You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

kwibjo ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk

All they really need is a person who sounds like Assange and footage from an unused interview and they will be able to fake this whole thing. Unless he specifically holds up a newspaper or something to prove that the footage they're showing of him is from the present day I'm not going to believe it.

MAGABoomer ago

Not really. Running any voice through a voice imprint analysis will clear that up...although I have ZERO doubt there will be fake analysis done to foster doubt and hysteria.

notArobott ago

Can you provide some background on voice imprint analysis? How accurate has it been proven to be? I'm only getting shit on google searching for this.

MAGABoomer ago

They will compare a voice analysis of know Assange messages with the one tomorrow. It's not rocket science. http://expertpages.com/news/voiceprint_identification.htm

Some people will do it and post fake analysis (it's not him), some people will do it and post real analysis (it's him), and I'm guessing at the end of the day all you all are still going to be mistrusting Wikileaks, which is of course the point.

If you haven't seen this, it's a nail biting ride. Anyone who thinks Assange is foolish enough to get killed is whacked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd6qN167wKo

notArobott ago

Several studies have been published evidencing the ability to reliably identify voices under certain conditions, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation survey of its own performance in the examination of 2,000 forensic cases revealed an error rate of 0.31 percent for false identifications, and 0.53 per cent for false eliminations. (See Koenig, B.E., 1986, Spectrographic Voice Identification: a forensic survey, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79:2088-2090.)

Thanks! I wonder how narrow these "certain conditions" are to guarantee the low error rate.