# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Who created "manchurian" Huntsman ad - not us, obviously - see inside

## Base_Disclosure

*MOD: -- DON'T LET TROLLS SET YOU OFF FURIOUS TO HURT RON'S CAMPAIGN - the OP has been banned until after New Hampshire  --READ THIS:*

http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-co...k-against-paul




> The guy over at the Daily Paul is making all sorts of sense:
> 
> *URGENT: Please Do NOT Unleash Blowback to the Huntsman Campaign over this New Video!*
> Submitted by egervari on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 08:52
> 
> There has been some talk on here that the Huntsman campaign actually created a smear video against himself to try and implicate Dr. Paul. I created this post to address this charge.
> 
> Please read this post carefully. It is URGENT that you understand what I'm about to tell you, because it is true to the best of my knowledge and it is factual.
> 
> ...


*Original OP:
*
He's a great article detailing the Huntsman/Ron Paul ad mess, in which a lone nut created a You Tube account and in one day uploaded ONE video characterizing Huntsman as a "manchurian candidate."

Ron Paul and his campaign *HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT*, but the media is running wild with it, demanding Ron Paul apologize.

Hey, *I* can go create some fake ad in Romney or Santorum's name and blast Ron Paul. Think they'll jump on that?

You wonder if these morons in the media realize how easy it is to post a video on You Tube and attribute it to someone. 

The below link also shows some evidence the video may have been made by Huntsmans OWN STAFF (though I think this is inconclusive): 

http://www.examiner.com/elections-20...on-paul-did-it

----------


## icecap

here's a link to the text in image form, just for storage purposes

http://i.imgur.com/8vhJw.png

----------


## Ironhide

The media does not care who is right or wrong, they have one thing on their mind and that is the destruction of Ron Paul.

----------


## european

false flag anyone?

----------


## JJ2

That's enough evidence to convince me. The Paul campaign has to get the truth out about this. It could come back to destroy Huntsman and actually help Paul, all while showing the media bias.

----------


## JJ2

They say they have another one coming Monday: http://orinje.com/threads/430416-The...with-our-video

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

MFking Fox News. They should be disgusted with themselves for such piss poor behavior. Are any of the other MSM networks reporting this garbage?

----------


## european

> That's enough evidence to convince me. The Paul campaign has to get the truth out about this. It could come back to destroy Huntsman and actually help Paul, all while showing the media bias.


I was actually thinking about that and came back to this thread to post a similar text. But I do wonder if the MSM are willing to apologize for their rude and false accusations. They are behaving worse then the Ministry of Truth at this moment.

----------


## Base_Disclosure

I hate to say it, but I wonder about the top level of Ron Paul's campaign. They should have pointed out immediately anyone can make a video and say it is from someone -- they should have distanced themselves from it and not apologize -- they should also be on top of what is going on here, and the evidence that shows this video is a hit piece created by a fake Ron Paul supporter, and POSSIBLY someone connected to Huntsman. 

Sometimes I think the RP campaign is a little late to the game. 

Also, Ron Paul saying "Iran is not going to attack us" today with John King... I'm worried about that. He needs to realize they may either be provoked into attacking, or there may be a false flag. If it happens, he will be attacked and heavily discredited with a lot of "told ya so's" from the MSM. "Wow, Ron Paul said Iran would never attack anyone..."

We KNOW Iran is NOT a threat, but we also know they may be provoked into some kind of action. Push hard enough, they will push back.

*Ron Paul needs to say something like, "With the sactions and aggressive actions of the US, such as placing a carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, it can be expected that Iran may respond in some respect. We are provoking them. We are pushing them. We are needling them and pushing for war, and they may respond, just as any nation would that is being attacked."*

----------


## JJ2

> I was actually thinking about that and came back to this thread to post a similar text. But I do wonder if the MSM are willing to apologize for their rude and false accusations. They are behaving worse then the Ministry of Truth at this moment.


It's completely unreal. Everyone knew the media was corrupt/biased/pro-Obama but the way they are treating Ron Paul in particular just takes the cake!

----------


## Tyler_Durden

This has been heavily discussed here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ti-Huntsman-ad 

This article was drudged heavily: http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-co...k-against-paul

----------


## Oddone

//

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> Uh... This is brand spanking new. Did you read any of what was posted? People INSIDE the campaign and associated with the Johnhuntsman Cmapaign f***ed up and posted they did it in an open forum. That wasn't discussed in the other post, unless I missed it. This Examiner article is BRAND new and points to the forum where they screwed up.


I've read it all. Been on top of it most of the day. The forum post is unconfirmed. The only new info I've seen is the examiner article. There's 51pgs in the forum link. It's all covered there.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

Drudge it. Drudge it all.

----------


## tttppp

> I hate to say it, but I wonder about the top level of Ron Paul's campaign. They should have pointed out immediately anyone can make a video and say it is from someone -- they should have distanced themselves from it and not apologize -- they should also be on top of what is going on here, and the evidence that shows this video is a hit piece created by a fake Ron Paul supporter, and POSSIBLY someone connected to Huntsman. 
> 
> Sometimes I think the RP campaign is a little late to the game. 
> 
> Also, Ron Paul saying "Iran is not going to attack us" today with John King... I'm worried about that. He needs to realize they may either be provoked into attacking, or there may be a false flag. If it happens, he will be attacked and heavily discredited with a lot of "told ya so's" from the MSM. "Wow, Ron Paul said Iran would never attack anyone..."
> 
> We KNOW Iran is NOT a threat, but we also know they may be provoked into some kind of action. Push hard enough, they will push back.
> 
> *Ron Paul needs to say something like, "With the sactions and aggressive actions of the US, such as placing a carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, it can be expected that Iran may respond in some respect. We are provoking them. We are pushing them. We are needling them and pushing for war, and they may respond, just as any nation would that is being attacked."*


Ron Paul is in pretty good position on this one. He already stated many times that sanctions are an act of war. If Iran happens to do anything stupid, it will most likely be in response to those sanctions.

----------


## rnestam

> I've read it all. Been on top of it most of the day. The forum post is unconfirmed. The only new info I've seen is the examiner article. There's 51pgs in the forum link. It's all covered there.


Yeah, unconfirmed to say the least..."the big man called to thank me.." or something like that. Could be the first time I've seen a false flag op ON a false flag op....the forum conversation is as phony as the ad was...

----------


## Oddone

I don't know what to believe anymore. $#@!s coming together like a real false flag op geesh.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> Yeah, unconfirmed to say the least..."the big man called to thank me.." or something like that. Could be the first time I've seen a false flag op ON a false flag op....the forum conversation is as phony as the ad was...


False Flag Op on the False Flag Op. I like that. Yeah the Huntsman Forum post looked pretty rudimentary and kinda thrown together...

----------


## Base_Disclosure

That's why I was careful to say "inconclusive".

----------


## Oddone

Actually looking over that forum the whole thing is BS. That's not a real Huntsman forum, also anyone can post there without an account. Waste of time, and now the examiner can look stupid along with the people who thought the Herman Cain forums were real. Uh..

----------


## JJ2

Yeah, but even without the forum posts, it looks pretty obvious from the other evidence.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Yeah, unconfirmed to say the least..."the big man called to thank me.." or something like that. Could be the first time I've seen a false flag op ON a false flag op....the forum conversation is as phony as the ad was...


But of course, a larger conversation about false flag ops at home and abroad might clear things up, but we're not supposed to talk about false flags ever around here, sigh.

----------


## rnestam

Just best to point out facts...why would Huntsman comment nationally on a video with only ___ views unless he wanted to try and make it a point. It's bad enough right there without accusing him or campaign of actually creating it....do we know the exact number of views it had when huntsman first talked about it personally? Did it really only have 1 view when it was linked from his site? no need to dig deeper than that and risk being wrong and losing the point. Asking questions is better than trying to answer them with $#@! like this....

----------


## RickyJ

The MSM doesn't care who did it. 

Heck they could have even made it themselves and demanded Ron Paul apologize for it. 

Ron Paul said he had nothing to do with it and no one on his campaign staff had anything to do with it. That alone should be enough for sane people. 

The MSM does not care about the truth, they will never be fair to Ron Paul cause their bosses hate him.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

Hahha this is too funny. It is so obvious it was a set up, but it had to be by someone VERY IMPORTANT, to get the MSM to pick this up. If i was to make some vid about Romney or Santorum that was showing similar stuff that this Dunceman ad showed, and tried to tie RP to it, i can't see the whole MSM swooping in like hawks. 

Dunceman looks terrible with all of this though, because the horsing around and allusions he gave away on Piers show the other night on CNN, and it even seemed like Piers was giving him pointers on how to go about it. It can't be proven if the official Dunceman Campaign had anything to do with it, but what we do know, is that it was definitely some anti-paul people, no doubt about that. But considering the MSM jumped all over it so quickly, and sites like Redstate, etc, i am definitely inclined to believe it was a collaboration with the MSM and Dunceman Campaign. The evidence is just way too overwhelming here. The fact the YT user account name starts off with NH, just proves they are doing all they can to have that idiot hurdle past Ron in NH, so he doesnt take 2nd place.

You see, someone earlier here made an excellent point about that too. The establishment doesnt want Paul taking 1st, we know that already. But they also dont want him taking 2nd. They do not want to show that he is the anti-romney and allowing people to see he is right behind him, because it will show Paul as Romneys number 1 challenger, and they are scared to death of Ron getting more momentum, and possibly even taking votes from Romney if he started polling/placing right behind him. This is exactly why they created their bs media blitz with Frothy in IA (or whatever other rigging they did along with it), and now they are trying to do the same thing in NH with Dunceman.  I mean, really, can it get anymore obvious? 7 $#@!ing days to go from IA to NH, and ofc, god forbid we can go the whole time without some ridiculous tactic being spammed our way. I am sure if it was just 2 days between, they would come up with something. It's like the establishment scum has some 'red button' they push, and BOOM, IT GOES VIRAL INSTANTLY 

So what is next during the 2 weeks leading up to SC? OH WAIT!! I GOT!!! 

HEAD LINE: *RON PAUL STEPS ON A PRAYING MANTIS IN SPARTANBURG, SC, FAILS TO APOLOGIZE OR SEEK OUT FORGIVENESS FROM LOCAL CHAPLAIN*

----------


## jcarcinogen

http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-co...k-against-paul

Anyone have a good tweet to retweet on this?

----------


## LiveForHonortune

Did this catch fire on reddit yet?

The only reason they do $#@! like this is because they know Ron Paul supporters dominate the internet.

----------


## Xenophage

Are you guys all $#@!ing retarded?  This is a troll on top of a troll.  Way to be gullible.

That forums is completely $#@!ing fake.  JUST LOOK AT IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

----------


## Xenophage

Are you guys all $#@!ing retarded?  This is a troll on top of a troll.  Way to be gullible.

That forums is completely $#@!ing fake.  JUST LOOK AT IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

----------


## Xenophage

The video is definitely created by someone who hates Ron Paul, trolling Ron Paul supporters with it.  This forum is obviously fake though and in no way constitutes evidence that it was Huntsman's people.

----------


## Sal Featherstone

Move this to Hot Topics please... it' an embarrassment to Dr. Paul.

----------


## anaconda

I cannot imagine how one unknown individual making a video and uploading it to youtube is in any way newsworthy. This is the real issue.

----------


## anaconda

> Move this to Hot Topics please... it' an embarrassment to Dr. Paul.


How can this possibly be an "embarrassment to Dr. Paul?" You should go work for Fox News.

----------


## GHoeberX

At first I was sceptical that this was really first flag, because *the forum-topic on ORINJE.COM doesn't prove anything (and is fake for obvious reasons)*

HOWEVER in this article shows better evidence:
http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-co...k-against-paul

1) The user "NHLiberty4Paul" was created at January 4th, never uploaded any other video and immediately uploaded this video. Other words: this account was solely made to upload this one video.
2) *According to the publicly-viewable stats provided by YouTube, the very first place this video was posted was Jon Huntsman’s campaign website, Jon2012.com.  This was done on January 4, the very day the video was uploaded to YouTube, and before the video had received any traffic from other sites.*
3) The offending “Jon Huntsman’s Values” video was tagged *“jon2012girls”* by whoever operates the “NHLiberty4Paul” account. Do Ron Paul-supporters even know about the jon2012girls??

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> false flag anyone?


The YouTube possibly is.  Sadly, some of ours seemingly have taken that to mean they can create a known false flag:

http://i.imgur.com/8vhJw.png

"I even got a call from the big man thanking me personally."  Puh-leeze.

----------


## rp2012win

Cindy McCain @CindyhM1 13h 
I deeply resent the video made using the adopted daughters of@johnhuntsman. @ronpaul shame on you. This has shades of 2000 all over it.

Cindy Mccain now tying the ron paul campaign to the video. The story looks like its getting ready to blow up even bigger. All because 1 person created a stupid video and posted it to youtube and claimed they supported ron paul. It's amazing how much bad luck we have. If I created that video and said I support mitt romney, I guarantee it would only get about 10 views and never make it worldwide like this one.

----------


## Liberty74

This type of smear against Paul is just he begging people. It's been going on for a strong month now especially by Fox and the fake conservative radio talk show propagandists. I still say if Paul is denied the nomination - stick it the man and run as an anti-status quo candidate, yes Independent.

----------


## GHoeberX

> Cindy McCain @CindyhM1 13h 
> I deeply resent the video made using the adopted daughters of@johnhuntsman. @ronpaul shame on you. This has shades of 2000 all over it.
> 
> Cindy Mccain now tying the ron paul campaign to the video. *The story looks like its getting ready to blow up even bigger. All because 1 person created a stupid video and posted it to youtube and claimed they supported ron paul. It's amazing how much bad luck we have.* If I created that video and said I support mitt romney, I guarantee it would only get about 10 views and never make it worldwide like this one.


This is not bad luck... This is the logical consequence of:
- the fact that the media is ready to blow up any story which could damage Ron Paul.
- the fact that the other candidates don't have grassroots support, hence it's close to impossible their campaigns get damaged by supporters.

----------


## nc4rp

> They say they have another one coming Monday: http://orinje.com/threads/430416-The...with-our-video


i read somewhere thats a fake forum and fake thread.

----------


## RipperNT

Just seems so funny that it was uploaded then Cincy McCain tweets. Seems setup!

----------


## nc4rp

> Cindy McCain @CindyhM1 13h 
> I deeply resent the video made using the adopted daughters of@johnhuntsman. @ronpaul shame on you. This has shades of 2000 all over it.
> 
> Cindy Mccain now tying the ron paul campaign to the video. The story looks like its getting ready to blow up even bigger. All because 1 person created a stupid video and posted it to youtube and claimed they supported ron paul. It's amazing how much bad luck we have. If I created that video and said I support mitt romney, I guarantee it would only get about 10 views and never make it worldwide like this one.




but - quote from Presidential Candidate Paul: "ive been doing this a long time. its just propaganda and i don't think it'll stick" 

Dr. Paul has class.

----------


## nc4rp

> Just seems so funny that it was uploaded then Cincy McCain tweets. Seems setup!


how soon after teh video was uploaded did she tweet?

----------


## Sal Featherstone

> How can this possibly be an "embarrassment to Dr. Paul?" You should go work for Fox News.


Where is the hard, valid, incontrovertible evidence for this incendiary accusation that Huntsman or his supporters made this ad?

You have none.  Just shreds of a barely relevant circumstantial evidence.

Why this has not been moved to Hot Topics is beyond me.

----------


## RipperNT

> Where is the hard, valid, incontrovertible evidence for this incendiary accusation that Huntsman or his supporters made this ad?
> 
> You have none.  Just shreds of a barely relevant circumstantial evidence.


LOL I think that question should be asked to the MSM and Cincy McCain!

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Where is the hard, valid, incontrovertible evidence for this incendiary accusation that Huntsman or his supporters made this ad?


Where is that "hard, valid, incontrovertible evidence" when it comes to a Ron Paul supporter actually having made this video?

Hasn't stopped the media, has it?  Or Huntsman himself from demanding Paul denounce this unknown nobody.

----------


## Sal Featherstone

So two wrongs make a right?  All of you are disgracing Dr. Paul.  Please cease and desist!!

This thread accuses "HUNTSMAN'S STAFF" of making the video?  Where is the valid evidence for this claim??

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> So two wrongs make a right?  All of you are disgracing Dr. Paul.  Please cease and desist!!
> 
> This thread accuses "HUNTSMAN'S STAFF" of making the video?  Where is the valid evidence for this claim??


Huntsman disgraced himself by demanding Ron Paul apologize for and disavow this.  We're not talking about any staff or internet supporters here, but the man himself.  Paul should ask where is his proof.

----------


## RipperNT

> So two wrongs make a right?  All of you are disgracing Dr. Paul.  Please cease and desist!!
> 
> This thread accuses "HUNTSMAN'S STAFF" of making the video?  Where is the valid evidence for this claim??


My problem is that he accused Ron Paul himself. He is also painting us as being bad, and uncontrolled? How should we counter this honestly? Think that throwing Gas on the fire by going after him wouldn't help, and probably what he wants to get even more media. Never punch down! But after the low rent twilight zone video sorry I don't see this beneath Huntsman!

----------


## MewMint

Lol. That Jon Huntsman forum reminded me a lot of FredThompsonForum 
*Hint(it was a parody forum, interestingly enough founded by Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich supporters). I posted a few times there as Bill O'Riley 

A few old quotes from the 2008 forum:



> If you are not a member of the CFR, you are UN-qualified to be President of the United States.
> 
> We almost had that problem with Reagan, but Bush SR was there to keep him in line, along with assassination attempts.
> 
> (About Ron Paul)Tell me about it, for a candidate with only 5 supporters, those supporters sure spam this site quite a bit. I bet they have Iphones so they can spam the internet while shopping for tin foil at Walmart.
> 
> Government grants you your rights. Government allows you to be free





> Rong Paul did NOT win. He lost by 67%!
> 
> Only 33% voted FOR Rong Paul, but 67% voted AGAINST Rong Paul.
> 
> Get your facts straight and STOP wasting our time with surrender monkey business.





> Crankshaft, I thought I told you to go be with your Klingons buddies. WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIND HERR. Yuur sick of the war? Well I'm sick of Ron Paul and his freedom ****. Boo hoo I don't have my freedomes anymore. Get over it. Boo hoo the UN is coming to take my guns. The UN is your country dumbass.
> 
> I bet he laughed when people died on 9/11.


Granted it looked a lot more like obvious satire in 2008 before Fox News and some Republicans went completely over the edge. It is getting harder to do obvious crazy satire.

It's basically like the Landoverbaptist forum.

----------


## ropo

Apparently there was a Huffington post article that contacted the user who said "the campaign told me not to say anything"

Has anyone contacted the official campaign and told them of this claim?

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

C-SPAN Washington Journal is covering it now.

Rob(moderator) stated... "It was created by Ron Paul Supporters"

I can't call in because you're limited to one call per 30 days.

http://www.c-span.org/Series/Washington-Journal/

----------


## Bruno

Honest journalism just gasped its last breath.

----------


## speciallyblend

> He's a great article detailing the Huntsman/Ron Paul ad mess, in which a lone nut created a You Tube account and in one day uploaded ONE video characterizing Huntsman as a "manchurian candidate."
> 
> Ron Paul and his campaign *HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT*, but the media is running wild with it, demanding Ron Paul apologize.
> 
> Hey, *I* can go create some fake ad in Romney or Santorum's name and blast Ron Paul. Think they'll jump on that?
> 
> You wonder if these morons in the media realize how easy it is to post a video on You Tube and attribute it to someone. 
> 
> The below link also shows some evidence the video may have been made by Huntsmans OWN STAFF (though I think this is inconclusive): 
> ...


sat night debate is a great time to expose huntsman live on air about their campaign making this video. Ron Paul needs to call out the lying media tonight on this lie from hunstman and the media ASAP TONIGHT LIVE CALL THE LIARS OUT

----------


## lilymc

So what's the latest, is the video still up?

The longer it stays up, the longer it proves (imo) that whoever did it is not a true Ron Paul supporter.

----------


## centure7

> UPDATE #3: A reader has e-mailed me to point out that the offending Jon Huntsmans Values video was tagged jon2012girls by whoever operates the NHLiberty4Paul account.
> 
> jon2012girls is the online moniker of Huntsmans daughters, which they use on YouTubeand Twitter.  Their Cain spoof video carries the same tag.


Wow that is all but a smoking gun. The Huntsman daughters released that video! The Paul campaign should take steps to confirm this apparent fact.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Wow that is all but a smoking gun. The Huntsman daughters released that video! The Paul campaign should take steps to confirm this apparent fact.


perfect chance for ron paul to expose the media bias, the status quo bias and the lies..He should do this today and live on stage at the debate and expose the media/hunstmans lies in general expose them liars

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Apparently there was a Huffington post article that contacted the user who said "the campaign told me not to say anything"
> 
> Has anyone contacted the official campaign and told them of this claim?


What a load of BS by the Huffington Post. It's apparent all the newly created accounts give it away.

Create a new Twitter account, then create the 'Manchurian Candidate' video. After they uploaded the video, the first Tweet sent out, is directly to the Huntsman campaign tweeter accounts? 

Pretty Obvious & Pretty Dumb 

The Yellow JourNOlism of the Huffington Post is very pathetic. It only takes a couple of minutes to put all the pieces together.

----------


## guyjohn59

The thread is clearly fake, put out as a joke. The jon2012.com referral is because jon2012.com has a twitter feed and NHLibert4Paul tweeted this to @JonHuntsman Jan 4. "Update 1/6/12: Several people have emailed us to point out that the first referral to the video, according the YouTube statistics, is from "jon2012.com" — Huntsman's campaign site. Huntsman campaign spokesperson Tim Miller tells us in response, "All tweets that tag @JonHuntsman show up on our site. So someone saw it here."

----------


## theswedishchef

That is some Dirty games being played!

Try to get that walk-through Link drudged?

----------


## blazeKing

The entire media establishment is yellow journalism..it's definitely dead

----------


## speciallyblend

you can flag the video as scam/fraud and here is the contact number we have to wait till monday it seems to call google and youtube *Our Address*You can contact YouTube at the address below.YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA

Phone: +1 650-253-0000
Fax: +1 650-253-0001

----------


## abstrusezincate

If this gets shifted to Huntsman, and it may well in the next day or so, it will hurt him badly.  People hate this sort of crap.

The ad itself is just silly, really, but the desperation is so bush league to make a play like this.

----------


## speciallyblend

nothing you can do i called them all. The media knows its lies and they will spread the lie because they are LIARS, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...84#post3975584

----------


## Forty Twice

Huntsman's job is not to increase his popularity.  There'll be no Huntsman Surge.  His job is to damage Paul.  Just like Bachmann last week.  She eventually lost all credibility, but only after inflicting damage on Paul's campaign.  This partly allowed Santorum to rise in Iowa.  Huntsman is beating up on Paul so Santorum can rise.  I think it's all coordinated by RNC.  They will get rewards in next admin for cooperating.  I expect Rick Perry to pull a dirty trick on Paul in SC.  That's why he changed his mind and got back in the race.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

The fact of the matter is, that was home video footage from Jon Huntsmans personal life. There is a reference from Jon2012girls, and the video quality is very sub par. The editing appears to be the same as other Huntsman Ads.

While I truly believe it was produced by Huntsman's daughters, we shouldn't make a claim without irrefutable evidence to back it. However, we need to fight this by presenting what we do have, and making it clear that a Ron Paul supporter's actions are not what Ron Paul practices. Nor can he be blamed and/or ostracized for another individuals actions.

----------


## abstrusezincate

While in the world of responsible journalism, I would agree you'd want perfect proof, I think the circumstantial case being delivered vigorously is enough to throw doubt upon the question.  Besides, campaigns are won and lost upon having information believed to be true at the exact right time.

Considering the timed evidence of the origins, and looking at the motive, considering no campaign has any reason to engage Huntsman because he is A) a threat to no other candidate and B) polling so low, I'd say the argument is strong enough that readers would consider this being true.

And it is worth pushing a bit because if Huntsman collapses those are votes we may get.

----------


## speciallyblend

> The fact of the matter is, that was home video footage from Jon Huntsmans personal life. There is a reference from Jon2012girls, and the video quality is very sub par. The editing appears to be the same as other Huntsman Ads.
> 
> While I truly believe it was produced by Huntsman's daughters, we shouldn't make a claim without irrefutable evidence to back it. However, we need to fight this by presenting what we do have, and making it clear that a Ron Paul supporter's actions are not what Ron Paul practices. Nor can he be blamed and/or ostracized for another individuals actions.


great points but then media doesn't care .They want this stuff so they can lie. Lying is there nature

----------


## wgadget

It was not an ad. It was a troll-made YouTube video.

----------


## angelatc

> Cindy McCain @CindyhM1 13h 
> I deeply resent the video made using the adopted daughters of@johnhuntsman. @ronpaul shame on you. This has shades of 2000 all over it.


AngelaTC - First, this isn't about you.  And Bush won, so you're encouraging this? Put your duct tape back on, beauty queen.

----------


## speciallyblend

> It was not an ad. It was a troll-made YouTube video.


it is a you tube video/ad whatever you want call it.

----------


## The Binghamton Patriot

> false flag anyone?


absolutely 100% without a doubt

----------


## No Free Beer

> here's a link to the text in image form, just for storage purposes
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/8vhJw.png


Is this actually true?

----------


## No Free Beer

> absolutely 100% without a doubt


Bing, you are such a bigot dude.

Stop.

----------


## Sal Featherstone

> The thread is clearly fake, put out as a joke. The jon2012.com referral is because jon2012.com has a twitter feed and NHLibert4Paul tweeted this to @JonHuntsman Jan 4. "Update 1/6/12: Several people have emailed us to point out that the first referral to the video, according the YouTube statistics, is from "jon2012.com"  Huntsman's campaign site. Huntsman campaign spokesperson Tim Miller tells us in response, "All tweets that tag @JonHuntsman show up on our site. So someone saw it here."


Gee. What do you know?  A perfectly valid explanation.  

So how about all those conspiracy theories now?

You people are embarrassing and humiliating Dr Paul and our entire movement with your unsubstantiated accusations.  Shame on you.  Have you ever heard the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?  This reminds me of when Herman Cain accused Perry of leaking his harassment story.  What an embarrassment.

----------


## TER

This will not matter anything in a few days time and Ron Paul should ignore it.  I dont think this media tactic is going to affect Ron's second place position in NH.  We are pissed because of how dishonest and unfair the media is.  I don't think the average NH voter really cares too much about this whole contrived story.  At least, I hope they don't.

----------


## TER

BTW, I don't think this was a stunt by Jon Hunstman or his campaign but they sure are using it to their advantage, which is typical for a campaign that is fast coming to an end and is in desperation mode.

----------


## RileyE104

Just remember that on Piers Morgan, Huntsman declared that they would be getting back at Paul over the jab taken at him over twitter.

----------


## TER

> Just remember that on Piers Morgan, Huntsman declared that they would be getting back at Paul over the jab taken at him over twitter.


This does not constitute proof that his campaign made this video.  We need to drop it and move on.

----------


## roderik

Just for your information. *This story just hit the german press over here.*

The headline of the german SPIEGEL translated:

*US Republican Election: Racist campaign against "China John"*
America's primary campaign is getting dirty: with racist undertones, a video of Republican candidate Jon Huntsman vilified as agents of China.
*Probably followers of the radical-liberal opponent Ron Paul have created the clip.*

source: hxxp://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,807744,00.html

----------


## TheLasersShadow

This isn't going to get us anywhere we don't have any allies in the MSM that would take this on. They already call us kooks and trying to explain this won't help that image right or wrong.

Good DP post on this here>> http://www.dailypaul.com/201111/urge...clear-evidence

The media hates us why would they report this circumstantial evidence to try to help us? they won't! I say we drop it and move on they got us and the campaign didn't handle it well.

----------


## hillertexas

Just an FYI: the footage with him holding his daughter is from this video I think (not his personal files or anything like that): 
ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_IQr9kMHdU8

----------


## dante

There is an easy way to test the Hunstman campaign's assertion that the first referral is due to the fact that it was tweeted to them.  Let's put up a new video on youtube, tweet the link to someone who's twitter is set up like Hunstman's and then see what happens.

----------


## btwilli1

Just to recap my findings I posted in the 50pg thread,

Jan 4 10:12PM EST - Video was published to youtube 
Jan 4 10:35PM EST - Video was tweeted to @JonHuntsman

Between 10:35 and midnight someone searched for Ron Paul on youtube and found the video, jon2012.com had a link somewhere on his site that sent someone to the video.  

All evidence is circumstantial but on Jon Huntsman's site tweets on the main page only show tweets he published, not people who used the @JonHuntsman tag.  Question is how did the referral happen.  DailyPaul says a web based email client on jon2012.com  It's interesting, but there is no way to really blame someone.  A lot happened in a 2 hour span before Jan 5th.

----------


## Emerick

> This isn't going to get us anywhere we don't have any allies in the MSM that would take this on. They already call us kooks and trying to explain this won't help that image right or wrong.
> 
> Good DP post on this here>> http://www.dailypaul.com/201111/urge...clear-evidence
> 
> The media hates us why would they report this circumstantial evidence to try to help us? they won't! I say we drop it and move on they got us and the campaign didn't handle it well.


Remember all the attacks in Iowa? Remember how it was used to create the narrative that Ron was loosing ground? Remember how it was used to pump Santorum?

This is the same thing. It will happen all the time. We need to fight the establishment. To let them attack us and do nothing is suicide.

All those circumstancial evidence against Huntsman is much more they had against Ron Paul. Ron's campaign - not Ron himself - should put the MSM in its place.

----------


## slamhead

> Just to recap my findings I posted in the 50pg thread,
> 
> Jan 4 10:12PM EST - Video was published to youtube 
> Jan 4 10:35PM EST - Video was tweeted to @JonHuntsman
> 
> Between 10:35 and midnight someone searched for Ron Paul on youtube and found the video, jon2012.com had a link somewhere on his site that sent someone to the video.  
> 
> All evidence is circumstantial but on Jon Huntsman's site tweets on the main page only show tweets he published, not people who used the @JonHuntsman tag.  Question is how did the referral happen.  It's interesting, but I guess we should leave it alone.


Why do we have another thread as you state here what you gleaned from the "50pg" thread? Can we join these threads mod?

----------


## speciallyblend

> Remember all the attacks in Iowa? Remember how it was used to create the narrative that Ron was loosing ground? Remember how it was used to pump Santorum?
> 
> This is the same thing. It will happen all the time. We need to fight the establishment. To let them attack us and do nothing is suicide.
> 
> All those circumstancial evidence against Huntsman is much more they had against Ron Paul. Ron's campaign - not Ron himself - should put the MSM in its place.


sadly the media doesn't care so they only way we can get the campaign to act against it  is to stop sending them money until they respond.  Of course i am so broke that is not a threat to the ron paul campaign so even ron paul would laugh me off.

i only said that above since i have sent my money to ron paul instead of registering my vehicle though i was to poor to register it 6 months ago. After realizing the gov is just milking me.
 I decided to send my money to ron paul so far i got 2 tickets for driving with no tags on my lisc plate(cops reminded me they were being nice and could tow my vehicle and i said go ahead i can't afford to take it out of tow so you would just have a bs vehicle,hell why don't you just lock me up and save me from being homeless) i cannot afford to pay the tickets or register my car so f the gov. I now refuse to register my car eventually they will tow it and i am screwed. I have gotten to the point of saying f the gov taking my money. i perfer to have a roof over my head insteaqd of paying the state money i need to live. f the gov i will no longer play by their rules of paying up so sooner or later i will lose my lisc and then my job and then be homeless. Even funnier i can't register my vehicle because it failed emissions so i am caught in a catch 22 $#@! the government.

----------


## amy31416

Whoever made it is probably having a lot of fun reading this thread. Trolls get off on this sort of thing you know.

----------


## George_K

> Just for your information. *This story just hit the german press over here.*
> 
> The headline of the german SPIEGEL translated:
> 
> *US Republican Election: Racist campaign against "China John"*
> America's primary campaign is getting dirty: with racist undertones, a video of Republican candidate Jon Huntsman vilified as agents of China.
> *Probably followers of the radical-liberal opponent Ron Paul have created the clip.*
> 
> source: hxxp://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,807744,00.html


Let me tell you good morning. the German Spiegel, the US FOX, CNN, MSNBC, British Guardian, even AL JAZEERA is in the same boat. They are all the same, they all push the same agenda and have all the same bosses. The media has a monopoly, not only in the USA, this is global.

----------


## ratatosk333

Guys don't worry about it. Dr. Paul probably knew something like this would happen, he'll handle it and make Huntsman look like an IDIOT, but more importantly he'll make the MSM lose a LOT of credibility. this is nothing but a good thing. I can't WAIT for Paul to come in 2nd on Tuesday it's going to be hilarious

----------


## sailingaway

> He's a great article detailing the Huntsman/Ron Paul ad mess, in which a lone nut created a You Tube account and in one day uploaded ONE video characterizing Huntsman as a "manchurian candidate."
> 
> Ron Paul and his campaign *HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT*, but the media is running wild with it, demanding Ron Paul apologize.
> 
> Hey, *I* can go create some fake ad in Romney or Santorum's name and blast Ron Paul. Think they'll jump on that?
> 
> You wonder if these morons in the media realize how easy it is to post a video on You Tube and attribute it to someone. 
> 
> The below link also shows some evidence the video may have been made by Huntsmans OWN STAFF (though I think this is inconclusive): 
> ...


Yeah, it's inconclusive to put it mildly although it is pretty clear no Paulite would first ever have a first ever referal to the youtube video (not 'ad') from Huntsman's site.  Clearly the ad was CREATED PURPOSEFULLY to blow up on Ron Paul and his supporters.  BUT it is not at all clear that the Huntsman camp did it, rather than were alerted to it first so they could react before it was taken down.  

Trolls have been coming here now for two days trying to rile people up to go on a witch hunt making it blow up even more in Ron's face and ours when it proves not true.  Most have recent accounts, or low posts.  Putting an inflamatory headline on a thread then ending the post with 'but I think this is inconclusive' raises questions, to put it mildly.

----------


## hillertexas

> This isn't going to get us anywhere we don't have any allies in the MSM that would take this on. They already call us kooks and trying to explain this won't help that image right or wrong.
> 
> Good DP post on this here>> http://www.dailypaul.com/201111/urge...clear-evidence
> 
> The media hates us why would they report this circumstantial evidence to try to help us? they won't! I say we drop it and move on they got us and the campaign didn't handle it well.



The guy over at the Daily Paul is making all sorts of sense:

*URGENT: Please Do NOT Unleash Blowback to the Huntsman Campaign over this New Video!*
Submitted by egervari on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 08:52

There has been some talk on here that the Huntsman campaign actually created a smear video against himself to try and implicate Dr. Paul. I created this post to address this charge.

Please read this post carefully. It is URGENT that you understand what I'm about to tell you, because it is true to the best of my knowledge and it is factual.

When this post talks about the technical information about the referrer addresses of this smear video, I want to assure you that I am qualified to speak about it. I have 12 years experience in web application development using Java/Spring/Hibernate, and I've been programming for a total of 18 years in a variety of technologies. If anyone is an expert on these matters, it is me.

Let's use our heads and use reason and logic to sniff this one out.

First, the Orinje.com forum for the Huntsman campaign appears to be a joke. I find it hard to believe that the Huntsman people even talk like that... let alone use that site to communicate with each other.

None of these writings look sincere. The whole story doesn't add up. It actually looks like kids wrote the content, or at least the `real` culprits made it appear that way. Those comments on the forum do not look like messages that real people actually wrote - it actually reads more like bad fiction.

In fact, all the responses on Orinje.com look scripted and appear like the same person wrote them all - the writing style is the same for every post.

Also, posting such incriminating messages on an "open forum" just seems far too incompetent if you ask me. I don't buy it.

I don't think the huntsman campaign did this.

Secondly, what about the referrer address that everyone is talking about? Let us ask, how could it have come from jon2012.com? The referrer address from jon2012.com doesn't actually make much sense in most cases, and I don't know why people are saying this is evidence that the Huntsman campaign uploaded the video - it isn't.

First, you have to ask the following question: Why would the content authors for the John Huntsman website post a link to the youtube video on their website, click it to go to youtube.com to set the first referrer address, and then remove that link from their website afterwards? That is precisely what some people on the DailyPaul are telling us what happened. Ask yourself, does that make sense? Is that even plausible? Why would the Huntsman campaign do that for? Do you *really* buy that? I don't.

As Tyler Durden points out, the referrer address was more likely set from an email client. If the Huntsman campaign actually runs a web client off their jon2012.com server to read their email as opposed to using gmail or hotmail, this would actually prove that the Huntsman campaign did NOT make the video. Clicking a youtube link inside of the web client running on their own server would actually send the jon2012.com referrer address, as has been reported.

Also, they probably also received a twitter message that they checked on their cellphone at the same time, which explains why twitter.com is one of the referrers and why it was viewed by a mobile device.

Let me be clear: If the jon2012.com domain hosts a web client where the campaign people read their email, then this actually proves that a 3rd party made the video and then sent it to the Huntsman campaign via email AND twitter. Then when the Huntsman campaign noticed that they got a new tweet and email, they clicked youtube.com link and established the first referrers. In fact, the line of reasoning is very plausible and probable.

Now, I can't prove that the Huntsman campaign has a web client running on jon2012.com, but this is a possibility YOU CANNOT DISMISS. If this is true, it essentially debunks the claim that the Huntsman campaign created this video fully and completely.

Even if the Huntsman website does not have a web client hosted on it, you still have to prove that a link to the video was posted to the jon2012.com website, clicked by a member of their staff, and then deleted. If there's no record of this, then how else did the referrer get to be jon2012.com?

Well, the only other possibility is that the referrer address was faked, probably to cause deception and to point the blame at Huntsman - because there aren't any other possibilities I can think of to explain this referrer address beyond creating a link on the jon2012.com website or clicking a link that was sent to an email address on the jon2012.com web mail client.

Now, it is actually very easy to fake a referrer address to YouTube to make it appear like the request came from jon2012.com. You can do so using a low-level HTTP library such as Apache HttpComponents. You can read about it here:

http://hc.apache.org/

Now, whether you think someone faked the referrer address or not is irrelevant - it is a possibility that you have to consider because we do not have all the evidence.

So guys, this whole thing SMELLS like a setup. There are more rational arguments to explain Huntsman's innocence than the other way around. I don't think the Huntsman campaign did this. They are not this incompetent. Nobody is. Nobody would post this video to their website only to delete it after the fact. It just doesn't add up.

*The odds that this whole video was created and released by a 3rd party to get us all "riled up" is EXTREMELY HIGH. It's quite logical to conclude that this video is NOT associated with either the Paul or the Huntsman campaigns.*

I think this was done by a 3rd party for the expressed purpose to stir up trouble between our campaigns. It could have been done to make Ron Paul supporters out to be "crazy conspiracy theorists". This is very likely that this is a false-flag within a false-flag - so it's important not to fall for it!

I honestly don't think the video was done by the Paul campaign, or from any of the supporters who regularly create videos. It just doesn't match the style of the Ron Paul videos we often see on YouTube.

At the same time, I don't think the Huntsman campaign did it either. I am not saying Huntsman campaign didn't know about a 3rd party making this video, but the evidence supports Huntsman's innocence.

The evidence trail is either too obvious, makes no rational sense, or it's as innocent as the Huntsman campaign people checking their twitter and email accounts and clicking youtube video. It's really as simple as that.

This proves that the Huntsman campaign was the FIRST people to VIEW the video via twitter and email, but it does not prove they created the video.

Now, I think Huntsman is totally overreacting to this video. If Huntsman's campaign were the first people to see the video, they are 100% guilty for bringing it to the media's attention, because they had no evidence that anyone in the Ron Paul campaign made the video.

I think Huntsman should have known better than to accuse Dr. Paul of releasing this video. I guess it's fashionable to accuse Dr. Paul of all sorts of evil these days. It makes no sense for Dr. Paul to put this out. Why would he?

So while Huntsman didn't create the video, it shows that he is negligent and foolish for not vetting the video and jumping the gun on this by bringing it to the media. If Huntsman is guilty of anything, he is guilty of this.

*For all we know, the 3rd party who actually made this video would like nothing better than for us to overreact and make us think that the Huntsman campaign created this video so that we would unleash blowback to the Huntsman campaign unjustly, thus destroying Ron Paul in the process!

So I want to make this perfectly clear: DO NOT STIR UP TROUBLE AGAINST THE HUNTSMAN CAMPAIGN OVER THIS! They are likely completely innocent when it comes to the creation of this video (although not innocent in telling the media about it).*

There are also a lot of people that listen to Alex Jones who are Ron Paul supporters, and frankly, these people are *way* too easily led to the wrong conclusions given little actual evidence by Alex and his guests. Please consider what I have said because it's likely Alex Jones will not look at what I wrote here as evidence. He will likely continue to claim that Huntsman did it. Alex is not interested in logic or facts. He will take a half-truth or something that is "maybe true", and out-right say it is 100% true.

Please tread carefully everyone. Be smart. Please do not react to this and do something everyone will regret.

I only hope I managed to stop this in time.

----------


## roderik

> Let me tell you good morning. the German Spiegel, the US FOX, CNN, MSNBC, British Guardian, even AL JAZEERA is in the same boat. They are all the same, they all push the same agenda and have all the same bosses. The media has a monopoly, not only in the USA, this is global.


I already commented it and sent the author an email.
You are right on every account, but i'm not gonna sit here and let this happen without speaking up.

----------


## pulp8721

two more accounts have uploaded the video: NH4MittRomney NH4santorum

----------


## speciallyblend

> Whoever made it is probably having a lot of fun reading this thread. Trolls get off on this sort of thing you know.


i think they are more concerned of making sure ron paul doesn't get nominated. this is above trolls. This is corruption and liars msm and status quo not trolls.

----------


## unknown

> here's a link to the text in image form, just for storage purposes
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/8vhJw.png


Yup, its gone.

----------


## sailingaway

*THIS -- DON'T LET TROLLS SET YOU OFF FURIOUS TO HURT RON'S CAMPAIGN - the OP has been banned until after New Hampshire*




> The guy over at the Daily Paul is making all sorts of sense:
> 
> *URGENT: Please Do NOT Unleash Blowback to the Huntsman Campaign over this New Video!*
> Submitted by egervari on Sat, 01/07/2012 - 08:52
> 
> There has been some talk on here that the Huntsman campaign actually created a smear video against himself to try and implicate Dr. Paul. I created this post to address this charge.
> 
> Please read this post carefully. It is URGENT that you understand what I'm about to tell you, because it is true to the best of my knowledge and it is factual.
> 
> ...

----------


## Diurdi

These are just internet trolls. They succeeded pretty well.

It would be absurd to think Huntsman's campaign has anything to do with this.

----------


## lucent

> The guy over at the Daily Paul is making all sorts of sense:





> When this post talks about the technical information about the referrer addresses of this smear video, I want to assure you that I am qualified to speak about it. I have 12 years experience in web application development using Java/Spring/Hibernate, and I've been programming for a total of 18 years in a variety of technologies. If anyone is an expert on these matters, it is me.


Then it makes me wonder how he can be such a noob.




> Let's use our heads and use reason and logic to sniff this one out.


Yes, let's.




> Secondly, what about the referrer address that everyone is talking about? Let us ask, how could it have come from jon2012.com? The referrer address from jon2012.com doesn't actually make much sense in most cases, and I don't know why people are saying this is evidence that the Huntsman campaign uploaded the video - it isn't.
> 
> First, you have to ask the following question: Why would the content authors for the John Huntsman website post a link to the youtube video on their website, click it to go to youtube.com to set the first referrer address, and then remove that link from their website afterwards? That is precisely what some people on the DailyPaul are telling us what happened. Ask yourself, does that make sense? Is that even plausible? Why would the Huntsman campaign do that for? Do you *really* buy that? I don't.


Because it was likely posted on a back end page on their website. Usually there are forums or a private messaging system. This was probably sent via a PM to the person who would then spread it elsewhere.




> As Tyler Durden points out, the referrer address was more likely set from an email client. If the Huntsman campaign actually runs a web client off their jon2012.com server to read their email as opposed to using gmail or hotmail, this would actually prove that the Huntsman campaign did NOT make the video. Clicking a youtube link inside of the web client running on their own server would actually send the jon2012.com referrer address, as has been reported.


Sorry, doesn't work that way. Emails on the jon2012.com are guaranteed to be a POP email. Emails are _downloaded_  onto your mail client. This can either be a free email or an email program. 




> Let me be clear: If the jon2012.com domain hosts a web client where the campaign people read their email, then this actually proves that a 3rd party made the video and then sent it to the Huntsman campaign via email AND twitter. Then when the Huntsman campaign noticed that they got a new tweet and email, they clicked youtube.com link and established the first referrers. In fact, the line of reasoning is very plausible and probable.


No, I doubt it hosts some kind of web client.  When confronted that it came from jon2012.com, their campaign said it has to do with the Twitter feed on their website, which hogwash because all URLs posted through Twitter are forwarded through http://t.co. Meaning, their campaign has already given their excuse and lied.




> Now, I can't prove that the Huntsman campaign has a web client running on jon2012.com, but this is a possibility YOU CANNOT DISMISS. If this is true, it essentially debunks the claim that the Huntsman campaign created this video fully and completely.


I don't need to, their campaign already answered the accusations with a false answer. Almost all these websites are hosted elsewhere. Meaning if they have access to a web client, it is running on their host's server, and it is not on their domain.





> Even if the Huntsman website does not have a web client hosted on it, you still have to prove that a link to the video was posted to the jon2012.com website, clicked by a member of their staff, and then deleted. If there's no record of this, then how else did the referrer get to be jon2012.com?


For being a professional, this guy sure doesn't know much about web hosting. There are back ends websites that are member access only. On the back end it is actually most likely a forum with a private messaging system. As I said above, someone probably PMed it to someone else.




> Well, the only other possibility is that the referrer address was faked, probably to cause deception and to point the blame at Huntsman - because there aren't any other possibilities I can think of to explain this referrer address beyond creating a link on the jon2012.com website or clicking a link that was sent to an email address on the jon2012.com web mail client.


I am sorry, but the easier explanation is that they probably had no clue referrals are monitored. It was done by a complete amateur and they got caught.

----------


## UK4Paul

$15 trillion in debt... possible war with Iran... but ooh look, a Youtube video Ron Paul didn't even make!

Why on earth do we call the media "mainstream"?

----------


## sailingaway

The point is it isn't PROOF Huntsman did it.  It might be proof someone is trying to make it LOOK like Huntsman did it, just as they 'tried' transparently to make it look like Ron Paul supporters made it to begin with.  We can and should use the track back info to show WE DIDN'T do it -- I think that is pretty obvious since we'd have been spreading it around if we actually liked the video, not sending it to Huntsman.  But we can't prove who did it, and the benefit from pinning it on someone isn't worth the risk of blowback if we are wrong and it is provable. In fact, if we can get out that we didn't do it and get remotely fair coverage of that (drudge etc) HUNTSMAN going off half cocked against RON is likely to create voter blow back.  

Be pure, folks, just defend ourselves.

----------


## braane

People, when the view count stops at 302(3)(whatever) so does the referral counts. It's entirely plausible that the link was put on Huntsman's site and it only got 1 click before the video got to 300 views. We will never know exactly how many people the link referred, because at the end of the day it isn't one of the top referring pages... 




> Let me be clear: If the jon2012.com domain hosts a web client where the campaign people read their email, then this actually proves that a 3rd party made the video and then sent it to the Huntsman campaign via email AND twitter. Then when the Huntsman campaign noticed that they got a new tweet and email, they clicked youtube.com link and established the first referrers. In fact, the line of reasoning is very plausible and probable.


*Let me be clear:* The people who are viewing these videos from the Huntsman campaign wouldn't be involved in making the videos. So you still haven't proved anything. The campaign people would have hired someone out. Plus... what if x campaign person made the video and sent it to x campaign person to see it. Your argument here holds no water. 




> Even if the Huntsman website does not have a web client hosted on it, you still have to prove that a link to the video was posted to the jon2012.com website, clicked by a member of their staff, and then deleted. If there's no record of this, then how else did the referrer get to be jon2012.com?


You run on three assumptions... 1) the link was only clicked once (see the first part of my post) -- 2) that the link doesn't still exist or that it was deleted immediately (for all we know it was placed on a hidden page -- that's unlikely but you have to look at all of the possibilities) and 3) that if they clicked on it by email that it would somehow dissociate them with the video.

I am of the opinion that it was the Huntsman campaign. I want to know how they were so quick to see the video. Even if the address was tweeted to them... they probably get a few hundred tweets an hour. Do you think they instantly saw that one and sent the video around? Even if they had, your assumption is that they found it by email. What are the odds that someone saw the tweet, emailed the video to the campaign, and one of their staff checked the email out before the video got to 300 views? It doesn't add up. It's much more likely that the campaign knew the video was going to be up from the start.

----------


## garydeppenbaugh

http://www.examiner.com/elections-20...ttempt-picture I believe this site has the answers.  Email FOX and MSNBC to get them to report the news correctly?

----------


## RockEnds

Since the 2008 election, I've taken up my own cause (I'm adopted) and advocated for adoptee rights.  I'm a domestic adoptee, and that's where I've concentrated my efforts.  But I'm not at all unfamiliar with what's happening in China.  I'm just throwing out this link as a "know your enemy" thing.  Huntsman is really playing up the selfless adopter theme right now, but adoption in China isn't all unicorns and rainbows.  There's some pretty serious human trafficking going on, and as ambassador, it's not like he isn't in the know.  I don't see him as being above the fray in this attack ad at all.

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/...ChinaNews.html

----------


## Travlyr

The bigger point is that many people in media used a YouTube video as a credible source of information. A YouTube video! That would earn a failing grade in a high school level journalism class.

It is not honest. It is not smart. Every media outlet and talking head that gave this YouTube video credibility is worthless as a source of information. They flat out do not check the accuracy of what they report on national platform! Why would anyone ever trust them again?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

The point of this false flag appears to be NOT "make a horrible Anti-Huntsman ad and blame Paul for it" but rather "create a false controversy and draw Paul into its sideshow." Paul should NOT be answering questions about it, and restrict any answers he does give to simply state his campaign has nothing to do with it, and get back to the issues. The new infowar narrative the MSM has been pushing in recent days is "Paul is associated with extremists" (see the recent CNN smear job):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dflRi...layer_embedded

The Huntsman video is part of this tactic, trying to link Paul to irresponsible or "dangerous" people.

----------


## sailingaway

> The bigger point is that many people in media used a YouTube video as a credible source of information. A YouTube video! That would earn a failing grade in a high school level journalism class.
> 
> It is not honest. It is not smart. Every media outlet and talking head that gave this YouTube video credibility is worthless as a source of information. They flat out do not check the accuracy of what they report on national platform! Why would anyone ever trust them again?


this, also that a Paulite would not have first sent it to the huntsmans. So it does show it is highly unlikely a Paulite.  Jumping the gun is a fair accusation.  That another particular group made it, without proof, is not.

----------


## redmod79

Who gives a $#@! about a YouTube video?  Ignore it or the people who created it won.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Just an FYI: the footage with him holding his daughter is from this video I think (not his personal files or anything like that): 
> ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_IQr9kMHdU8


in the comments section

http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_owners

 Content Verification Program
For copyright holders who have an ongoing need
 to remove  allegedly infringing content from YouTube,
 this program makes it easier  to submit multiple
 copyright notifications.


 Content ID 
YouTube's state-of-the-art technology allows content
  owners to identify user-uploaded videos and audio comprised
 of their  content, and choose what they want to happen when
 those videos are  found: Make money from them. 
Get stats on them. Or block them from  YouTube altogether.
==================================================  =======================
I went through the comments section and timings I fell upon this coincidental statement. Then I did a check on this account name on YT and Googled '*HUNTSMAN milowent*'. Needs further work, but a repeat offended? Weiner now Paul? I haven't search much, but this republican hater*(milowent)*appears to like attacking the GOP world. what do you think?


> THEMANCHURIANCANDIDATE AHGHGHGG﻿
> 
>        milowent                                   1 month ago


 https://www.google.com/search?q=milo...w=1011&bih=597




> How Does One Make Andrew Sullivan's Head Explode? | A Chequer *...* *www.chequerboard.org*/.../how-does-one-make-andrew-sullivans-hea...
> 
> Jul 7, 2010 – http://twitter.com/_milowent milowent_. sureeeee *...* Jon _Huntsman_ Talks About Entitlement Reform, China and the EPA November 14, 2011 *...*Case Closed? Leftblog Claims Definitive Proof Weiner Was Framed *...* *www.redstate.com*/.../case-closed-leftblog-claims-definitive-proof-we...
> 
> Jun 1, 2011 – *Reader milowent*, the same person quoted above, was able to send a *.....* Romney 29%, Santorum 21%, Newt 16%, Paul 12%, _Huntsman_ 4%, *...*Comedy Central passes Rick Scott the cup - YouTube
> 
> 
> *► 0:31*
> *► 0:31*
> ...





> Still, the blogger decided to test the process, and provided their own  yfrog email address. Reader milowent, the same person quoted above, was  able to send a pic through that address, thereby successfully posting to  someone else’s yfrog account. *Again, only because the address had been provided to him.* I’m sure if I gave you the password to my yfrog account instead of the email address, you’d be equally successful.
> 
> From Cannonfire:If you click on that link, you may notice something  important. *By using this technique, milowent (or is it Tony?) was able  to create a header that does not contain the URL of the image below the  account holder’s name.* As we’ve seen in previous posts, that URL does  appear if the account holder uploads a picture. Apparently, it does not  appear if someone else emails a picture to that account.
> 
>  The screencap of Congressman Weiner’s page — the one featuring the  infamous “crotch shot” — lacks the URL. As far as I can tell, the only  way to create that anomaly is when someone other than the account holder  places an image on Yfrog, using the simple strategy outlined above.
>  The comparison image given here should explain the situation to  anyone I’ve accidentally confused. (Click on the image to enlarge — and  I’m very embarrassed by the misspelled word.) The first header was taken  from the Weiner screen cap as it appeared on Breitbart. Note the lack  of a URL beneath “RepWeiner” — just blank space.
>  That’s very unusual. Under normal circumstances, Yfrog never puts blank space there.
>  I demonstrate those “normal circumstances” in the second example.  This is what the header looked like when I uploaded a picture to my own  Yfrog account. Note that the URL for the image appears right below my  pseudonym. (As noted in an earlier post, I opened the account under the  name “G. Dowson,” which happens to be the name of an illustrator whose  work I like.)
> 
> ...

----------


## unknown

Whether the Huntsman camp made it or not, they sure are exploiting it with the help of the establishment propaganda matrix.

----------


## Corey

The lack of quality alone proves it's not a Ron Paul supporter

----------


## hillertexas

> ...


Here is his twitter: ht tp://twitter.com/milowent ... and he is not a Ron Paul fan:



> milowent
> ron paul's "i dabbled in witchcraft" moment has arrived. #ronpaul2012
> 23 Dec


He does enjoy himself some Newt though:



> milowent
> When will this high-tech lynching of Newt Gingrich stop? He is a threat to the GOP establishment, but the people love him. #goNEWTgo
> 15 Dec





> milowent
> Callista seen shopping for new white house blinds. #SignsNewtIsGettingCocky
> 14 Dec


Also of note -->



> milowent
> @AKaczynski1 love your trove of old clips on youtube. where you getting these from?
> 1 Dec


AKaczynski1 is the user who uploaded the John Huntsman footage of him holding his daughter here: 
ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_IQr9kMHdU8

He also has a blog: ht tp://milowent.blogspot.com/

----------


## garydeppenbaugh

Good Point!

----------


## Occam's Banana

[EDIT: see posts 114 & 116 below]

I agree completely with the sentiment that we should not go off "half-cocked" with nothing more than circumstantial evidence (which, unfortunately, is all that we have and are ever likely to have), but otherwise I am not much impressed by egervari's case that no one in the Hunstman camp could be involved.




> it makes me wonder how he can be such a noob.


Exactly. +rep. I was going to post two of the very points lucent made, but he beat me to it.

I *AM* a "noob"  - in the sense that I've never actually set up or administered a website - but I have a decent layman's knowledge about these matters, and my first reaction to egervari's points was to wonder - given his claimed status as "expert" - how he could be so seemingly unaware that websites can have private pages/areas that are not publicly accessible.






> No, I doubt it hosts some kind of web client.  When confronted that it came from jon2012.com, their campaign said it has to do with the Twitter feed on their website, which hogwash because all URLs posted through Twitter are forwarded through http://t.co. Meaning, their campaign has already given their excuse and lied.


What's more, "the referral occurred via the Twitter feed on our site" can be demonstrated to be nonsense from a purely non-technical standpoint, as follows:

Suppose I tweet "@JonHuntsman is a big fat doody-head!!" Does anyone seriously think that that tweet is going to appear unvetted on the Huntsman campaign's official website?

It is to laugh.




> I am sorry, but the easier explanation is that they probably had no clue referrals are monitored. It was done by a complete amateur and they got caught.


Which jibes perfectly with my (entirely circumstantial) suspicion that Huntsman's daughter(s) are the source of the video.




> The point is it isn't PROOF Huntsman did it.  It might be proof someone is trying to make it LOOK like Huntsman did it, just as they 'tried' transparently to make it look like Ron Paul supporters made it to begin with.  We can and should use the track back info to show WE DIDN'T do it -- I think that is pretty obvious since we'd have been spreading it around if we actually liked the video, not sending it to Huntsman.  But we can't prove who did it, and the benefit from pinning it on someone isn't worth the risk of blowback if we are wrong and it is provable. In fact, if we can get out that we didn't do it and get remotely fair coverage of that (drudge etc) HUNTSMAN going off half cocked against RON is likely to create voter blow back.  
> 
> Be pure, folks, just defend ourselves.


As noted, I agree 100% with holding fire on the idea of running around the web screaming "Huntsman did it! Huntsman's daughters did it! Huntsman's campaign did it!"
To do so would be extremely ill-considered and counter-productive.

Substantive proof of such claims is very probably not going to be established - not beyond any "reasonable doubt," anyway. By the same token (unfortunately)  it's going to be nigh impossible to prove that Ron Paul supporters did *not* do it. Proving such a negative will pretty much require proving who *did* do it (whomever that may be).

And even if such proofs were in the offing, the good it would do would minimized. We can rest assured that the MSM will see to that.

With this affair, the MSM has once again clearly demonstrated that it has no truck with even minimal standards of jounalistic integrity and professionalism (with a few notable exceptions such as Ben Swann).

----------


## hillertexas

..

----------


## sailingaway

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...an-109958.html

Now that it is clear we didn't make it they are predictably saying we are trying to blame Huntsman, they have the 'victim' as aggressor thing down pat at that campaign.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No I'm sorry, that was me.   I thought I had made that clear with the dividing line.  I think I will go erase it so there is no more confusion


Ah, OK, I see. My bad.
I thought everything after your one-line introduction was quoting egervari.
My apologies to both of you for the misunderstanding.

----------


## thoughtomator

Wait, a false flag within a false flag is _more_ likely than just a simple false flag?

Here's the chain of events I believe is most likely:
- video created
- email sent to Huntsman campaign OR link posted to an internal campaign-only message board on jon2012.com
- Huntsman campaign approves of further release
- video linked on Twitter
- Huntsman campaign staffer checks it multiple times on Twitter (possibly showing it to others in campaign)
- chaos ensues

Remember, Huntsman's campaign manager initially said it was linked off the Twitter feed on the campaign website, but I can tell you 100% for certain that they are moderating those twitter links, because nothing critical at all gets into that feed, only pro-Huntsman stuff. I put a couple of critical tweets in the feed shortly after this surfaced yesterday and they never showed up there.

That must have been a flat-out lie by the campaign. They knew the feed was monitored. If the first click was theirs for a reason, they should have been able to supply the reason, email, other evidence, what have you. Where is it?

To presume this is a third party means giving the Huntsman campaign the benefit of the doubt in several low-probability scenarios which add up in my opinion to less than a 1% chance that this came from anywhere else. Referrer spoofing is something not all that many people can actually do - it's not hard, but how many people know about HTTP referrers, forget about being able to implement a mod to spoof it? You'd need someone with tech knowledge, so that instantly reduces the pool of possible candidates by quite a bit. There'd be no point in doing that for an account which in all likelihood no one would follow, since it was created that day and had no history nor associations. I suppose you could easily find that little bit of hacking tech knowledge at a Chinese university, where it is common. But not in US political circles where tech knowledge is the exception not the rule.

Choosing not to assign this to the Huntsman campaign this is a _political_ choice, not a technical one. The technical indicators all point there. I've been a programmer for 28 years now and have been working with web technologies since Mosaic (1991). Which means I've got 10 years total and 11 years of web experience above the other guy who doesn't think it was them (who is giving a political opinion IMO).

We can't have hard proof unless someone grabs the logs from the various sources. I don't see the Huntsman campaign offering up their logs or any other technical data to back up their side of the story, whereas all available technical data points right at them. Does anyone have grounds to subpoena some hard drives? That's the only way you definitely settle this, without a confession by the Huntsmans.

----------


## Justinfrom1776

I love that people are still spelling Huntsman's name wrong.. with a "h"

----------


## sailingaway

> Wait, a false flag within a false flag is _more_ likely than just a simple false flag?
> 
> Here's the chain of events I believe is most likely:
> - video created
> - email sent to Huntsman campaign OR link posted to an internal campaign-only message board on jon2012.com
> - Huntsman campaign approves of further release
> - video linked on Twitter
> - Huntsman campaign staffer checks it multiple times on Twitter (possibly showing it to others in campaign)
> - chaos ensues
> ...


Huntsman is already playing victim even though he if in good faith SHOULD be sheepish about a press release making a huge deal of this when it WASN'T a Ron Paul supporter. Don't play into his victim role.

----------


## thoughtomator

If he's innocent, let's see the source of the reference from his campaign, either the log or the email with full headers.

Oh yeah, did I mention I have also been an email administrator for a major enterprise with 20,000 accounts? And that I was contracted *by order of Congress* to perform an analysis specifically interested in email origination?

That they have not come out with any supporting data for their claims in the face of data that points right at them raises all sorts of questions, none of them kind.

Let them contact me (you have my email). If they are innocent I can prove their innocence and trace it back to the source OR show that the reference was indeed spoofed. I am fully qualified to analyze both email and web server log data.

If they _were_ in fact spoofed as is alleged, they have a tort that can be the basis of a subpoena for the logs from Twitter and Youtube. In light of evidence that says yes it was them, they would have every reason to pursue that to find the truth... unless they already know the truth.

----------


## Naraku

Since my thread got closed, I presume because we already have threads for this.

We all know about the NH Liberty 4 Paul garbage by now I'm sure. Some of you may know about the Twitter account. Well I decided to check it out and noticed a few odd things. For one the first tweet has an @ symbol only for Huntsman with hashtags for Paul, obviously demonstrating a familiarity with Twitter while at the same time making sure Paul's Twitter people would not find out before Huntsman people did. A tweet right at the Huntsman page suggests it was Huntsman people as opposed to a Paul supporter.

Of course, that doesn't tell us who but I noticed some odd things. All the major establishment "conservative" news media were being sent the video in tweets. Notable mentions in the second tweet of the account: Michelle Malkin and Dan Gainor at Fox News. Notable mention in the third tweet: Erick Erickson the head of Red State. The others included in those tweets and the fourth tweet are all major media people save for a few accounts obviously chosen for their conspiracist orientation. No Paul supporter would perform such a ridiculous habit of tweeting. One of the Twitter responses was to Daniel Strauss who apparently covers the Huntsman campaign for the Hill, though apparently he no longer has a Twitter account.

So where is the connection to the Hunstman girls? Well, when reading the tweets the second-most recent one caught my eye because it included the unusual hashtag #FITN, that I didn't understand. The Twitter search brings up a slew of inside-the-beltway-type politicos and journalists with not a Paul supporter in sight. I had no idea what it stood for so I did a Google search. Top result BOOM!:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huntsm...b_1018113.html

Looking over the Twitter search brings this FITN hashtag up several times with the Huntsman daughters account, people affiliated with the Huntsman campaign, and various inside-the-beltway twitter accounts. I think that's a lock people.

I should note, given the OP, that they also send out a tweet to Newt's campaign site that also uses this hashtag.

----------


## sailingaway

It suggests someone wanted Huntsman to SEE it before Paul did, again suggesting it was intended to blow up in Ron's face. We know that.  But hypothetically, Gingrich, who invested a ton in internet service and bought twitter followers, even, could have had it done sending it to Huntsman and not to Paul, to blow up on Paul. He might take two out that way. 

Which isn't to say it is Gingrich, it is to say we shouldn't go off half cocked without proof.

----------


## Nihilist23

These dirty tactics will escalate if Ron does well in NH.  The newsletters thing didn't work like they wanted, so they have to resort to stuff like this in the absence of any dirt to dig up.  Be ready.

----------


## anaconda

> I still say if Paul is denied the nomination - stick it the man and run as an anti-status quo candidate, yes Independent.


Why the hell not. Paul would poll sufficiently high to get in the debates with Mittens and Soetoro. Paul could easily send the election to the House of Representatives and solidify the liberty movement.

----------


## thoughtomator

Paul has a constitutency that is larger than the GOP and spans both parties and independents alike.

Paul is a game changer, at a time the game desperately needs to be changed and everybody knows it.

Paul needs to be on the general election ballot _no matter what_.

----------


## AgentOrange

> Why the hell not. Paul would poll sufficiently high to get in the debates with Mittens and Soetoro. Paul could easily send the election to the House of Representatives and solidify the liberty movement.


Paul could poll higher than both Obama & Romney put together, and he would still be shut out of the debates.  
The media will never give him a fair shake.

----------


## happyphilter

This needs to be exposed.

----------


## William R

bump

----------


## ZanZibar



----------


## Naraku

> It suggests someone wanted Huntsman to SEE it before Paul did, again suggesting it was intended to blow up in Ron's face. We know that.  But hypothetically, Gingrich, who invested a ton in internet service and bought twitter followers, even, could have had it done sending it to Huntsman and not to Paul, to blow up on Paul. He might take two out that way. 
> 
> Which isn't to say it is Gingrich, it is to say we shouldn't go off half cocked without proof.


Is it even likely that we will ever have definitive proof? We at least have pretty strong evidence that the twitter account for the creator of the video, whoever it is, uses inside-the-beltway hashtags and sent the video to all the major media and the Huntsman campaign as part of a deliberate strategy. This was no "prank" but a deceitful and intentional tactic to tarnish Paul's campaign. For something so blatant and organized to be seized on by the Huntsman campaign honestly does not suggest a mere "overreaction" or "mistake" to me. Rather, it says there is some knowledge that this was a false-flag action. Does anyone think Huntsman does not get ugly tweets from a few angry Paul supporters every now and then? Only this obvious fail of a video got this kind of campaign reaction and media play.

Here is a screencap of all the tweets so far if someone is interested in looking into it further:

----------


## economics102

EDIT: Deleted, becauseI realized you guys have already discussed what I wrote.

----------

