TA-ANALYSIS: 'Code' Found in Latest bin Laden Video Could be Hoax

I hear you. I was only saying that, if it were me conducting the investigation, I would have asked enough questions to be sure that no-one could have ever been given a contract. Otherwise, by posing as a potential customer, looking at a contract and talking to a salesperson that's trying to overcome an objection (we raised the "contract" issue), we may not be getting to the real answer we need.

As for the rest of it...if she trully does have questionable ethics, could she have supplied NEIN with a doctored video file? They are competitors now, aren't they? What better way to discredit them and increase your user base at the same time. The file on her site was version #2, wasn't the original labeled 'to amirika iraq', not 'to amirika iraq2' ?

I really don't know enough to form an opinion yet. I know that I've also been unable to make the codes appear from the video file that was on her site. I just like to be cautious and/or certain when I accuse someone of wrong doing.

Maybe I should just go back to lurking

Okay. Redirect. Either discuss the video itself. Which should be able to be analyzed upon its own technical merits. Or I'll ask to have this thread locked.

It's turned into a great big bash-fest.

Originally posted by ghostship

Maybe I should just go back to lurking

No. not at all.. you make fair points, and all contributions are good!

No need to lurk. welcome to ATS btw! You might want to say Hi over at the Introductions thread. hope to see you around

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay. Redirect. Either discuss the video itself. Which should be able to be analyzed upon its own technical merits. Or I'll ask to have this thread locked.

It's turned into a great big bash-fest.

You are correct Valhall, and I apologize to you for allowing myself to beheave that way. Please leave this thread here as I am looking forward to muppets full analysis once he has compiled it.

Oh, I don't think anybody has acted naughty or anything phreak. LOL. It is just that this IS an ATSNN thread.

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay. Redirect. Either discuss the video itself. Which should be able to be analyzed upon its own technical merits. Or I'll ask to have this thread locked.

It's turned into a great big bash-fest.

You're right Valhall... sorry about that. I think I dragged it a bit off topic..

With regards to the technical aspects, here's a summary of some of the main issues.


1/ The compression artifacts on the still image are those of the jpg codec, not the DivX codec, which was used for the video.

2/ The appears to be only one version of the video, that we have seen. This video was downloaded from Jill's site which claimed it contained the code. There weas however no code in that video.

3/ Other people had downloaded the video from various sources, and none have come forward to say they found the code.

4/ If the code WERE in the video, it would have been plainly visible during normal playback. an image is certainly not invisible because it only appears on one frame. Therefore the whole story about the code being found through the chance stopping on a particular frame is inplausible.

5/ It has been claimed that the videos and code were taken down at the request of intelligence agencies. However they are still available here. From what I read here, the owner of this site has a good working relationshipi with the intelligence agencies. They have asked him to remove things in the past, and he as happily complied. So why has this site not been asked to take them down?

plus...Not really technical, but if you were a terrorist, trying to get a secret message to other terrorists, would you use a publically posted Bin Laden video as the medium, given that these things are known to be analyised by the Intellegence agencies? Wouldn't mobile phones, dead letter boxes, or private meetings be a better way to communicate?



[edit on 27-7-2004 by muppet]

Originally posted by muppet
plus...Not really technical, but if you were a terrorist, trying to get a secret message to other terrorists, would you use a publically posted Bin Laden video as the medium, given that these things are known to be analyised by the Intellegence agencies? Wouldn't mobile phones, dead letter boxes, or private meetings be a better way to communicate?

Furthermore, how much information can be contained in one (or allegedly several) 16 byte ciphers? As we saw, the cipher in question contained only the term "americanpitbulls." A single-word code is cryptic enough that encrypting it would be unnecessary. The release of this video would be as much of a signal as any code in it could be.

Why would a publically released video be used to communicate? It would be a good way to signal the start of an event to cells operating deep undercover. All the details would have been worked out ahead of time, the cells in place, waiting for a signal to commence operations. The release of videos or tapes such as this usually make the news, so the cells would only have to stay tuned to the networks to get their signal.

Oh, you and your pesky facts.

So the screen cap we have all seen could not have come from the video, AND included the code because there are 2 different types of compression at work here, correct?

The would seem logical and obvious I guess once one were to zoom in and notice the differences in the appearance of the 2 different text strings.

Although, I am not certain about the single frame invisibility thing. If you were to only place this in a single frame, I thought that maybe the human eye would notice nothing more then a flicker. Your saying it would be obvious. Is that because it's impossible to place something in a single digital frame without it bleeding over into the surrounding frames?

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
So the screen cap we have all seen could not have come from the video, AND included the code because there are 2 different types of compression at work here, correct?

That's basically it. The differences can be subtle, depending on the content being encoded, which is why I'm going to post some examples next week, but there are differences.

Although, I am not certain about the single frame invisibility thing. If you were to only place this in a single frame, I thought that maybe the human eye would notice nothing more then a flicker. Your saying it would be obvious. Is that because it's impossible to place something in a single digital frame without it bleeding over into the surrounding frames?

It would appear as a flicker, yes, but a clearly noticable one. You can see neg hits (dust specks) on a movie even though they only a appear on one frame, and they are far smaller than the alledged code. Our eyes are very sensitive to flashes like this.

Purdue : good point on the "trigger" principle. An interesting idea.

We have what certainly seems to be a hoax. The evidence is too strong.

But, may I ask, what would be the motive?

Originally posted by DramaticPause
We have what certainly seems to be a hoax. The evidence is too strong.

But, may I ask, what would be the motive?

Well, I'm probably going to surprise some people with my answer, but here goes:

Terrorism

Three possible motivations, but all leading to no less terrorism:

1. Greed - attract by propagating fear and then selling a good feeling of "your six being covered"

2. Sick kicks - some one gets a kick out of keeping the fear level up. Adrenaline junkies.

3. Manipulation - move the masses. Keep them unstable from fear. Redirect through diversion.

1.So we have no code in the video,
2.Only the code for 'American pit bull' is in the still shot.
3.And this frame was taken by? 'Larua Mansfiled'
4.Who just happend to randomly grab the still from that part of the video so we are told?
5. this could not have happened, something does not fit.


[edit on 27-7-2004 by Sauron]

Originally posted by ghostship
I hear you. I was only saying that, if it were me conducting the investigation, I would have asked enough questions to be sure that no-one could have ever been given a contract.

I cleared this up ON THE PHONE.

As for the rest of it...if she trully does have questionable ethics, could she have supplied NEIN with a doctored video file?

The "CODE" WAS NOT IN THE VIDEO..... It was added after the fact.

They are competitors now, aren't they?

What gives you this IDEA???? And How can you call people who want to protect the world from terrorism "Competitors"

What better way to discredit them and increase your user base at the same time. The file on her site was version #2, wasn't the original labeled 'to amirika iraq', not 'to amirika iraq2' ?

LOOK AT THE FACTS, you have not come here with any information regarding the "CODE" to be true in the video itself, nor have you posted any facts to discredit the findings. It is up to the people that come to this site to decide for themselves whether information that is provided by members to be "Fact" or "Fiction", and this comes from doing your own research into it. If you download the same video without right clicking and choosing "save as", It will recognize that there is a copy with the same name and automatically puts a (2) after the file name, and if there are two copies it puts a (3), try it and see.


**Edit**
As Phreak pointed out below, I misread Ghostships post. I apologize for my ignorance..Trick



**Edited to fix BB code**

[edit on 27-7-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

[edit on 27-7-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

Hey, ah Trickmastertrick...

ghostship said he couldn't see the code in the vid he had.

I really don't know enough to form an opinion yet. I know that I've also been unable to make the codes appear from the video file that was on her site. I just like to be cautious and/or certain when I accuse someone of wrong doing.

OK, I just want to say well done to everyone involved.

I think it's time we started to move towards a comprehensive summary for archive and future reference.With that in mind I'd like to propose these assignments.

1/ Phreak- Could you write a post explaining what exactly was presented in the video and what it hoped to show, or imply.

2/ Muppet- Could you please write a post detailing how the hoax was done.(I think you're already working on this)but please could you address the issue that this could be done by accident and was not a deliberate hoax.

3/ Trick- Could you write a post summerizing the chain of events leading from the initiation of the hoax till it's discovery.

4/ Everyone- Could we all examine the motives of this hoax.I think the basic three were laid out well by Valhall.

a) Financial motive

b) Sick kicks.

c) Disimformation and Black propaganda.

The best three analysis of these three motive explanations will be included in the Archived record so post your views here.


I'm not trying to close down this thread only move it on to create a comprehensive account so those interested don't have to read 7 or 8 pages of posts.Obviously if anyone has new imfo post it.

I think everyones done a great job but without a good summary and conclusion then it appears as speculation and might be discounted in some quarters.

Please say if this sounds OK.

JB1

Jb...I think this is a fantabulous idea.

To Trickmastertrick, Muppet and phreak_of_nature
I have to say you three people have done a great job
of bring the �to amrika Iraq� hidden video code hoax to light for the readers here at ATS.
I will be giving my votes to you three as soon as I get them LOL.
Great work guys, I think it has given thought to websites to further
examine information they receive in future.




[edit on 28-7-2004 by Sauron]

hello,

this hoax is indeed a good example, how things seem to work in some areas of the internet, and in some parts of the american mind I might add.

Out of my perspective I would like to add a couple of things to this case. Not really anything new, but things that come to my mind when I think about it:

At the time of the initial publication of the secret 'code' there was only ONE website being returned
by google when you searched for it.

I think that its fair to assume that the publishers did a google search on the 'code' that they found. Regardless if they point it out in the publication or not: They can assume that people will google for it. [ www....#inggoogleit.com/ ]

That the code itself has such a simple and plain explanation ( an AOL url, can it be any more trivial?) was outside of the knowledge of the people that put it in the video. Easy for me to find,
impossible for them to know.

At this point I have to leave the area of clear facts and start to speculate about the motivation chain that led to this hoax:

1. twexus contains a quarter million words and more than 20,000 images. People see in it all sorts of things. There are boards using it for spiritual healing and other things. I did not put any meaning into it. It is part of the concept of the art installation that it will allow you to find meaning if you really look hard for it. Some people look very intensive for terrorists on the internet. There is more demand than supply for this kind of thing on the net: Real information is probably not in english (shy should it be?) and is very likely encoded, and very likely NOT in the public visible part of the net. But people still want to find it, since they care allot about it. By its concept twexus will fill those cracks in the walls of the semantic space that is the internet. (forget the last sentence, its not important for the video, I just felt like writing it ;-)

2. A few people are CONVINCED that twexus has something to do with terror. Some of them have made their 'findings' public in January. Needless to say that none of their allegations survive clear daylight thoughts.

3. In the mind of those people twexus is this zest pool of terror communication. Just that they could not convince anybody of it. I could imagine that this is the motivation for video-code-hoax: They think that if they would point 'LE' people to the site, that these institutions would have the means to to decode those hidden messages that are supposed to be in twexus.

A few people noticed twexus in the beginning of the year in this terror context. They wrote repeatedly that they reported the site to the authorities. Since they are utterly convinced of their findings (maybe they call it a 'slam dunk case' ?) the fact that twexus is still running must bug them. The hoax is, in my interpretation, an attempt to get 'le' attention directed to twexus. So that they will be in the end the heroes that they think they are.

That they create false evidence in this process seems to be something they are willing to accept for the greater cause 'in the war on terror' .

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks to everybody here, for putting so much work into debunking this video.

Thank you for your input, twexus. Could you answer a few questions to help me clarify things in my mind?

Is Twexus and Clipart the same site?

Is it correct that anyone viewing a clipart picture change it's label and assign it a new one?

Can anyone upload pictures or alter them in any way on Clipart?


I agree that the "codes" are not cyphers or codes in the sense that they themselves contain a hidden message. I believed that they could be keys. The way I saw it, the clip art site had a few interesting features; it allows a viewer to assign a new label to a picture, it has a search feature that allows a viewer to find a picture by its assigned label, and it has a Tracker/Counter that allows the number of search hits that a label/picture gets to be counted in real time. From this I postulated the following scenario of how terrorists could use the clipart site as a means of covert communication:

Say I'm a bad-guy. I've got 20 other bad guys I want to send a message to. I go to the picture site, and set an innocuous label to a picture of importance. This may simply be a picture, or may also contain a hidden steganographic message. So, I'll go to the picture of a shipping container with the label "Lebende Tiere" on it, and set the label to "2222". Then, I'll produce a video hiding that coded label, or simply make a post on the Jihadist message board and put "2222" in it somewhere where it'll stand out. Then I wait, watch, and count.

When all 20 of my terror-pals have used the search feature on the site to check the message, I go back in and change the label, so if any Jr terror-busters stumble upon the site, even if they also search for the code "2222", instead of seeing the shipping container, they'll see a plate of Chorizo sausage.

Of course, this theory is based on assumptions, this is the reason for the questions I've asked about your site.

If the JTTF was alerted to the existance of your site back in January, I see no benefit in alerting them again by perpetrating such a hoax. They'd obtain the source video, forensically examine it, and determine the threat, if one existed. It does provide an "Aha, look what I've uncovered" feeling, which lends itself to wanting to take credit for the discovery. Makes you feel stupid if it turns out to be a hoax.

If this particular "hidden code video" turns out to be a hoax (the jury is still out for me), it doesn't change the fact that I've seen what I've considered "hidden codes/keys" in translations of Jihadist postings from the web. Without the clipart scenario, they've remained unintelligible. With it, it gives me a litmus test for future Jihadist messages. Perhaps, just perhaps, if all this is true, this is the reason the clipart site has been allowed to remain active since the JTTF was notified about it in Jan; so that they could monitor it? And if this is the case, this lends itself to the reason that the the JTTF allegedly asked for the still image to be removed from the NEIN website, as well as all references to the "code" and the clipart links found in NEIN's subscriber-only message board.

One more thing, if my above scenario is real, and all of our poking's around in the clipart site skewed the count so that a few terrorists mistakenly saw a picture of Chorizo sausage instead of their intended target, I'm not going to be eating Mexican food for a few weeks just in case.

Yes, Sean, I guess if you were a bad guy you could. You could also do a lot of other things that we could get together and conjure up.

Also, you could postulate the above, and the disseminate it in a manner that states it as fact - as if it has been indeed employed by the bad guys - when, in fact, you may not have but your own imagination to back the speculation...

at which point, you become a bad guy, just like the one your audience has come to fear.

I think the blurring of the line between the two forms of bad guys discussed here is what concerns the members who have posted in this thread - including twexus, who apparently has been a bit of a victim in this.