Are The "Trump Tapes" Fake or Not!?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Can we circle around back to the tech and it's potential impact in media? I used a political example because it was a flashpoint with the most potentail for this to be used. I think this thread supports that assumption. Now let's consider if this tech can be used in the news media. It could also be used to discredit companies to move stock markets too.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

No need to apologize, especially to me. I was only trying to point out that you perhaps think this has already been used against trump. But have not proven...

As for the rant against hillary...another time perhaps.

You have a bad habit of trolling your own thread.
Stay on target young Skywalker...

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Today it's cold. Thanks Canada.

a reply to: Sillyolme

On the contrary, it could have easily been used against Hillary in the last election, couldn't it? All those health vids. Could some oversight powerful be using a divide and conquer approach to get us fighting among ourselves while they walk out the back door with all our money. Just a thought.

a reply to: Sillyolme
Virginia, British Colombia? Cold as where I'm at. I'm looking to go warmer.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Then why the thread titled Are the trump tapes fake?

I'm out then. You can't even focus on your topic and claiming you're not political when telling us your political affiliations is contrary.
Have a nice thread...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Because the political scenario is the most likely application of this technology. The ability to move countries by their leadership. I'm sorry you think my balanced thinking of how this affects both parties is somehow me straddling the argument. It is not. The mods moved this to Political Conspiracy. I originally had it in Conspiracies, since it has broader considerations. My OP pointed out the bigger picture of how these fake message can move people in many scenarios. I value your posts/input/thoughts, so please post again.

The OP sounds lije a pre-emtive excuse for when legitimate proof surfaces.. or should I say MORE legitimate oroof surfaces of Trumps overall ineptitude

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Not at all...who would use ATS as a reference for fact checking, but I can understand the skepticism especially due to the heated debates over Trump. This thing is bigger than Trump. It can affect both parties, companies, etc., maybe geopolitics and WARS!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: thepixelpusher

You've shown proof of what? That people can manipulate video? So? Now prove this has been used against trump which is pretty much what you're trying so subtly to convey.

He has demonstrated the possibility exists and shown how it can easily be done by anyone.

When and if any damning alleged tapes come to light we can go from there. Whole lot of speculating going on, and Trump doesn't seem to be shaking.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Consider this political scenario.

An ultimate "Wag the Dog" perfect fake of a political figure doing something they never did, just to skew an election or lead us in to war.Take a look at what's possible with our current technology.

It's now possible to take existing video footage of a person and, with the aide of software, make it look like their face is saying and doing something other than it did in reality. Watch these videos to see what is currently possible and you'll question everything as PROOF. This is like Photoshop for video and audio. And we know how many fake Trump Photoshop images have been on ATS that were for fun or derision.

So those supposed shocking "Trump Tapes" out there we keep hearing about that the NSA has may be no more than a recreation based off video and audio samples from Trump. Think it's not possible...well watch the videos. The vids are not too long and it will SHOCK you how accurate it is and not too hard to accomplish something completely and totally convincing!!

Remapping video to change a persons presentation.

Changing what a person says by using voice samples by using Adobe software Voco.

CNN was already caught faking a field news report in the Gulf War.

NOTE: Although this addresses a political scenario, this is NOT the MUD PIT, so keep the comments on the tech/possibilities and not the political mudslinging. The current President is used as an example, but this stuff could affect anyone (political and more) if the media presents fake video/audio as real news.

Consider the subject. Is Trump "fake"? There is your answer....

Good God people. The media has the power to fashion messages to lead you into Damnation with false videos/audio and all you can do is gripe about political partisanship! Wake up. Your reality is nothing like you think it is.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Gossiping is not new. It's even biblical. As always, the audience should exercise discernment and not spread it. The only thing that has changed, is the speed that applications can spread the gossip.

a reply to: thepixelpusher>>> The Trump /Russia collusion into throwing our election is complete horse hockey. The Russians DID TRY to sucker Trump into going after fake dirt on Hillary, that part was true. But Trump for whatever reason didn't buy into it. But that then makes Hillary the REAL person colluding with Russia and the Uranium One deal proves it. And beyond that, if anybody was pushing to influence the election with stories it was us right here. The media was anti Trump, the internet providers ran anti Trump stories. Independents ran anti Hillary stories, but these were by average Joes and internet jockeys that just hated her. Me included. And they weren't fake news, the stories about her health and the sick stories about Pizzagate were true. More true than you know. But this business about faking videos, where did that come from> There are rumored to be, and I'll say that rumor is probably true, that some extremely damning videos are around of Hillary. They're about to go viral and they'll say they're faked. Again, horse hockey.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: thepixelpusher

No need to apologize, especially to me. I was only trying to point out that you perhaps think this has already been used against trump. But have not proven...

As for the rant against hillary...another time perhaps.

You have a bad habit of trolling your own thread.
Stay on target young Skywalker...

No, I mean -- I didn't get that assumption at all. He's talking about the sheer fact that this tech exists, but not only that it exists -- but how good it is and how easily accessible it is to get your hands on that software.

The fact that it DOES exist and it's accurate enough to basically be impossible to detect pretty much proves it's been used. On who, for what, and why? Unknown, but it's definitely been used.

Lets assume a scenario, one where someone is accused of something but it's actually not true. This tech can make it true despite the fact that it never happened, and that's the issue at contention here. Nobody believes the accused anyway even if they are legitimately innocent, so as soon as a video comes out -- it's game over. The tech exists for this, so I promise you it's been used in this way.

It'd be extremely naive to think it hasn't and won't.

a reply to: SRPrime

Yes, the fact that this has gone commercial and is available to the public means it almost certainly was already in existence for black projects within governments, or will be.

a reply to: SRPrime

You got it!

a reply to: thepixelpusher

So has the NSA given these tapes to Robert Mueller?

Not that anyone cares where the dog pees as long as it's not on the abusson.

a reply to: Pharyax

Wouldn't all these edits be evident upon examination of any video?

I'm betting they would be. Just remembering how they tore apart any image of Obama's birth certificate to support the premise that it was a forgery. Wouldn't that same technology just debunk any faked video?