Comparing Scientology’s Lies
Remember back a week or so ago when the Church of Scientology was claiming Anonymous posted a video threatening to blow up their churches, and used that video to file an injunction against Anonymous (naming 22 people they claim are Anonymous) to stop the protests which took place last Saturday.
The Judges in Clearwater rejected their claims, protests went on as scheduled. The CoS handed out copies of the alleged “video” purported to threaten churches at the protest. The above video compares what Scientologists handed out at the protests and what the YouTube version would look like to anyone who captured it over the web.
Some major inconsistencies I’d say.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
wow. looks pretty damning to me.
Comment by anonymous — March 21, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
they’ve done this before. google “operation freakout”.
Comment by anonymous — March 21, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
While we can’t be positive what the inconsistencies mean (though we can come up with some convincing explanations), it’s great that someone is willing to discuss this. The video is well done, but is meaningless if it’s not seen by as many people as possible. Thanks for writing about it Dawn.
Comment by Ahriman — March 21, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
@3-
At best, it means that they used doctored evidence to try and get the injunction.
At worst, it means they created the original.
Either way, pretty damning stuff.
Comment by Saturnine — March 21, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
If they created the original and then went to the authorities to claim that they were the victims of a bomb threat…that’s a felony.
If they made the bomb threat, that is also a major felony. And they should be indicted for perpetrating an act of terrorism, even if it was against themselves.
Comment by IsaySatanwithalisp — March 21, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
There are two possible (though improbable) explanations. Scientology and/or the DHS/FBI could have tracked the original threat youtube video back to the source and gotten a copy off the posters harddrive and maybe that person is a minor and cannot be named. (Though I have trouble believing if this happened, Scientology would be sending out press releases about the proof they found).
Second, with the proper video editting and filters you can create something similar to the smoothed version. You have to ask is there more detail and information in the DVD video, or it just looks like there is. You can take the worst pixelated video and add filters to smooth and saturate.
Why anyone would go to such video editting lengths to make a youtube threat video look professional?? I have no idea. The hilarious part is after the video processing, they added post production effects to make it look all grainy and shaky.. idiots.
So, there is no good explanation, and Occam would point to them having posting the original threat.
Comment by DangerMouse — March 21, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
Well, they are in the professional video making mood with thier recent site overhaul.
I’m not sure if the proper official type people have been made aware of this yet, because I think this would raise some questions they would want answered.
Comment by Anon1376 — March 21, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
well, i see that glosslip delivers once again.
honestly, woman, you are a force of nature.
as far as the vid is concerned: $cientology is an old dog that cannot learn new tricks.
Comment by AnonMomAnon — March 21, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
I must admit I’m kind of wary about Anonymous and what it has done to intimidate persons in the past.
This week I read a story in the latest copy of Bitch Magazine (called “Whack Attack: Giving the Finger To Blog Bandits”), which discusses part of Anonymous’ activity prior to their latest war against the Church of Scientology. The story is written by one of these victims, Jaclyn Friedman (of the blog Feministe.)
Same Anonymous group from 4chan, but this time they were leaving horrible comments on a number of feminist blogs, threatening to rape and kill the writers.
It’s a very interesting article and D, I would encourage you to read it and I would like you to share your thoughts. After reading this article, I can safely say I don’t know what to think. On one hand, the Church of Scientology, as it is known now, must be stopped.
On the other hand, how credible is Anonymous when they have this as their past? I’ve praised them for their efforts earlier, but after reading up on this, I don’t know what to think.
Jaclyn posts about the online harassment
Hereis an open letter to Anonymous from Jaclyn, from August 2007.
Comment by Bellesouth — March 21, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Do we know that Scientology is not claiming that in addition to the youtube video, the threat was also sent to them on a DVD?
Comment by sam — March 21, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
#9. Sam:
I’ll play along! Where are the fingerprints, then? What are the embedded digital codes that indicate who burned it, where, and on what machine? How about name of the manufacturer of the blank DVD? Where is the postmark? What delivery service brought it?
I’m not even a computer forensics dude, and even I’m asking these questions based on years of watching C.S.I., so surely the “church” of Scientology would want the authorities to have that original so they can find the person or persons responsible. Surely these things can be tracked, and therefore why on earth (um, I mean Teegeack) would the “church” try to smear 8,000+ people with it if they had evidence specifically related to the people who did it?
Oh wait.
It benefits the “church” to blame each and every protester by mere association with this video which is of dubious origins.
(buzzer sounds)
CoS FLUNKS!
Anonymous wins!
Comment by Lulubelle — March 21, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Glosslip gets it. Why doesn’t anybody else.
Comment by anonymous — March 21, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
The injunctions only mention the video being on Youtube, not that they received a physical copy. Having a video mailed to them is far more criminal than finding it on the internet, so why did they not use it as evidence? Likely because they never did get a full DVD with it originally.
Comment by Ahriman — March 22, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Oh, I wouldn’t say we “get it”. We are just willing to pursue it. Maybe we’re just crazy.
And concerned.
Comment by D — March 22, 2008 @ 12:04 am
I’m fed up with this cult ¬_¬
Comment by anon — March 22, 2008 @ 12:09 am
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nkii79y7UWM
Call to action for a surprise raid on March 22.
Spread the word.
Comment by PlainJaneLane — March 22, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Perhaps you could push this a little. Might be a help on the 12th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pajy1LZpEss&feature=user
Comment by IsaySatanwithalisp — March 22, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Regarding the *pixelation*, it’s possible to smooth out enough the FLV to get the look on the DVD, I’ve tried it, and actually my result after smoothing is slightly better than the DVD one, such that some vestiges of pixelation resembling the Youtube video can be seen in DVD version:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/share/youtubeVSSciMovie-smoothed.png
So personally I don’t consider the *smoothed pixelation* itself a solid evidence. Not everybody agree though.
The overlayed faint clouds passing over the globe in the Youtube video are not seen on the DVD video (as seen in the above Youtube video). That’s quite more a problem to explain. I don’t have the DVD, so I can’t tell if the DVD features a still frame, that could be an explanation. Of course, the other is that the C of S worked from the original.
And yes, this is ridiculous of Church of Scientology to add effects like crop, posterize, film, etc. to what is branded as a piece of evidence. Even more so that it was apparently used in court.
There is also the script of the Youtube that is suspicious, and certainly support that a link to the C of S must be investigated.
And the C of S has a history of fabricating threat against itself: Paulette Cooper (I guess all know by now). There are others in which it falsely claimed some critics made bomb threats. (See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/13/111327/917/199/475759 and http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/keepoffmomsfrontporch.htm )
So, good to know the FBI is looking into that.
Comment by R. Hill — March 22, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Something to Digg, s’il vous plait:
http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Scientology_forced_to_pay_out_9_million_fine_in_law_suit
Comment by Rao — March 22, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Interesting thing that I just found in the comments on a newspaper article: the Church of Scientology last year accused the BBC of making a “terrorist death threat” against it. Check it out: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/14/nbbc14.xml
Comment by AF — March 22, 2008 @ 10:48 am
R. Hill @ 18 –
Good job on testing that theory, but I’ve got to be honest, I disagree with your assessment that your “result after smoothing is slightly better than the DVD one”. If someone showed me the three images in your .png and asked me to rate them by how pixelated they were, the first (your smoothed version) would definitely rank as more pixelated than the third (Scientology’s DVD version). The pixelation is less obvious in your smoothed version than in the YouTube .flv, but I can still see pixelation, which I can’t see in the DVD version at all. Moreover, whatever you did to smooth the pixelation made that first version blurrier — so even if you managed to completely remove the pixelation, you still wouldn’t have anything equivalent to the Church’s DVD version, which is both unpixelated and sharp.
It’s good that you’re playing devil’s advocate, though. One of the things that separates us from the Scientologists is that we are actually willing to test our beliefs, and modify them if evidence indicates the need.
Comment by AF — March 22, 2008 @ 11:00 am
To #8:
Anonymous has never hidden what it (it’s not really an IT though) has done in the past.
The Anonymous that you are referring to also helped to catch a pedophile in Canada. Anonymous isn’t a group. People flow in and out so the people that did what you are referring to are possibly not the Anonymous of today.
The Anonymous that is taking on the CoS is not just the “chans” anymore. In fact some of the chans (711 & 420 I believe) have people who actively try to ruin the CoS protests because they think Anonymous has moved too far away from what Anonymous was and what you’re referring to. Look up the Washington DC Failbrigade that claimed they were going to come out to disrupt the protests.
I would venture to guess that the majority of people who go by Anonymous in this fight are not channers. They may have started the fight but others also picked up and ran with it. The channers that are still in the fight have adopted the ideals of this incarnation of Anonymous.
Will the next incarnation of Anonymous pick such a worthwhile target, or when the war is won will the people who are “anonymous” now disperse and we be left with what the Chans once were? Will there even be an Anonymous similar to what you describe, or will the Chans that disagree with us take up a new moniker as this one has been ruined for them? That’s anyone’s guess but for now the fight is just and that’s what matters.
As I said at the beginning, Anonymous does not hide it’s past. We’re all very open about it. That’s one of many things that separates us from the CoS
Comment by Bill Billson — March 22, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Just by looking at the images and with no access to the original FLV file or DVD, I’d say that you couldn’t get the look that OSA got on the DVD from an FLV without expensive and professional post production to basically recreate a “cleaner” version of the original online version. Why would anyone do that? The simplest answer is often (Occam’s Razor law) the truth. OSA cooked up the threat against corporate Scientology. There is historical precedent in past behavior. There undoubtedly is intense pressure from Miscavige to “handle” this perceived enemy.
Chip
Comment by Chip Gallo — March 22, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
There has never been an act of violence against a Scientology owner / operator / customer or a Scientology business which wasn’t committed by a Scientology customer.
The phenomena is known as “Another Satisfied Customer.” The shooting and arson that was committed against a Scientology crime syndicate business office in Oregon that the crime syndicate spews about every day was committed by a Scientology customer — something the insane crime bosses “forget” to mention.
If Scientology offices get bomb threats and what not, count on it being another insane internal public relations project committed by Scientology.
My opinions only and only my opinions, as always.
Comment by Fredric L. Rice — March 22, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Good good. More footbullets:) They just keep coming.
Comment by anonv2.0 — March 22, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Bill Billson:
Thank you very much for the explanation. I just don’t like the 4channers being associated with this, because it does hurt the cause of Anonymous.
Comment by Bellesouth — March 22, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
My question is, did the Co$ produce a DVD with the youtube vid on it, or their prepared video? If the latter was turned in as evidence, then the evidence would be tampered…
Comment by VeniVidiVici — March 22, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
This is the worst smear by the CoS ever. How dare they fabricate such horror…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWA1dfo1OjY
Comment by JV — March 22, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Down with this sort of thing.
Comment by Anonosaurus — March 22, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Just watched “The Profit.”
It’s terribly campy, but an instant CULT classic.
Obvious pun is obviously bad - but I couldn’t resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qgc6hpTEAo&feature=PlayList&p=6462102BA2D485B8&index=0
Comment by liz — March 23, 2008 @ 7:12 am
For anyone who hasn’t heard of “The Profit,” it’s a movie based on the life of L.Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and the CoS in a “likenesses are purely coincidental” kind of way.
The CoS had it banned, but it is out now. Ooops.
I recommend it be watched with at least 2 glasses of wine (or whatever your “poison”). The quality of movie reminds me of something that would be good for that Mystery Science Theatre show.
Parental discretion is advised.
Comment by liz — March 23, 2008 @ 7:47 am
To Belle @ 26:
No one wants 4chan to be part of anything, let alone furries, but… This is the internet. Anyone can claim to be a part of Anonymous, people can misbehave. Just like anyone could call up a newspaper and say they are from PETA.
Anonymous is just an idea. A collective of like minded people with a common interest and goal. Most ideas are vetted and forged by a group collective. What you will find is that the group Anonymous is against violence and harassment. Many scientologists go on to Anonymous boards and forums and suggest such ideas and are immediately shot down. In fact, the original youtube “bomb threat” video was reported and taken off of youtube by Anonymous. How does a group with no leaders act then or take something off youtube? They report it to others and if others agree they mobilize to accomplish it. No leaders, just ideas and ideals.
Comment by DangerMouse — March 23, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Ok just finished watching the Profit. My eyes are burning!!!!!!!!!!! Really. Someone on Enturb stated that it will becoming a cult classic a la Rocky Horror Picture Show, I agree. Easy to see how the actors in this did not go on to fame and fortune. Bob Minton did not get his money’s worth. Hard to beleive that this got banned but then sometimes when you throw enough “stuff” at the Cos some of it is bound to stick. The e meter thing was quite interesting. The FBI chase was like the Keystone cops! I could even hear the cheesy music in the background. Hmmmmm anyone for cheese cake?
Comment by Mitsu Too — March 23, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Mitsu Too, Oh Noes! You didn’t stare right into the talisman, did you!?!?
I couldn’t help but chuckle at the part where the wife is still defending the cult while she’s being led away in cuffs after being forced into taking the fall for the infiltration. The reference to Jack Parsons was pretty interesting stuff too.
The part where he freaks out in the nut house when he’s trying to have his wife committed was the funniest “fight scene” I’ve ever seen! BARREL ROLL!!!
I think this would be a wonderful remake with Tom Cruise playing the part of himself (Tom Travis! ROTFL!!!) - or at least a version with rifftrax.
Did you notice any interesting cameos?
Anonymous Reviews:
“This movie is proof that God is punishing me for being an atheist!” - Anonymous
“This might just be the greatest movie since Plan 9 from Outer Space.” - Anonymous
“A crappy movie for a crappy cult.” - Anonymous
Did you say cheez caek?
Comment by liz — March 23, 2008 @ 4:16 pm