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.
__________________________________________
Frankly, I think I smell Newt Gingrich.
