Prediction on Bin Laden Death Photos

Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed a couple of days ago at his compound in Afghanistan. Before burying him at sea, gruesome pictures were supposedly taken of him with a bullet through the left side of his head. They're debating whether to release the photos.

9/11 "truthers" have long suspected that Bin Laden was a CIA asset, going back to his days as a pro-U.S. "freedom fighter" in the Afghan war against the U.S.S.R. FOX news reported Bin Laden's death on December 26, 2001. Who knows the truth? I certainly don't claim to. I doubt Barrack Obama knows the truth either.

What is clear is that they very much want us to believe that they finally got that bad guy. Here's my prediction:

They will officially decline to release the photos, citing concerns that it will foment anti-American sentiment. Then the photos will be "leaked", the classic method of getting us to focus on the issues surrounding leaks per se, while accepting the government lies as gospel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Bin Laden is still alive, nor am I saying he died long ago. I'm saying that I don't know, you don't know, and it's un-knowable.

Obama's Forged Birth Certificate = Silverstein's "Pull it"

Yesterday the web exploded with proof that Obama's newly released "long form" birth certificate is a forgery. Clearly it has been hacked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

The birth certificate, available on the White House website, is in PDF format. Opening the file in Adobe Illustrator allows us to see that the document was assembled in multiple layers. Usually a graphic artist will "flatten" a composited image for final output, merging all layers into one final picture. Apparently Obama's guys "forgot" to do that. Even had they flattened the layers, there are other glaring mistakes, such as the mismatching colors on adjacent characters.

Could the holy graphic artist really be so incompetent? I highly doubt it. They could make a perfect forgery if they wanted to, and could have done so years ago. They wanted us to obsess on this file. They question is, why?

I think it's a distraction, like Clinton's Monica Lewinski. It's also a lot like Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark. For anyone who doesn't know, Silverstein was the the brand-new lease holder on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Speaking about WTC7 in a government documentary show, he said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision, to pull, and then we watched the building collapse".

For years afterward, the 9/11 "truth" movement spent tremendous time and energy on "pull it". They said "pull it" was jargon from the controlled demolition industry meaning "initiate the demolition", as in "pull the building". They suggested that Silverstein slipped up, and admitted that WTC7 was blown up. How this supposed slip up was allowed to make it to an edited government documentary program was never explained.

The official story supporters echoed the subsequent explanation given by Silverstein's spokesperson. According to them, "pull it" meant "pull the firefighting effort out of the building". Why would Silverstein would have said "pull it" rather than "pull them"? Why was such an ambiguous statement in the show to begin with? If they had wanted us to have a clear statement, they surely would have given us one.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Silverstein's "pull it" was a carefully crafted statement, designed to do exactly what it did: generate obsession and debate, while still having some plausible deniability. It was a distraction.

And so it is with Obama's birth certificate. It's a hacked up photoshop job all right. But the official story is that a software process of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) generated the separate layers in the file. It is true that the OCR (and/or "PDF Optimization") can generate layers recognized by Adobe Illustrator, but it cannot create anything remotely resembling what is seen in the laughable Obama birth certificate. Still, most people don't have the software, or will not bother to check it out in depth. For those inclined to support the official story, OCR is good enough.

The forged birth certificate is a lightening rod, designed to draw the fire, and keep us focused on that. Why? Are we supposed to forget about Libya? Is there a new war brewing? Are they planning to install a new president next election? Is it just an exercise in audacity, as if to say "Yeah, we forged it. What are you going to do about it?"

I don't know where Obama was born, and I don't care. I don't support what politicians do, regardless.

Wikileaks is a U.S. Asset

Wikileaks is surely a U.S. counter-intelligence operation. It is simply a new portal for an old tactic. Government agents have long been packaging certain key pieces of propaganda as "leaks". Doing so serves the purpose of bypassing scrutiny of the content of the message. Focus is instead placed on questions such as . . .

Who leaked the information?
How much damage was done to national security?
What can be done to contain the leak?
How can we prevent future leaks?
How should we punish the person who leaked the information?

. . . instead of asking the fundamental question:

Is this information true?

In addition to the goal of garnering unquestioning public acceptance of important lies, "leaks" propagate the "government can't keep a secret" meme. This is a key pillar in defense of large disinformation campaigns protecting, for example, 9/11. Recently AP news has started citing "Leak" as an allegedly reliable source, the same way they have for a long time cited "government sources" or "a high ranking Pentagon official" or whatever.

If you believe that large groups of people cannot keep a secret for a long time, then answer the following. What are the accomplishments of the NSA? Where can I download plans to build a nuclear weapon?

Facebook and the Controlled Opposition

Facebook is suing Teachbook in federal court, alleging trademark infringement. They claim that use of the word "book" in the name of a social networking site dilutes the value of their famous brand. A great number of reports have appeared about it, see this, and this, for instance.


I suspect Facebook secretly owns Teachbook. This unfolding drama makes much more sense to me in that light. Let's think about it.

You may or may not know, most teachers are reluctant to use Facebook, citing privacy concerns, fearing their students will friend them. Owning a spin-off site for teachers, with privacy, would be a nice solution. What's a cost-effective way to get the word out, and jump start subscriptions? A nice controversial lawsuit. Membership on Teachbook has gone from a mere 10 users, to nearly 5000, just in the last few days as news of the lawsuit spread.

If Facebook can prevail in the lawsuit, it will establish precedent that it enjoys a trademark in the suffix "book". The best chance for a plaintiff to win in such an endeavor is to control the defendant. And, as Vladimir Lenin so infamously said:

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

We should pay careful attention to how Teachbook handles their defense. There are any number of ways that they could underlitigate, and try to lose on purpose. The first would be answering the complaint right away. Their first two moves should be:

1. Under California law, file an anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike. This is a low-cost Motion that would force Facebook to essentially prove up its whole case right at the beginning, just to proceed to discovery. This is a federal case, the judge may or may not allow the California statute 425.16 to be used.

2. File a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. This is standard defense in almost every federal case. The judge would have the authority to toss the case right out, again, prior to any discovery.

If Teachbook doesn't respond with those two moves, I will immediately smell a rat. However, even if Teachbook litigates vigorously, and even if they get the case dismissed, or even if they counterclaim against Facebook and prevail, it still makes sense that Facebook is behind it. After all, what harm is there in losing a court case to yourself?

I think Facebook is playing both sides in this game, and they have created a no-lose situation for themselves. The worst case is that Teachbook becomes popular among teachers, and Facebook has solved their teacher problem. The best case is all that, PLUS they really do get to own the word "book", and then force every other "book" site to surrender their name.

It's brilliant, and it's the only scenario that makes sense to me. Why else would Facebook risk suing a little tiny website with nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a potential counter-suit?

Fractional Reserve Bandwidth

I'm convinced AT&T are selling more bandwidth than they actually have. I have AT&T DSL, and my connection speed varies dramatically throughout the day. We've had the service guy out twice, he's changed a line filter and whatnot, but it really has made no difference.

Usually I get about 2.5 Mb/sec download, which is bad enough, I understand many DSL connections achieve up to 8 Mb/sec. But then it will clog up and I'll get only 20% of what I was getting just a minute before. The performance fluctuates throughout the day and night, but the most likely time to get the really slow speeds is early evening, so it seems correlated to peak hours.

My understanding was that a DSL is a hardwire connection to the internet. Its bandwidth should not vary. I highly suspect AT&T has developed a scheme that continuously re-allocates bandwidth among active users, "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Not all of their customers use the internet at the same time. For a certain number of users, the re-allocation would be unnoticeable. But the more users on the grid, the more performance would have to suffer. The temptation on the part of AT&T would be to service as many customers as possible for a given hardware investment.

This is not unlike the way banks originated the process of "fractional reserve banking", where they would fraudulently issue paper receipts for gold far in excess of the gold they actually possessed. Of course, the banks eventually managed to "legitimize" the practice and eliminate the obligation to redeem in gold at all.

Is anyone else experiencing fractional reserve bandwidth? Is this what you paid for? How might the large internet providers seek to legitimize the practice, once it becomes known?

Nuking the Airplane Hole

(click to enlarge)

Here's a stabilized sequence from Jennifer Spell's video, after the "airplane" goes in, and waits, then two totally different types of explosions occur. One is the spectacular orange-black hydrocarbon fireball,  meant to represent "jet fuel". But notice the explosion on the lower left. Point sources leave expanding white trails. This looks very much like what happens to the entire building later on, which looks very much like known nuclear reactions. 

Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.

Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.

Dr Wade's research team filmed 60 subjects as they took part in a computerised gambling task. The subjects were unknowingly seated next to a member of the research team as they both separately answered a series of multiple-choice general knowledge questions.

All subjects were given a pile of fake money to gamble with and they shared a pile of money that represented the bank. Their task was to earn as much money as possible by typing in an amount of money to gamble on the chances of them answering each question correctly. They were told the person who made the highest profit would win a prize.

When they answered each question, subjects saw either a green tick on their computer monitor to show their answer was correct, or a red cross to show it was incorrect. If the answer was wrong, they would be told to return the money to the bank.

After the session, the video footage was doctored to make it look as if the member of the research team sat next to the subject was cheating by not putting money back into the bank.

One third of the subjects were told that the person sat next to them was suspected of cheating. Another third were told the person had been caught on camera cheating, and the remaining group were actually shown the fake video footage. All subjects were then asked to sign a statement only if they had seen the cheating take place.

Nearly 40% of the participants who had seen the doctored video complied. Another 10% of the group signed when asked a second time by the researchers. Only 10% of those who were told the incident had been caught on film but were not shown the video agreed to sign, and about 5% of the control group who were just told about the cheating signed the statement.

Dr Wade said: "Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed."

For more information, please contact Kelly Parkes-Harrison, Communications Officer, University of Warwick 02476 150483/02476 574255, 07824 540863, K.E.Parkes@warwick.ac.uk

.............................................................

Kelly Parkes-Harrison

Communications Officer 

University of Warwick 02476

Dear Kelly,

I read with tremendous interest Dr. Wade's recent study on fake video altering eyewitness accounts. I'm an expert in video compositing, and I have authored a treatise proving that the airplane videos broadcast on 9/11 were in fact fake. That is, the 9/11 airplane videos were authentic footage with a fake airplane image inserted into them. 

None of the live 9/11 airplane videos actually showed an airplane hitting anything, rather the airplane disappears across the straight edge of a tower. The live videos had all of the compositional characteristics required for live video compositing, which in and of itself would be extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. Those that did show the penetration came only later, after there was plenty of time to composite in the actual airplane penetration. 

These penetration videos are provably fake. The airplane goes through the steel wall without any physics at all -  no bending, crashing, breaking, slowing down - quite impossible. A real airplane would react to the impact with the much stronger tower, parts would break off, many would fall to the ground. 

One frame of video shows the wing of the airplane past the wall of the tower, yet no damage to the wall. 

Mistakes were made in one live video, known as "Chopper 5". The nose of the fake airplane image accidentally popped out of the back site of a video mask, making it appear as though the nose of the airplane came out the back side of the tower. This is quite impossible, as the nose of a 767 airplane is plastic, and hollow, and nobody alleges that the nose actually came out. Various attempts have been made to explain it away, but the fact is, it looks exactly like the nose of a Boeing 767, and this is exactly the kind of problem you might have in trying to do a live video composite like this. 

There are many, many other anomalies, all supporting the video composite hypothesis, and ruling out real airplane crashes. The only evidence for real airplanes are the eyewitnesses, and that's where Dr. Wade's study comes in. I wish to thank her for it, and you can rest assured I will reference it in my future work, including my upcoming film, "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera". 

My treatise may be studied here:

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/

 

I would welcome any comment you have.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker