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.
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.
Mr. Lendman's stories are republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
This story was published on January 10, 2008.