It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

New Tech Shows Why You Can't Trust Anything You See on the News

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:29 PM

originally posted by: CheckPointCharlie
a reply to: Profusion

IDK. I wanna believe what your presenting but I can clearly see the teleprompter sillouette where his hand disappears.

What am I "presenting"?

I'm just pointing out the facts and asking you to defend what you seemed to be alluding to (which I would call the "teleprompter caused it theory").

You say, "I can clearly see the teleprompter sillouette where his hand disappears."

But, again, only part of his hand disappears. And none of the rest of his body (also directly behind the teleprompter) becomes transparent. In order for your position to make sense, IMHO, every part of his body that was behind the teleprompter would have to disappear.

If you're going to claim that the teleprompter caused part of his hand to become invisible while the other parts of his body which were also directly behind the teleprompter continue to look normal, consider all the assumptions you have to make:

1. A teleprompter can cause part of a person's body to become transparent.

2. While assumption #1 is occurring, the rest of the body looks normal including the parts directly behind the teleprompter.

I don't think any part of that is reasonable to believe or assume personally. Meanwhile, I'm not "presenting" a theory because I have no idea what happened. I see no reason to link the transparency to the teleprompter considering the entire case.

If you give me a reasonable theoretical explanation of how a teleprompter could do any of the above, I'll reconsider your point of view. As of now, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
edit on 26-3-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: Profusion

You presented the video.

All I'm getting at is .... has pixilation been ruled out ... or any other camera artifactization(?)?

I don't have any theories other than pixilation. But I don't know how that works, how the TelePrompTer works or how pixels would interfere, if at all. Pixilation seems reasonable and I believe that should be ruled out first. Why it effects his hand more than anything else in the frame, I couldn't even begin to explain.

I think you've 'presented' a nice counter argument to my original response. I may not be able to debunk this video, but that's not my intent.

Far too often I read threads here where a topic is 'presented' and after a few responses another poster comes along and thoroughly debunks the topic, only to see that go completely ignored and the thread go pages and pages. So I'm just trying to debunk my 'theory' here, not yours. Since nobody else is even attempting to 'present' another view, I thought I would. Not because I disagree with you, you see. This is a topic that piques my interest but I'm not interested in being misled, not that that's what you're doing but the topic could very well head down that path. Like I said, I wanna believe, but not at any cost.

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: LostThePlot
It's been posted a few times, but while it's impressive tech, it's easy for those working with CGI to spot its fake.
I wouldn't worry about anyone putting out fake interviews to manipulate the public. It'll be taken apart and exposed within hours.

Maybe so, but who is gonna tell al the viewers who watched the message?

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:50 AM
New Tech Shows Why You Can't Trust Anything You See on the News

...OK -- but then it also means you can't trust anything you see by people purporting to be the "alternate news/non-MSN" either.

edit on 3/27/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: zatara

And THAT is the crux of the issue. We have become so tribalized that we already mock and refuse to listen to "experts" who disagree with our bias.

Why would a believer give any credence at all to an expert who weighs in on doctored footage. We already ignore each other entirely already.

The real issue isn't that we have the tech to put words into other people's mouths. It is that we already do, and have been doing it for years, and no one cares unless it's their own team who is being misrepresented in this way.

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: Profusion

I was wondering how the following video was even conceivable.

It's simple: you have an actor mimic the footage on the monitor and claim it's the other way around. The video is a [HOAX!]. Note that the head motions are characteristic of the "subjects'" natural style. They never cross their eyes or stick out their tongue to prove they can make the "CGI" do anything

ETA: The "hologram" effect is caused by the teleprompter reflecting parts of Obama's suit and tie in front of his hand.
edit on 27-3-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

ETA: After a bit more research it appears that the CGI may be authentic. The hologram effect is still the teleprompter, though.
edit on 27-3-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:39 AM
why did the FCC require all broadcasts to be digital? That questioned burned in my mind when it was announced years ahead of the requirement. My thoughts were that it makes it easier to make "fake videos" than analog recordings. .a reply to: Profusion

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 12:24 PM
Lets say that this technology being presented is true and I really don't think that's too much of a stretch in my opinion, or in the least similar applied techniques. Then something that should be considered is that the military and the 'powers that be' have something far greater and superior as anything released/known to the public and is generally 20-45 years behind the R&D curve.

Now that's something to ponder....

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:59 PM

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Profusion

Crazy times. I created a similar thread here: Face2Face, real time facial manipulation technology.

"Your honor, I swear thats not me in the video. You see, theres this technology and my face was manipulated onto someone else's body and then what happens is, let me go, get those hand cuffs off, I'm not crazy!"

Yeah it would be really really easy to set someone up for a crime. Would a naive jury would be fooled by this? Maybe.

He killed him we found him in the hacked doctored surveillance tapes.
She slapped our CGi daughter. Its in this fake video. I want a divorce.

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:48 PM
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Yeah it would be really really easy to set someone up for a crime.

This technology will restore the importance of reliable witnesses. "I never saw him do that." "It's not something he would ever say." "I was there, that's not what I saw happen."

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:34 AM
I really like working with 3d software and other photo manipulation software.

What I also see is that this software takes away any credibility people experience in our world .

Something I never expected that it would happen. As almost every new technology, there are benefits and misfits around these products.

So evidence can be totally ignored by goat blatantly shout some events never existed and have been manipulated by software.

Imagine that "Someday some astronauts are doing a long duration spaceflight and communications are black for a month . Then they reastablish communication but from that moment on every conversation isn't real anymore. ..."

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:06 PM
You should check out "post production product placement" as well - the video below is a bit basic, but there's one or two good examples of how anything you see on TV etc now can be completely manipulated after the footage is shot.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in