It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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

We can now believe none of what we see, and none of what we hear.

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

2 things:

1. You code stuff? Nice! I spent several years in IT, but it was mostly repair work. I looked into basic programming & quickly realized I was in over my head.

2. As dangerous as this technology can be (in regards to public manipulation), I think the real damage was done long ago. Look at the 2004 "Bin Laden Confession" tape and the Bin Laden tapes released after he was supposedly killed. At the time, they looked real enough to convince most people even though some were skeptical. But now that we've become more accustomed to HD video and photo/video manipulation, it should be obvious to anyone that they're not authentic.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C (the video where they claimed he dyed his hair first):


It's bad enough that most people rely on international media companies to properly translate the words of many foreign leaders & controversial figures. But now, any intelligence agency or defense contractor can simply use publicly available software to recreate landscapes and people. And audio software is just as advanced, with software and programs that can mimic the voices of individuals, mimic the sounds of specific mics and mic preamps, and even mimic the acoustics of specific buildings. And if the job isn't convincing enough, they can just run it through some filters to dull the colors, definition, etc.




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

When the guy from Adobe mentioned how they were working on audio watermarks I immediately thought to myself "that will be quickly circumvented by using custom or hacked software". They need to focus on finding the difference between real and fake audio, there should be many clear indicators, like there are in a fake picture. However I predict eventually our software will be so good at creating fake voices that it will become impossible to use voice recordings and even video as evidence in court.
edit on 15/11/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

On the other hand, it's not like there is a publicly trusted lab that would be determining the authenticity of those recordings. We'd still be relying on contractors, govt sources, and media-trusted labs to vouch for the credibility of them. So even if some lone individuals discovered discrepancies or watermarks, it would be seen no differently than the conspiracy theorists who point out the flaws in an official story.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I wonder how long it will take the courts to adapt to these impersonating technologies? Seems like we will soon reach the cusp of inadmissible security footage. Possibly I weak link in the surveillance state utopia some dream of.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: VinylTyrant

I think it will take an entire generation for that change to happen. Countless State and local judicial systems will need new prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges who have been trained in video manipulation enough to know when to look for it.

Put it like this, this article (H ERE) says that it was in 1988 when DNA evidence was first used to help convict a killer. But to this day, DNA evidence still isn't universally used in cases. There are still people on Death Row who never had DNA testing done during their cases, which sometimes exonerates them during their appeals (the same goes for rape cases and others).

Another example is when I was on a jury, the police footage of the event had several minutes with the audio intentionally turned off. And their footage in some parts was sped up when shown to us on the jury. But the judge had no problem allowing that evidence to be used. So what's stopping police departments from editing the footage before releasing it to the public or to prosecutors right now? To me, it's no different that govt officials using redacted/edited files to convince the public that their position is correct.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
wow, I can hardly wait for the hoax alien disclosure videos to start showing up here on ATS.



"secret lost locker room video found, Trump claims an unnamed high level NASA source told him aliens are real,click here to see and hear Trumps bone chilling, spine tingling BOMBSHELL confession"

edit on 15-11-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Very good points made. I am aware of the second part of your post. Which has made me question the whole body cam system. When it comes to law and the "red tape" and such surrounding it the possibility of it all getting sorted out and judgements made in pure blind justice seems impossible yet not for a lack of certain people trying.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
True, I'm a liberal and non trump supporter. However, I also refused to vote for Clinton.

Once one wakes up to the propaganda that is the mainstream media, it's hard to ever trust it fully again. I feel that way.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Just like "computer forensics" these days. It shouldn't be admissible in court really, but experts in court will swear up and down timestamps and such mean a thing, when they are editable by anyone.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join