Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I got just what I expected from "Mick West."

He wrote: "I think it's explained quite well on Metabunk. It's not an argument from authority. It's something you can check yourself. So, my qualifications are irrelevant."

We'll see about that. But, first let me tell you that I am not the least bit surprised, and that's because I've been through it before. There is a guy who goes by "Mike Williams" who claims that he  is British "author and software developer", who like Mick, sold his software for a tidy bundle, which enables him to devote his time to debunking at 911myths.com. 

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Main_Page


You can see his email right there, so I wrote to him in a very challenging way, and it concerned the operation of taking over the planes with box-cutters, from a tactical standpoint, pointing out that, like hanging yourself in a jail cell, it isn't that easy to do, although I didn't actually use that comparison. But, he responded the same way with just a glib little ditty. 

Why aren't these guys willing to do battle with me? Am I not a worthy adversary? Or, is it more like what Dirty Harry taught us, that a good man always knows his limitations? 

But, I did some snooping around and found out that that 911myths site was hosted by a hosting company in Arizona that does 95% of  its business with the CIA and the DOD (Department of Defense). Did I  mention that the company is located in Arizona?  Now, why would a guy in England use them?

And granted, "Williams" is two syllables not one, so it's not quite as snappy as "Mick West". But, like Mick West, it's two easy names that are easy to remember and roll off the tongue.  

But now, let's get back to what Mick said, and he referred me back to the Metabunk site where he said everything is explained. 

First, in his ditty to me, Mick lied. He said there was no appeal to authority. But there is! His authority. He states on the site that "It's likely an error in which a 4:3 image is displayed as 16:9." But, I don't grant that. That is just Mick saying that. He provides no proof that the original video was 4:3  and then stretched wider to 16:9.

First, the video was found by the US Military and released by the Pentagon, and there's no reason to think they would have altered the aspect ratio. And there is even less reason to think that the makers of the video did it. I don't know what is involved in changing the aspect ratio of a film. I know how easy it is to change the aspect ratio of an image. You can go into Paint and click the box that says "do not preserve current aspect ratio" and then put it any figures you want for height and width. Is it just as easy for a film? I have a camcorder that I use to make music videos, and it doesn't offer aspect ratio adjustment as a feature. It's the Zoom A4N which styles itself as "the HD video with incredible stereo audio." There is no reason to think that the camcorder used in Afghanistan had this ability. And even if it did, there  is no reason to think they would have monkeyed it. Why? What for? And why would the Department of Defense do it? Have you ever met anyone in your life who had a camera or a camcorder and had the thought to alter the aspect ratio? I have never had the thought, and I have never heard it from anyone else. 

"Yeah, that picture of Aunt Sally looks good, but I think I should alter the aspect ratio and fatten her up." I never heard anyone say that.   

So, Mick's statement that it's likely an error in which a 4:3 image is displayed as 16:9 is groundless. There are plenty of 16:9 camcorders. Best Buy lists 4 pages of them. Long pages. 

In the upper left corner it says 16:9 All Camcorders. There are far more that shoot in 16:9 than 4:3. "16:9 has become the most common aspect ratio for televisions and computer monitors and is also the international standard format of HDTV."

So the bin laden video is in 16:9, 

and what reason is there to assume that it was originally 4:3?

What about the Law of Parsimony,  Mick? What about Occam? Do you have any idea what that ornery cutthroat friar would do if he heard you saying this? 

So,  that  likely error is really just an arbitrary decree by Mick West, and it deserves no acceptance at all. 

But then, Mick thinks he's landed on something. 

So, the narrower image on the bottom of the above collage represents Mick restoring what he thinks is the correct aspect ratio. But, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, Mick. It's still a fat-faced bin laden. 

Changing the aspect ratio can't give a guy a different personality. Osama bin laden didn't smile broadly like that. It wasn't his nature. And in the video, you can see and hear him laughing out loud. Osama bin laden didn't laugh. These are not the same guy.

FORGET ABOUT THE ASPECT RATIO, MICK. The man on the left has a fatter face, regardless of aspect ratio, unless you took it to the extreme. And, I know you are not a doctor, but it's obvious to a doctor that the man on the left is younger than the man on the right. But, that gleeful smile, that takes the cake. Osama bin laden was pious, serious, devout, deadpan, solemn. And that's why it's funny on Family Guy when they do their Osama bin laden gags and show him cracking up because it's so unlike Osama bin laden. 

Now, you listen to me, Mick: Fatty bin laden, who is the only evidence ever put forward that Osama bin laden was responsible for 9/11, was not him. And it means that the entire basis and justification for invading and attacking Afghanistan and raining hell on that country for 18 years is a fabrication and a lie. And that is no laughing matter. People are still being killed there, Mick. They're being killed there every day. 

http://alemarahenglish.com/?p=49588

After 18 years, Afghanistan is still inflammed in war. And it was our leaders who brought this upon them, Mick. And that's true whether you are an American or a Brit like "Mike Williams". And it was all based on a lie.