said. “I believe they recorded a speech, changed a little, and then recorded some more. (Under this same theory, they may have done it many times and AQ just has not released other videos yet).”
“I am saying the two videos were likely made either on the same day or within days of each other.”
There are indeed slight differences but Krawetz says they are easily explained.
“The ‘graybeard’ (video) had the yellow tunic unzipped (unbuttoned?) while ‘blackbeard’ is zipped up at the bottom. This actually makes sense under the theory that these are two different recordings taking on the same day (or within the same few days),” Krawetz wrote in an e-mail.
For Krawetz, Bin Laden's clothing says a lot. “If you were on the run through mountains on foot, would you be carrying around unnecessary clothing? No. You would only take the essentials. A fancy shirt and yellow (tunic) are not essential for mountain life on the run. If, in the future, you find that you need a nice shirt and sweater, you would get new ones!”

”What are the chances of nothing changing (except his beard) in three years? Virtually zero. The clips appear to have been recorded three years ago,” adds Krawetz.
Krawetz does not believe that al-Qaida used the exact same video it did in 2004. Instead, he suspects that al-Qaida had recorded much more video than it released in 2004. There may have even been two sittings. “The main thing I am getting at: I am not saying that they are the same recording,” he said. “I believe they recorded a speech, changed a little, and then recorded some more. (Under this same theory, they may have done it many times and AQ just has not released other videos yet).”
“I am saying the two videos were likely made either on the same day or within days of each other.”
There are indeed slight differences but Krawetz says they are easily explained.
“The ‘graybeard’ (video) had the yellow tunic unzipped (unbuttoned?) while ‘blackbeard’ is zipped up at the bottom. This actually makes sense under the theory that these are two different recordings taking on the same day (or within the same few days),” Krawetz wrote in an e-mail.
SOURCE: More:

You can see both vids here.

FRENCH CONNECTION TO DEATH OF DAN PEARL

Holding the Media Accountable

From today’s Wall Street Journal, the hopeful story of a chance for justice in France. Pictured here are a faked photo that became a Palestinian icon and the courageous French journalist who has fought for the truth, much as did Emile Zola in the Dreyfus Affair.

WATCHING THE NEWS

Palestinian Propaganda Coup
A judge in France has a chance to hold the media accountable.

BY NATAN SHARANSKY
Sunday, October 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last month, a French court heard an appeals case whose forthcoming verdict will have far-reaching ramifications for all who value truth and accuracy in Middle East news reporting. The case involves Philippe Karsenty, a French journalist and media commentator, who was found guilty of defamation after he called for the firing of two France 2 Television journalists responsible for the Sept. 30, 2000, news report on the alleged killing of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Dura, by the Israel Defense Forces.

It has been seven years since France 2 Television broadcast the excruciating footage of Mohammed and his father, Jamal, crouching in terror behind a barrel in Gaza’s Netzarim Junction while, according to the report, under relentless fire from IDF soldiers. The 59-second clip, which ends with the boy apparently shot dead, was presented around the world as an unambiguous case of Israeli savagery.

The tape fanned the flames of what became known as the second intifada. The boy Mohammed was the iconic martyr, his name and face gracing streets, parks and postage stamps across the Arab world. His memory was invoked by Osama bin Laden in a jihadist screed against America, and in the ghastly video of the beheading of American Jewish journalist, Daniel Pearl.

DID THIS VIDEO CONTRIBUTE TO THE BEHEADING OF DANIEL PEARL?

Shortly following the al-Dura incident, however, a series of inquiries cast grave doubt on the accuracy of the original France 2 report. The official IDF investigation concluded that, based on the position of IDF forces vis-à-vis the Duras, it was highly improbable, if not impossible, that an Israeli bullet hit the boy. Research by The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic and Commentary magazine concurred. Then a German documentary revealed inconsistencies and probable manipulations in the account of France 2’s lone journalist on the scene that day, Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahmeh.

And yet France 2 refused to release Abu Rahmeh’s full 27 minutes of raw footage. It did, however, agree to let three prominent French journalists view the footage. All three concluded that it comprised blatantly staged scenes of Palestinians being shot by Israeli forces, and that France 2’s Jerusalem Bureau Chief Charles Enderlin had lied to conceal that fact.

Subsequently, alleging gross malfeasance, Mr. Karsenty called for the firings of Mr. Enderlin and France 2 News Director Arlette Chabot. But France 2 stood defiant, suing Mr. Karsenty for defamation.

The defamation trial passed almost unnoticed in Israel, to the apparent detriment of Mr. Karsenty’s case. In his ruling in favor of France 2, judge Joël Boyer five times cited the absence of any official Israeli support for Mr. Karsenty’s claims as indication of their speciousness.

Israel’s decision to stay on the sidelines was unfortunate because the truth always matters. The al-Dura incident wasn’t the only media report to inflame passions against Israel in recent years, but it was the one with the highest profile. Moreover, if, as Mr. Karsenty and others have claimed persuasively, the al-Dura incident is part of the insidious trend in which Western media outlets allow themselves to be manipulated by dishonest and politically motivated sources (recall the Jenin “massacre” that never was, or the doctored Reuters photos from Israel’s war against Hezbollah in 2006), then France 2 must be held accountable.

It is important to note that the al-Dura news report profoundly influenced Western public opinion. When I served in the Israeli government as minister of Diaspora affairs from 2003 to 2005, I traveled frequently to North American college campuses. I heard firsthand how Mohammed al-Dura had shaped the perceptions of young people just beginning to follow events in the Middle East. For many Jewish students, the incident was a stain of dishonor that called into question their support for Israel. For anti-Israel students, the story reaffirmed their sense of Zionism’s innately “racist” nature and became a tool for recruiting campus peers to the cause.

To its credit, Israel has come to recognize that it must play an active role in uncovering the truth. The IDF recently sent a letter to France 2 demanding the release of Talal Abu Rahmeh’s 27 minutes of raw footage, asserting the implausibility of IDF guilt for the death of Mohammad al-Dura, and raising the possibility that the entire affair may have been staged.

Tragically, there is no way to repair the damage inflicted on Israel’s international image by the France 2 report, much less restore the Israeli and Jewish victims whose lives were exacted as vengeance. It is possible, however, to deter slanderous news reporting–and the violence that often accompanies it–by setting a precedent for media accountability via the handover of Talal Abu Rahmeh’s full 27 minutes of raw footage. Encouragingly, the judge presiding over Mr. Karsenty’s appeal has now requested the tapes. France 2 must make a full public disclosure. If there is nothing to hide, why should it refuse?

THERE SHOULD BE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AIDING AND ABETTING THE TERRORISTS, CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Sharansky is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

Source:

CAPS ARE MINE

GERALD