Is the “Ranger Testimony” a fake?


Richard Moore

original URL:
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:27:45 +0200
From: "Torstein Viddal" <>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: access to - Testimony from a former U.S. Army Ranger


the interview can also be seen on Google Video, e.g here:


Torstein - thanks - rkm

From: "T K Wilson" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: access to -  Testimony from a former U.S. Army Ranger
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:36:51 -0500

The site works for me including all links (this is on 26.4 kbps dial up).

You need to look at the discussion. This may be bullshit (not that I 
don't think such things are happening).


Hi TK,

Yes, there is considerable controversy about the video's 
authenticity. Below is one of the rebuttal postings from the website. If the video is a hoax, I wonder whose hoax 
it is? The fact that peacefilms features these rebuttals suggests 
that they aren't intentionally trying to deceive.





Dale Franks
From: California
E-mail: •••@••.•••

Just for giggles, let's take another look at his uniform, and recount 
the things that are wrong. And bear is mind, if this is Mr. Macbeth's 
actual US Army uniform, that means that it is highly unlikely that 
any noticeable deviations from AR 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army 
uniforms and Insignia would be allowed.

1. The beret is worn with the crest over the right eye. Mr. Macbeth's 
beret is reversed.

2. The beret is improperly shaped. US military berets have a 
stiffener in the front, which is pulled forward, so that the front of 
the beret stands up straight, allowing the crest to be visible. The 
excess fabric is folded over the right side of the stiffener, and 
pulled down over the right ear.

3. The gold and black beret flash appears to be the current flash of 
the 1st Special Forces Group. Special forces are a separate 
discipline from US Army Rangers, and do not wear the tan beret.

4. There is no regimental crest on the beret flash, as is required 
for enlisted members.

5. The rank insignia on the collar are anodized black metal. Nearly 
all US Army units' local uniform regulations specify the use of 
sewn-on collar insignia, although the black metal insignia are 
authorized by the Army regulation.

6. He wears no qualification badges for Airborne, Air Assault, CIB, 
CAB, or any other special qualification. He should, at minumum, have 
Airborne qualification wings, especially if, as he claimed, he made 
three combat jumps.

7. Sleeves are rolled up, instead of rolled and folded over so that 
only camouflaged fabric shows, as specified in AR 670-1. Only USMC 
and USN members use simple rolls for the sleeve.

8. The black t-shirt is worn with BDUs only by USAF personnel.

9. The moustache-such as it is-extends beyond the corners of the 
mouth. This is strictly prohibited by all services.

10. He is wearing a Special Forces combat patch. This is incorrect.

11. There are two ta**ewn above the Special Forces patch. Only one is allowed.

Not a bad roundup if uniform violations from one uniform.

Bear in mind that service uniform regulations are not optional. The 
wear and placement of devices is both specific and mandatory. No 
deviations from these dress and appearance standards are allowed.

Added: May 23, 2006     

---<end of download>---

Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:12:19 -0700
From: Larry Victor <>
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: * Testimony from a former U.S. Army Ranger *

RICHARD,  I was suspect about the authenticity of this film from the 
beginning, before I read the comments.  I am strongly against the war 
and do know that military can do as "Jesse" claims. But his story was 
too extreme. He also reported on his buddies being killed yet didn't 
report that he actually had any "real" combat.

What I fear is that you are being set up to discredit the rest of 
your work. Have you been suckered to support The Matrix?  Your 
uncritically posting this could be used, when it is exposed as fake, 
to block access to your URLs. They are setting up to do this.

The recent release of the short sequence of video of the Pentagon 
attack on 9/11 illustrates that the powers in the USA are concerned 
about the growing attention to 9/11 truth.  The Bush administration 
is in panic and their actions building up to the elections this 
November will be fought through sophisticated propaganda -- for which 
they DO have talent.

I personally experienced this kind of deception in the heat of the 
anti-Vietnam war protests and learned to detect fraud. I helped calm 
Viet Vets who had episodes where they confessed to killing innocents. 
"Jesse" was not convincing.

IF what "Jesse" claims he wants to share was true, it would NOT be 
presented as this film was. Their plot is probably not directed 
towards you specifically, but towards the protest in general and they 
are setting up a fake USVet organization against the war to later 
expose - that is my hypothesis.

I hope your efforts to promote your book are going better.  We in 
Tucson look forward to your visit.



Hi Larry,

Your insights are appreciated and your theory makes a lot of sense.

If there is a propaganda 'plot', as you suggest, I would imagine the 
target is in some sense the whole Internet, as an alternative 
information source.

In terms of propaganda, the Internet is a gigantic thorn in the side 
of the regime. The regime's lies are exposed on a daily basis, 
available to millions. If they can dupe us into circulating planted 
fakes, and then 'expose' our 'deception', perhaps they hope to 
discredit Internet reports generally.

For those who rely on mainstream media, such a plot would accomplish 
little. Those folks already discount the 'Internet world'. For those 
of us who frequent that world, my hope lies with our ability to think 
for ourselves, to see beyond the sound bites. Yes, we sometimes get 
taken in by hoaxes - but then we move on, acknowledge new evidence, 
and continue to search for the real story.

As regards the apparent message of the video - the wanton murder of 
innocent civilians - we have considerable very reliable evidence that 
the video is not far from actual events.  These two postings are 
worth looking at again:

   20 Mar 2006   The sad truth about "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
   21 Mar 2006   Dahr Jamail: Operation Swarm of Lies

They both refer to the same event. The first is more explicit in its 
description, and the second is from Jamail, who is generally 
recognized as being very reliable. Here's an excerpt from Jamail's 

     Riyadh Majid, the nephew of the head of the family who was
     killed, told the AP that US forces landed in helicopters and
     raided the home early last Wednesday. Ahmed Khalaf, the
     brother of the deceased head of the household, said nine of
     the victims were family members who lived at the house and
     two were visitors.

     "The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were
     women and children," said Khalaf, "The Americans have
     promised us a better life, but we get only death."

     As per their now standard operating procedure, the US
     military claimed the strike targeted an individual
     "suspected" of supporting al-Qaida. And as usual, the
     military claimed they were under attack from the house.


Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
   cyberjournal forum 
   Achieving real democracy
   for readers of ETM 
   Community Empowerment
   Blogger made easy