Fraud US-Style: Fake Videos and Elections

Region:

First the videos with bin Laden ones Exhibit A. He always seems to pop up strategically at well-timed moments, almost like we planned it that way. Evidence points that way.

Consider the one on Friday (September 7) before the sixth 9/11 anniversary in 2007. Digital image forensics expert, Neal Krawetz of Hactor Factor, said it was full of low quality visual and audio splices, a likely fake. Striking also was bin Laden’s beard that was gray in recent images. In this video, it’s black. In addition, the footage has him dressed in a white hat and shirt and yellow sweater, precisely his same attire on an October 29, 2004 video. In addition, the background, lighting, desk and camera angle are the same.

Krawetz noted that “if you overlay the 2007 and 2004 videos, bin Laden’s face is the same (unaged). Only his beard is darker, and the picture contrast was adjusted. Most important are the edits showing obvious splices, at least six video ones in all. Even more audio ones were used that appear to be words and phrases spliced together making Krawetz suspect a vocal imitator was used.

Now the latest “incident” and video making headlines. They involve a supposed Persian Gulf confrontation between Iranian and US vessels in open waters. A subsequent Pentagon video shows small Iranian boats v. US warships in the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week. The Pentagon and major media reported a fleet of high-speed small craft charged at and threatened to blow up a three-ship convoy of US warships. George Bush called it a “dangerous” provocation and warned of “serious consequences” if there are further incidents.

Iran’s response came swiftly and called the Pentagon video and audio “fabricated.” The incident was routine and something “normal that takes place every now and then for each party” to identify the other….Iran Navy units always put questions to passing vessels and warships at the Strait of Hormuz and they need to identify themselves. This is in accordance with the normal procedures.” The Tehran spokesman said its Navy units “asked (the US ships) to identify themselves. They responded accordingly and continued on their (non-agressive) path.”

On January 9 (according to Agence France-Presse – AFP), Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) accused Washington of fabricating footage of the incident it described as routine and non-confrontational. The country’s state-run Al-Alam Arabic language international channel and English language Press-TV both quoted an IRGC spokesman with similar comments. This hardly needs elaborating. It’s unimaginable that lightly armed small craft would challenge heavily armed warships from any nation, let alone likely nuclear-armed ones flying US flags. The very notion borders on the absurd. Imagining where this may lead, however, recall the August, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. No further comment needed.

Now the January, 2008 election: dateline New Hampshire. Zogby International has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. It’s January 5 – 7 pre-election poll numbers showed Obama at 42% v. Clinton’s 29% – an impossible gap to close in a few days or even weeks. Yet magically it happened. Clinton miraculously snatched victory from certain defeat with 39% of the vote to Obama’s 36% with the loser saying no more than “I am still fired up and ready to go.” Where to he should ask after this type reversal with obvious grim signs for his hopes.

Consider final New Hampshire vote tallies for all candidates compared to Zogby’s January 5 – 7 pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat candidates alike, they were dead-on right with one glaring exception. Something to ponder and question.

On the Republican side, something fishy happened as well to its one outlier – Ron Paul. The candidate’s “war room” hand count showed he got 15% of the vote, but official counting gave him 8% and 9% in total when electronically tabulated votes were included. His web site said he scored 10% or better in every township and listed percentages for them all. They ranged from 34% to 10.25%. If these numbers are accurate, Paul got a minimum of 10% of New Hampshire’s vote for a third place finish.

Another disturbing report also emerged. The town of Sutton admitted it voided all Paul votes. He got 31, but none made the official tally. It was blamed on “human error” that might account for a slight variance but highly unlikely to erase his entire total. Yet it did and raises strong suspicions of fraud. Once this information got out, other districts where Paul scored zero changed their final count adding votes for him never counted. Something clearly is rotten in New Hampshire. It doesn’t say much for the process ahead, or past ones either for that matter.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. Also visit his blog site at www.sj.lendman.blogspot.com.


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]