We got bin Laden!

[A Thing of Eternity]

Ok, buddy, you need to sit down and look at how much lighter EVERYTHING is in that last photo. I'm not saying I don't see what you're seeing, I'm saying that I know better than you (apparently) to even remotely assume that what appears lighter in that pic actually is lighter.

Yes, the black haired parts look lighter in that pic, and in some spots a little thinner (due to the horrible contrast in the pic, quite clearly the contrast isn't enough and detail is being lost massively).

His jacket looks lighter too, is it dying?

Seriously man, I know the black on his sideburns looks a little thinner in parts, but we're talking amounts so subtle that it's IMPOSSIBLE to say that it's actually correct without seeing a better pic from the same time.

And the cheekbones is straight up an optical illusion man.

EVEN if you dissagree that optical illusion is to blame there, why can't you admit that it's at least possible? Have you ever looked at a series of photos from the same model and photographer? One pic will make the girl look fat, the next like skin and bones, one a rounded face, another one a totally angular face.

Also, am I to take it that you've given up on me being a racist bastard since you never responded to my last response?

[Kojiro]

Ok, buddy, you need to sit down and look at how much lighter EVERYTHING is in that last photo. I'm not saying I don't see what you're seeing, I'm saying that I know better than you (apparently) to even remotely assume that what appears lighter in that pic actually is lighter.

Yes, the black haired parts look lighter in that pic, and in some spots a little thinner (due to the horrible contrast in the pic, quite clearly the contrast isn't enough and detail is being lost massively).

His jacket looks lighter too,

Not by much. His face is a sheer drop though, even with lighting considered. And you're not even addressing the drop in complexion in the second compared to the first. You can see it start to shift complexion.

Seriously man, I know the black on his sideburns looks a little thinner in parts, but we're talking amounts so subtle that it's IMPOSSIBLE to say that it's actually correct without seeing a better pic from the same time.

It only looks "subtle" because there's a middle, transitional image.

And the cheekbones is straight up an optical illusion man.

No. Just no. It's not.

EVEN if you dissagree that optical illusion is to blame there, why can't you admit that it's at least possible?

Meeting the president is possible, but that doesn't make it likely. It's just not an illusion, because you can see the change appear in the second picture at a lesser extent. His weight was dropping, pure and simple. Even the nose gets progressively thinner and sharper.

Also, am I to take it that you've given up on me being a racist bastard since you never responded to my last response?

It's a bit pointless to repeat the obvious.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Alright, here's the deal, if you're honestly so simple minded that you think I'm racist, me of all people, then you're a lost cause. I'm serious, there's likely nothing that can be done for you. I've never added someone to my ignore list, but you're about to be the first.

[E. LeGuille]

I misread the last one, I thought it was a different year. Anyway.

Aperature settings are different in every picture.

The first one is taken outdoors with a Low MP camera, so the lighting is more appropriate.

The second one was a photo still indoors with flash. You can tell because of the soft tones and the skin reflection. This is a different camera, because the camera is blurred in comparison.

The third one is the same Low MP camera with bad lighting. He hasn't shaved, so his hair is puffier, and when hit with bad shadows, they thin along the cheekbone. If it was outside, like the first one, it is likely very early in the morning and what cameras do with low lighting, is try to provide it and often they increase the blues.

Again, compression factors aside, there are tons of artifacts in the pictures. There are no changes in the beard aside from the lack of personal hygiene.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Sorry, I have to point out that Osama probably wouldn't be shaving or trimming his beard ever, so that's probably not the cause.

The bushiness can simply be combing though. My sidebeard can stick out only about 1cm, or almost 2 inches depending on how frizzy it feels and how much it's been combed.

[Kojiro]

I misread the last one, I thought it was a different year. Anyway.

Aperature settings are different in every picture.

The first one is taken outdoors with a Low MP camera, so the lighting is more appropriate.

The second one was a photo still indoors with flash. You can tell because of the soft tones and the skin reflection. This is a different camera, because the camera is blurred in comparison.

The third one is the same Low MP camera with bad lighting. He hasn't shaved, so his hair is puffier, and when hit with bad shadows, they thin along the cheekbone. If it was outside, like the first one, it is likely very early in the morning and what cameras do with low lighting, is try to provide it and often they increase the blues.

Again, compression factors aside, there are tons of artifacts in the pictures. There are no changes in the beard aside from the lack of personal hygiene.

All three are stills from video and much like the stills, you can see him look progressively worse with full motion. Like Bergen said about the third video, he's really guarding movement of his side. I doubt any "flash" was involved. Studio light, yes, flash no.

[E. LeGuille]

Sorry, I have to point out that Osama probably wouldn't be shaving or trimming his beard ever, so that's probably not the cause.

The bushiness can simply be combing though. My sidebeard can stick out only about 1cm, or almost 2 inches depending on how frizzy it feels and how much it's been combed.

That's what I was saying. He didn't shave, and he didn't comb. That's why his beard is bigger.

And Kojiro, I know they are not stills. Good god, they are still taken with a digital camera, most likely an early ENG studio camera. I misspoke when I said flash, I suppose I should have said "BIG LIGHT". Because obviously there's such a big difference. It's probably a P2 from Panasonic, circa 1996 or something. It' still digital, there are still artifacts on the picture, the MPEG compression has distorted it, and to be quite frank, you're seeing things.

[Serkanner]

I misread the last one, I thought it was a different year. Anyway.

Aperature settings are different in every picture.

The first one is taken outdoors with a Low MP camera, so the lighting is more appropriate.

The second one was a photo still indoors with flash. You can tell because of the soft tones and the skin reflection. This is a different camera, because the camera is blurred in comparison.

The third one is the same Low MP camera with bad lighting. He hasn't shaved, so his hair is puffier, and when hit with bad shadows, they thin along the cheekbone. If it was outside, like the first one, it is likely very early in the morning and what cameras do with low lighting, is try to provide it and often they increase the blues.

Again, compression factors aside, there are tons of artifacts in the pictures. There are no changes in the beard aside from the lack of personal hygiene.

All three are stills from video and much like the stills, you can see him look progressively worse with full motion. Like Bergen said about the third video, he's really guarding movement of his side. I doubt any "flash" was involved. Studio light, yes, flash no.

Dumbfuck. You are the first and hopefully only one here to be on my ignore list. I am not wasting any more time on any idiot as big as you.

[Lundse]

Kojiro, I am not going to go through your points again. A simpleton could read through any of my last three points and tell you how you misunderstand my points. On example, though, you can find the ret yourself:

I tell you that if the president is lying, then either he is also lying a ground crew, flight crew, a navy seal team, dna researchers, etc. into existence. Or these teams exist, but are lying along with him. You then start talking about how I do not have these guys names or phone numbers - but my point was that they either do not exist (an easy fact to uncover for reporters or Republican senators) or they are lying (the several hundred people you blithely assume cannot send an email to the press or wikileaks). This is my argument, and the last time I explain it again, you answer with... Wait for it...

"No, you misunderstand."

You do not get to define my arguments! You get to point out how they are wrong, bad premises, etc. You do not get to ignore them or try to make them out to be something else. Try answering any one of my points, but this "let me grab onto one sentence and talk about something else from there" has got to go...

-

But wait. You do admit that Osama could be alive without having phoned you, or the CIA having told you. And then we get to the real issue behind sign of life. The real, not-based-on-"Osama-must-be-using-communication-methods-I-would-know-about"-argument;
"This was a guy who used to make regular televised or videotaped appearances, and then just kind of... stopped."

So this is it? Because he is no longer makes tapes, he must be dead?

Your Lennon analogy is brilliant, btw. It looks just like a classic Danish example of a bad syllogism:

- Mom cannot fly.
- Stones cannot fly.
- Mom is a stone.

You, of course, are arguing that:
- Osama is no longer producing his stuff.
- Dead people are no longer producing their stuff.
- Osama is dead.

But it is still funny!

-

You do seem to be trying to answer my three points. Although the first one got you confused or something.

What I am saying is, that if Bin Laden was alive, or there was some non-trivial chance that he was, Obama would never go out and say "Oh yeah, we just killed him". Too dangerous. Or do you really believe there is a chance that Bin Laden is still alive? Do you think Obama would lie as you believe he did, if he was not sure Osama was already dead?

I didn't get a ral response out of you, only a non-commital, sarcastic "riight". Anyway, this is related to the whole burden of proof-thing, which is still not getting through. I found a new way to explain it - this is becoming more and more bizarre, but strangely fascinating....

Consider these options. Let me know if you believe I am overlooking something, what premise I am wrong about, details!:

1) Bin Laden is not dead. Unlikely, he would have made a new video.
2) Bin Laden was just killed by the seal team.
3) Bin Laden was dead before this.

Only one of three can be true. One of them must be. I hope we can disregard 1, for the reasons stated above.

What this leaves us is two options. So it is not a case of "Obama said X, he must defend X". It is a case of X or Y, which evidence is more compelling? We have to chose one, you see. So even if I do not know the name of the guy with the glass beaker, that's OK. You don't know exactly how many people are part of Obama's alledged conspiracy, or their phones numbers, either.


So let us look at the possibilities, and see how likely they and the assumptions we must make if each of them is true, are:

1.
Osama is alive and does not ridicule Obama/US in a new video. Basically impossible...

2.
Both the Bush and Obama administration used Osama as a bogeyman, and tried finding and killing him, best they could. Very likely.
Osama did not use email or phones personally, and stayed with the most loyal of friends - that's how he escaped capture for so long. Nice job escaping, not an unlikely tactic at all.
Osama, if he was even that sick, was able to buy or steal a dialysis machine (and/or other medicinal supplies) from a hospital in the third world (not a US pharmacy, with a prescription). Anything else would be odd...
Pakistani intelligence is either less-than-impressively-competent, or some parts of its military are not as allied as they would like the US to believe. Almost an already established fact, in both cases.
Osama stopped making new videos, for some unknown reason (could be his deteriorating health - if he does not look strong enough, etc. etc., or some other reason). Interesting and curious, but in no way impossible.

3.
The Bush administration was not able to pull off the lie Obama now apparently is, with no explicable reason (or they would have, instead of handing this victory to the other side). Really odd, but maybe some other timing issue just happened to make it so - still unlikely, though.
Osama was really sick, and was not able to get proper medical attention despite his wealth (so he must have been _really_ sick, not impossible but we have to look at the normal chances of contracting such disease. Unlikely, but possible.
- Best evidence offered so far; a physician who has not met Osama saying it is "...certainly conceivable that he has the Marfan syndrome..." and Osama "looks worse" according to... three horrible video stills and "analysts"? Wow!
Osama has some pretty damn convincing evidence that Bin Laden is already dead - despite the US not being able to find him, such evidence apparently did surface. Very unlikely.
The seal team, flight and other base crew, K-9 handler, intelligence and surveillance crew, burial and forensics crew, Obama's advisors and all involved planners are either (individually):
- Made up wholecloth. You cannot invent an air force base, and some advisors and planners are known persons. Impossible to unlikely, depending on case. Incredibly dangerous, when journalists and conspiracy nuts start asking questions...
- In on it. Possible in a few cases, but growing rapidly unlikely. Advisors are betting their entire career, and could easily ruin everything. Every conspirator is presumed to be willing and unable to mail wikileaks anonymously - multiply this chance by number of conspirators and you get a ridiculous low probability.
- (I'd like to know how you place these - who does not exist, and who is a conspirator? For instance, is the "Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment" entirely made up, are all these soldiers lying, or are some of them lying to their comrades?
The DNA, video and photographic evidence is either:
- Non-existent. Another wild chance to take; a senate hearing or civil case and a judge or panel needs to see it. Obama must be a risk-addict and borderline retarded to take this chance. Unlikely in the extreme.
- Fabricated. Impossible.
The Al Queda admission that Bin Laden is dead is faked.

Now, you can either tell me how unlikely 2 is, maybe offering a some additional assumptions I forgot, or tell me how unlikely it is that someone with money and criminal thugs working for him could get hold of a dialysis machine or something. Or you can show me how likely 3 is; maybe tell me how all seal teams are fanatical robots, or you have a degree in diagnosing "some-disease-maybe-diabetes" from pictures...

PS: Calling someone racists, because he discussing skin colour changes in people with brown skin in a discussion about someones complexion is fucking sad. You should apologize, if you want anyone to have any respect for you after this is over. It makes you look desperate, hateful and silly.

[Mandy]

I heard Osama really loved bacon.

[Spicelon]

I heard Osama really loved bacon.

And Seinfeld.

[Robspierre]

But was he so vile as to tape the bacon to a cat?



Rob

[TheDukester]

BACON!!

[A Thing of Eternity]

Totally racist, bringing up bacon while discussing a Muslim. Bad form people, bad form.

[Robspierre]

Would Osama motorboat these????



Rob

[Mandy]

Osama couldn't possibly motorboat those bacon wrapped tatas, they'd get his beard greasy.

[Freakzilla]

Nice!

[Freakzilla]

[Freakzilla]

[Serkanner]

[Mandy]

Osama preached against the evils of squeeze bacon.

[Freakzilla]

[Apjak]

[TheDukester]

Osama preached against the evils of squeeze bacon.

My God, he was a bacon-hater, too? The man's evil was without limit ...

[Mandy]

Osama preached against the evils of squeeze bacon.

My God, he was a bacon-hater, too? The man's evil was without limit ...

Bacon in a squeeze bottle is the devil. - Osama Bin Laden