New Member

[PhantomWolf]

You have not presented any expert analysis. You aren't even an expert in the faking of videos.

Why would you want someone that's an expert in faking something? Surely an expert in what real wiould be far better. Gumboot has shown that he is quite good at that. Perhaps instead of just dismissing his work a better path to follow would be to ask him to kindly show his data and working.

 

[gumboot]

Exactly.

What you going to do about it - tell us?

My identity and qualifications, as well as work experience, have all been presented publicly on these forums. Such information can be collaborated online without too much effort.

-Gumboot

 

[scooby]

Waiting for Rams satellite analysis to come in.

 

[332nd]

I want an expert whos job is analysing video and audio to detect fakery.

Well the Video isn't suspect it's the Audio. So that narrows it down. Now why wouldn't someone who works in a field where said fakery (adding sound after the vid is shot) would be used, count?

 

[scooby]

My identity and qualifications, as well as work experience, have all been presented publicly on these forums. Such information can be collaborated online without too much effort.

-Gumboot

But I don't want to know you.

Stop bandying your 'credentials' around in public, if you're not prepared to verify them in public.

 

[tonicblue]

Well the Video isn't suspect it's the Audio. So that narrows it down. Now why wouldn't someone who works in a field where said fakery (adding sound after the vid is shot) would be used, count?

Call me fussy, but I take what is said on internet forums with a large pinch of salt.

As scooby points out, there is a skeptic on this forum who controls the Hubble Telescope. I don't believe him either.

 

[332nd]

Call me fussy, but I take what is said on internet forums with a large pinch of salt.

As scooby points out, there is a skeptic on this forum who controls the Hubble Telescope. I don't believe him either.

Do you also take internet vids with a large pinch of salt?

 

[tonicblue]

Do you also take internet vidswith a large pinch of salt?

This is not an internet vid. It's from a documentary.

 

[332nd]

This is not an internet vid. It's from a documentary.

And this is a commercial for insurance.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPhAiEkO7NE

Now where did you find the clip?

 

[gumboot]

Well the Video isn't suspect it's the Audio. So that narrows it down. Now why wouldn't someone who works in a field where said fakery (adding sound after the vid is shot) would be used, count?

Generally the purpose of forensic audio is to identify what a sound is or voice recognition, that kind of thing.

In terms of establishing authenticity, that would only be done from an original source, not from digital copies, and original sources have control tracks and digital signatures that identify where they came from, so analysing the actual content is not part of the job.

Likewise, any modification of the original leaves tell-tale "fingerprints" that again, don't require analysis of the action audio-visual content.

What we are doing here is determining whether the characteristics of the explosion match the characteristics of the video. My observations of the video are as follows:

1. Only two individuals in the entire video appear to even notice the explosion, and their reactions are not sudden as expected from an explosion. Three of the individuals in the video appear entirely oblivious to the explosion, at least of them talking over the top of it.

2. The explosion audio does not peak at any point, despite being louder than the speech of the individuals within said video (which does peak quite badly).

3. The video does not have echoes of the explosion, as would be characteristic of an explosion that occured within an urban environment of tall buildings.

4. The explosion audio has high volume levels at both low and high frequencies, indicating close proximity to the explosion. However the explosion does not contain either of the alternative expected characteristics of such close proximity:
A) A sudden jolt of the camera due to the shockwave from the explosion
OR
B) a muffled explosion due to building structures shielding the camera, followed by clearer echoes as the explosion refracts around the building.

None of these require any level of special expertise in audio analysis.

Applying Occam's Razor, the simpliest explanation is that the explosion element of the audio has been added over the original audio, and that the original audio and video are genuine. The alternative hypothesis - that the video itself is faked - requires significant assumptions such as the involvement of a number of people in the fakery (either belonging to FDNY or owning firefighting equipment, for example).

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

As scooby points out, there is a skeptic on this forum who controls the Hubble Telescope. I don't believe him either.

There is?

-Gumboot

 

[tonicblue]

And this is a commercial for insurance.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPhAiEkO7NE

Now where did you find the clip?

I found the clip in the same place your "expert" did. He is happy with it as source material then so am I. He did claim to have got an AVI version but then he took that back.

 

[gumboot]

He did claim to have got an AVI version but then he took that back.

I didn't take it back, I clarified that I downloaded it and converted it to AVI so I could load it into my editing software.

-Gumboot

 

[scooby]

There is?

-Gumboot

Yeah Rams, he did claim to have some sort of access to a spy satellite.

 

[332nd]

I found the clip in the same place your "expert" did. He is happy with it as source material then so am I. He did claim to have got an AVI version but then he took that back.

Ah so it was on the net. So back to the question with rephrasing, Do you take videos found on the internet with a grain of salt?

 

[gumboot]

Yeah Rams, he did claim to have some sort of access to a spy satellite.

Er...

No, I don't believe he did. I think you're misreading what he says.

(NASA don't operate spy satellites, by the way, the NRO do).

-Gumboot

 

[tonicblue]

I didn't take it back, I clarified that I downloaded it and converted it to AVI so I could load it into my editing software.

-Gumboot

In post 221 you said

Because I downloaded it as an AVI and loaded it into professional film editing and sound post-production software, where I can manipulate it, including isolating the audio.

No mention of conversion.

 

[tonicblue]

Ah so it was on the net. So back to the question with rephrasing, Do you take videos found on the internet with a grain of salt?

Depends on the video. AFAIK Screw Loose Change is on the net, should I take that with a pinch of salt?

If I must treat the video with skepticism because it is from youtube then so must your expert, therefore it is not a suitable sample for analysis.

 

[332nd]

Depends on the video. AFAIK Screw Loose Change is on the net, should I take that with a pinch of salt?

Yes. Then you research what they say. Just to clarify so we don't dance on this for all time, Unless you personaly know enough about the subject or know the person who put the info out there, anything on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt and researched. I believe Gumboot because I'm an actor who has done film and when he has talked about it in the past he mentions things that someone who had just a passing knowlegde of film/acting/production wouldn't know about.

If I must treat the video with skepticism because it is from youtube then so must your expert, therefore it is not a suitable sample for analysis.

Which is the point. You accept that the explosion in the video is real he does not. Although you mentioned that you would like to have the vid reviewed by an expert you defend it as real and chastise the questioning of it. Who is the skeptic?

 

[gumboot]

In post 221 you said

No mention of conversion.

In post 226:

Sorry, I downloaded it as an embedded flash and converted it to avi.

-Gumboot