New Bin Laden tape faked?

[southsider2k5]

If you follow the link there are a lot of hyperlinks embedded into the story.

 

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/09/09...s-it-a-forgery/

 

Thoughts On The Osama Tape: Was It A Forgery?

by Jay @ 11:35 am. Filed under War On Terror, News

 

 

 

There has been a lot of talk in the blogosphere about Osama’s beard. Was it fake? Was it dyed?

Here are a few thoughts from Michael Leeden at the Corner:

 

First, the beard. Robert Spencer finds that Muslims are permitted to dye their hair when going into battle, to confound the enemy into thinking they are young. He links that to the call for the infidels to convert, by now a staple in al Qaeda’s propaganda. It seems to be a tradition: Islam or the sword.

 

The beard looks odd to me. It seems curly or frizzy, for one thing, not at all like the stringy beard of yore. In fact “Osama” looks like a muppet, not like the real thing. Rush had a lot of fun today comparing the video to the time when the terrorists claimed to have captured an American soldier, and provided a photo, which turned out to be a G.I. Joe doll.

 

Osama the muppet huh? Hold on a second…let me assemble these pieces together in order. First…another thought from Leeden:

 

Third, is it really Osama? As you know, I was reliably told something like two years ago that Osama had died. Nothing in this speech sounds at all like the “old” OBL. That man knew how to give a stemwinder, he used elegant language, his threats were blood-curdling, his calls to the faithful inspiring. This man talks like, well, a high school dropout. In fact it reads like an “Onion” spoof. And the sound is bizarre, at least on my IBM desktop. It sounds almost as if there was enough garble in it to make it difficult to match with voice prints of the “real” guy. I’m not convinced.

 

Hmmmm…not the real Osama? Michael isn’t the only one doubting the authenticity of the tape. George Maschke, at the leftist site Booman Tribune, notices that all references to current events are made during the video freeze.

 

Osama Bin Laden’s widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

 

This is causing a lot of interesting discussion at freerepublic.

 

There has also been a lot of discussion about the politics in the video. Some suggesting they sound a lot like the American left.

 

The Telegraph points the finger to American traitor, Adam Gadahn, as the speech writer. This makes a lot of sense.

 

Bin Laden referred to “the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgage” and blamed “global warming and its woes” on “emissions of the factories the major corporations”.

 

A former senior US intelligence official said: “It has Adam Gadahn written all over it.” Mike Baker, a former CIA covert operations officer, said the tape left bin Laden with “the title of biggest gas bag in the terrorist world”.

 

CIA officials said voice analysis of the tape proved it was definitely bin Laden.

 

In conclusion…there are a lot of oddities that open up a lot of questions. What we do know is that the voice analysis says it is Osama. It wouldn’t be a surprise if Adam Gadahn wrote the speech. I think he probably did. It doesn’t really matter, since Al Qaeda has adopted him as a spokesman anyway. So, he wrote it and Osama read it. The only thing of significance we can ponder on from these pecularities of the tape is whether it is an old video voiced over, or a new one. Either way it opens up a lot of new questions. If it is an old one, and the voice is that of Osama, then why does Al Qaeda not want us to see him in his present state? If it is a new one, we come back to questions about the beard, droopy eye, and why all of the current events were during frozen parts of the film.

 

Allahpundit makes a good point:

 

The opening segment is indeed boilerplate but the second segment at 12:36 refers to the Democrats’ failure “to implement your desire to stop the war.” That would have been an odd criticism for Osama to level in 2003 given that popular support for the war in March of that year was bipartisan, with 65% approval, and it would have been in his interest at the time to portray America as united in its “crusade” to make for better jihadist recruitment.

 

Ace counters:

 

I’m not altogether sure of that, A-Man. The Democrats were also intent to end the war in 2004 — John Kerry, anyone? — when we know Osama was alive, and so it is quite possible bin Laden would make precisely such a reference back then. He has, if I’m not mistaken, made these sorts of references in the past, has he not? About the need for politicians to end the war? The reference to Democrats being unable to end the war may be a reference to their failure in the 2004 elections, not their success after the 2006 elections.

 

So I don’t know if that single reference proves he was alive after the November 2006 elections.

 

One thing is for sure. If any part of this video had the intention to squash the rumors and theories that Osama is dead…it failed.

 

Heh! Bullwinkle has it all figured out.

[Texsox]

Real or fake, I guess the question should be, does this speak for the organization? If it does, it doesn't matter if it was OBL speaking or an actor.

[Gregory Pratt]

If you follow the link there are a lot of hyperlinks embedded into the story.

 

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/09/09...s-it-a-forgery/

 

Tin foil!

 

--

 

CIA says the voice is genuine, so that's all that matters to me, and "Freerepublic.com" + discussion = red flags.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php...e-Analysis.html

 

In my last posting I mentioned about the frozen-video and how nothing indicates that Bin Laden is alive today. This was done with video and audio analysis. However, a couple of people have written to me and asked about the image analysis.

 

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. (I've asked another graphics researcher to also look at the image I analyzed, as a cross-check.)

 

One of the limitations of image analysis is that staged environments are not digital fakes. For example, when China Airlines painting over their logo on crashed planes, the pictures did not analyze as being faked -- because they were not. In the case of his beard, it could be a costume mask, or a trimmed and dyed beard.

 

Another limitation concerns image size and resaves. If you make a picture small enough or resave it many times, then the fine details vanish. A picture that looks obviously like a fake cannot be detected as being a fake.

 

With regards to Bin Laden's beard... It cannot be detected with any of my tools as being digitally modified. However:

 

The whole inner frame of Bin Laden was resaved at least twice. The number of reseaves does not appear to be enough to distort significant modifications.

 

 

The colorful border was also saved twice. However...

 

 

Even though the Bin Laden frame and border were both saved twice each, they were not saved at the same time. I know this because the Jpeg artifacts (8x8 squares) are on the 8x8 grid for the Bin Laden frame, but are shifted over on the border -- the border's 8x8 artifacts do not lie on the Jpeg 8x8 grid.

 

 

The whole video frame (border + Bin Laden) was combined from many parts. Here's the order, starting with the last thing added:

 

As-Sahab logo, English subtitles, and text below Bin Laden (alternates between English and Arabic) was added last.

 

"The Solution" and Arabic in the top right corner was the penultimate addition.

 

The Bin Laden frame and border were combined.

 

In the Bin Laden frame, there is no indication of manipulation and no indication of a chromakey replacement. In the border, the spinning globe was modified along with the strobing colors.

 

 

Both saturation and PCA shows fine horizontal stripes on Bin Laden and the background. These came from interlaced video sources. In contrast, the text elements and As-Sahab logo appear to be from non-interlaced sources.

 

My findings are certainly not perfect. I just got the results from a blind test for image analysis. My overall accuracy was 84%. For the question, "Is it computer graphics (CG)?", my tools and methods had 0% false-positives (no claims that a real image is CG), and 27% false-negatives where I claimed the image was real but it was really CG. And most of the false-negatives were award winners from the CG Society; it is a good thing most regular people don't have this kind of artistic skill. Ignoring the CG Society's award winners, my accuracy was in the 90 percentile, but there is always room for error.

 

As for the video and audio analysis: there is no error. The splices are real, and the video does not appear to show any recent indication of Osama Bin Laden being alive today.

[Texsox]

I'm just going to guess that the CIA has at least the same tools as this guy, perhaps more. I am also going to assume that the CIA employs people just as smart.

[BigSqwert]

I'm just going to guess that the CIA has at least the same tools as this guy, perhaps more. I am also going to assume that the CIA employs people just as smart.

You are correct.

 

[southsider2k5]

So a month and a half later, the MSM is starting to pick up on this...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21530470/

 

Was Bin Laden's last video faked?

Video analysts debate whether al-Qaida doctored the video

 

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: 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!”

 

Hany Farid, a digital forensics researcher at Dartmouth College, did his own analysis of the videos for NBC News and disagrees with Krawetz. He suggests that while there are “quirky” aspects to the video, he doesn’t think there is a clear case that the two videos were made at the same time and are certainly not the same video used twice.

 

“I think it's extremely unlikely these are actually the same video,” says Farid. “I know that there's people out there who are saying that it's probably a copy, but I think in what we have seen so far, that is probably not the case. There are just too many differences between the videos, both at the visual level and at sort of a mathematical level.”

 

“We haven't done a complete analysis, but our initial analysis says that this is probably just simply one long video that has been edited down,” referring to the 2007 video.

 

And Farid does agree with Krawetz that there has been no digital manipulation of Bin Laden’s beard color, but has no explanation for it.

 

“There has been a lot of talk about that, and the answer is no, we did not find any manipulation there.” Said Farid, “From a purely digital forensics point of view, we don't have any problem with that part of video.”

 

The key for Farid is not the beard, but the audio. There would be audio differences if they were recorded at different points in time, and Farid says his analysis didn’t detect that.

 

“In our initial investigation, it seems that the acoustic background that we hear is actually consistent throughout the tape, so it doesn't sound like it actually was spliced together from different audio recordings.”

 

 

Farid does admit without intelligence information, there are things he does not understand.

 

“The 2007 video that just was released is a little quirky,” he said. “You see the video start for few minutes— he's talking, he's moving a little bit and then the video freezes, you see a still frame for a good 10, 15 minutes. He moves again a little bit, and then it's a still frame.”

 

“It has been argued that the only time there are mentions of current events are during still frames, when Bin Laden is not actually moving. To suggest that he is perhaps dead — and this video is actually a fake— I don't think that you can necessarily draw that conclusion from the video. I suspect that there are simpler arguments, like when you're editing video, you often have to make cuts and breaks. Or they could have had only one shot at the shoot.”

 

Mo Chen consults and participates in digital forensics research at Binghamton University in New York. He says the discussion is technically limited by the bad quality of the 2004 video and he is unwilling to support either side in the debate.

 

“If we only look at the videos, it's possible that 2007 video is captured from before the 2004 videos. Our problem right now is that the 2004 Bin Laden video quality is too poor. So this limits our research,” said Chen.

 

Chen adds that the lack of any clear “fingerprint” from a digital camera on the video is a major problem. He agrees that this may not be accidental.

 

“There might be due to the technical reason, but it is true that it might be intentional— [that] they don't want people to find any trace [of the ‘fingerprint’] from the videos.”

 

The CIA will not say what it thinks about the possibility, but a senior U.S. intelligence official tells NBC News the U.S. believes the tape is new. He would not discuss the reasons why intelligence analysts feel that way. Another even more senior intelligence official dismissed the possibility that that beard is fake, but would not discuss the reason for the darkened beard.

 

Despite the debate over the most recent Bin Laden video, there is no debate among private analysts or intelligence officials about the increasing use of digital editing, in some cases sophisticated editing in the videos released by al-Qaida.

 

Krawetz said there is no evidence of video editing on the scale seen in the videos of his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri.

 

Krawetz noted in one recent video, Zawahiri was featured in what appeared to be a library, complete with a desk, a banner, a bookshelf and even a toy cannon mounted on the bookshelf.

 

All of it, Krawetz said, was created digitally using software like 3DStudio. Even the lettering on the banner was added separately. The software permits the creation of wire frame images that can be inserted over a green screen.

 

“They use multiple overlays,” said Krawetz. “I suspect they have a portable green screen or black fabric they use for the shoot, then edit the video with multiple overlays,” all of which can be seen in a forensic analysis of the video.

 

“You can tell the number of times it was layered and the order in which the layers were added,” Krawetz added. And a close examination can even determine whether the “green screen” has wrinkles in it. Krawetz said he has noticed the same wrinkle in several Zawahiri videos.

 

None of the software they use is particularly expensive, says Krawetz. The most basic software, from Adobe or Microsoft, can yield the required effects. (Evan Kohlmann, the NBC News counter terrorism analyst, says most of the software is probably pirated, that every major jihadi site has a download section filled with software from companies as big as Microsoft or Adobe.) Nor is the editing time-consuming, especially since digital editing is now so common in al-Qaida videos.

 

Why the subterfuge? Some of it may just be for production value… making what would be a boring background more interesting. But in the case of Bin Laden and Zawahiri, showing them in stable office-like locations has propaganda value. They’re not living in caves or even mud huts, but comfortably, in well-appointed surroundings.

 

 

[Texsox]

The government says it is real, other people disagree. I guess I have to ask why would the government lie? Would this not be considered a success and make President Bush look better?