• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Voice-Morphing and the Passenger Calls

pomeroo

Banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
7,081
George Papcun, the creator of voice-morphing technology (http://www.almexperts.com/ExpertWitness/experts_and_consultants/expert/5156404.html), has graciously permitted me to post his first article addressing the fantasist claim that calls from the hijacked planes were faked. This issue seems to me to be of singular importance. If the calls were real, then the whole fantasist sand castle is washed away:


Dear Mr. Wieck,

Following please find an amended version of my commenary on Voice Morphing and the alleged 911 conspiracy. You may post it with attribution, cleaning up the html as needed.

Sincerely,
George Papcun, Ph.D.


Purveyors of conspiracy theories have claimed that the events of 9/11 were the result of a massive government plot and cover-up. (See, for example, (www.loosechange911.com.) According to their version of events, there were no hijackers. Instead, the World Trade Center buildings were blown up by explosives planted inside the buildings rather than, or at least in addition to, the effects of the passenger airplanes crashing into them. They claim that the government (or the CIA or someone other than Osama bin Laden and the hijackers) was behind 9/11.

However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theory purveyors have needed to claim that someone (namely, me) created the voices of the passengers in those phone calls. That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers.

I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm ) and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home. Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? In a separate essay, I will cover the technical aspects of voice morphing, which will further demonstrate the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Whether such wild-eyed theories are worth being concerned about is problematic. However, in their own words, their conspiracy theory organization “has grown from a cult following to a grassroots organism that can no longer be contained” (op cit). I have received email from a high school social studies teacher who told me that her students actually believe that I did everything the purveyors of conspiracy theories say I did. Why they would so mistrust their government and be so naïve with regard to technical issues are interesting questions, albeit matters well beyond the scope of this essay.
 
Last edited:
I might suggest someone clean this up if Ron cannot, as it is hard to read.

TAM:)

well done Ron, but you missed a spot...lol

TAM;)

Ahh...there you go.

TAM;)
 
Last edited:
I have a question:

Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals..
 
Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals..

This is a deep philosophical question, to be sure...

Why invent the atom bomb?
Why invent the electrical chair?


... a question that goes far beyond the scope of both this thread and this forum. If you want to discuss the ethics of science and engineering, there's certainly a place to do it, but I don't think it's here.
 
why not? why were bidet invented? so one can have a clean touche after doing their business?

call it a moment of "hey ,this is neat - Hey look what I can do!"

some things are created by accident btw.
 
Well, for instance, it would be great for movie companies, and actors, who could licence out the rights to their voices, then they would not have to be present for voicing animations etc...

just off the top of my head.

TAM:)
 
My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.

care to point out where in the response that hte 'creator' of this technology was creating it for "nefarious" reasons?

I dont see it anywhere, so no, its not relevant to the thread.

You are speculating that it was; where he made no such inclination that he did.


There was no nefarious reason behind the creation of the VCR; however, it didn't stop pirates from using it to break laws.
 
My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.

The argument that it "can" be used for nefarious purposes has absolutely nothing to do with "was" used for nefarious purposes.

Only in a bizarro-CT world can someone conflate "can" with "was".
 
Well, for instance, it would be great for movie companies, and actors, who could licence out the rights to their voices, then they would not have to be present for voicing animations etc...

just off the top of my head.

TAM:)


heck, itd be a good technology to do ADR (or voice replacement) for movies with a lot of swearing in it, than to hire talent who "sound" like the real actor, or the actor themselves to replace those "swearing" with alternatives for airing on broadcast television.
 
My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.


What is relevant to this thread is that the calls from the hijacked planes were not faked. They were made by real people who died when the planes they were on crashed. They can't visit forums like this one to tell us what they think about conspiracy theories.
 
In the future maybe it will be used so that a grandson can hear the voice of his passed grandfather read him the latest version of Harry Potter or the like.

TAM:)
 
Once again with the baseless conjecture. When one's only goal is to try to justify their paranoia and justify their existence by uncovering some maga diabolical plot, they might not consider uses for technology. Thus one might not consider such technology being used for things like entertainment such as saving time and cost in producing cartoons where maybe an actor isn't available. We could probably come up with 1000 great uses for such a technology. But Rev isn't thinking that way. He is thinking "How can this be used to prove my theory".
 
It would eliminate the need to hire the actors to come in to record audio for video games...imagine unlimited dialogue potential in an RPG game using a famous persons voice...

I mean i am sure there are lots of uses...

TAM:)
 
What is relevant to this thread is that the calls from the hijacked planes were not faked. They were made by real people who died when the planes they were on crashed. They can't visit forums like this one to tell us what they think about conspiracy theories.

Ah the old appeal to emotion, the last fallacious resort of the Jrefer.

You need to deal in evidence.

I have always wondered why the flight with the most passengers had no passenger calls from it.
 
Once again with the baseless conjecture. When one's only goal is to try to justify their paranoia and justify their existence by uncovering some maga diabolical plot, they might not consider uses for technology. Thus one might not consider such technology being used for things like entertainment such as saving time and cost in producing cartoons where maybe an actor isn't available. We could probably come up with 1000 great uses for such a technology. But Rev isn't thinking that way. He is thinking "How can this be used to prove my theory".

So this PhD scientist is slaving away to ensure we get better cartoons. Yeah right.
 

Back
Top Bottom