Dunno. I would be surprised if audio analysis tools do not exist at the same level as for video. They could detect breaks/alteration/aberrations in the speech pattern...
What are you guys smoking? You really think they used something like this? It was painfully obvious how fake that thing sounded when they changed it to say "They kissed Jordan and my dogs" and you think they can get it to work flawlessly in a 30 minute live interview as well as having all the usual utterances you make in conversation, also making perfectly coherent responses without sounding fake whatsoever? Stop this guys, this isn't helping our cause
I tried making the thread before the interview began, although the interview began before I made the thread. I wasn't claiming it was faked. I was just telling people to be on the look out for if it was.
I don't know that the interview was live. Audio artifacts could be cleaned up. That responses are coherent is irrelevant if they're faked.
And if it were video you'd remind us that video can be faked. Nothing is going to please you, and aside from you standing right in front of him, there literally isn't going to be any way to satisfy you. Voice print him. That can't be faked. The interview prevented his dead man's files from being released. Which, if he's alive, sort of seems important.
Video is much harder to fake than audio. In either case, original sources need to be identified. But in the case of video, the use of different sources would be more apparent, and the video could be studied for unnatural conditions. Simply put, with a video we can test the video and the audio, but with the audio we can only test the audio. For someone who knows the world has been demanding his proof of life, he should have given us the strongest proof rather than the weakest. If he provided a video, I couldn't complain that he didn't provide some more authentic format. But with audio, there is room to complain that he didn't provide video. So complain I shall. There's a difference, and you know it now at least.
I would rather Assange answer why he would put his own credibility on the line because he doesn't want to go through the effort to record a 10 second video of him holding the current day news paper? I believe Assange to be alive but what I am really unsure about is whether he has been compromised in some way.
Not necessarily. I've been listening to his station on and off for the past two months as well as the radio station I listen to, which he is on. When the news reports come on I've noticed they leave out specific detail and would express news, a lot more often about, Trump in a negative sense.
Going off of that info, the people who own the station set what advertisements come on. I've heard Ron Paul advertising a freezer product on that radio station before.
He said he loved Romney I'm 2012 but I thought to myself he's just a RINO and the fact he flip flopped on so many issues over the years I don't know how he liked him that much, and even Rush Limbaugh loved the guy also.
Something smells but lately they have been better on reporting the facts but I'll still remain skeptical of him
The speech being used, particularly referencing current events, is way too quick and smooth to have been stitched together.
I don't like this proof of life, but proof of life it is. I am going to reserve overall judgment till we get video. For all we know a CIA agent had a gun to his head during that call.
Thats pretty cool tech. But I can easily hear the artifacts generated by the program. It sounds fake. In order for it to sound real, an engineer would have to spend time cleaning up the audio. It wouldnt be possible for someone to use this specific software live in an interview without it sounding artificial.... Now for a speech, or something where they have time to edit the reworked audio, thats where I can see this being an issue.
I"m thinking that the technology is actually black ops (much older and refined) than the version we see in VoCo. I can see this being perfected around 2010ish. However, I'm leaning to think this is a real broadcast and it's him.
People need to keep in mind that you don't always have to make a clear-cut decision right now.. You don't have to say that you believe this is 100% real, or 100% fake.. This audio is better than nothing, but we all realize that a video clip would be better.. The people saying that the interview is fake are just the people that require a higher standard of proof.. Even if you don't agree with them, can you really blame them?..
yeh, this is the only stance in my opinion right now.. the other thread is just full of people calling bullshit, which is ultimately just speculation - I listened to it, and I think it sounded pretty legit, especially with some of the stumbling, and hesitation which would be hard to pull off as naturally with 'audio photoshop' - but im not expert, so I can only speculate too.. I'm leaving it at this whole situation is very curious, and I will be following it closely.
The problem is that the problem can now happen with audio, which can now be changed real-time to sound like somebody else. That is why people are wary and questioning and demanding real POL.
You've got to be a complete tard to think that is being used here. I believe this interview isn't live, but was pre-recorded from earlier in the day and edited and clipped together for radio. That's why it appears that there's no delay between question and answer, and that he's talking quick
He is just a Republican shill. He had no issues with defending the establishment during Bush, and I don't see any reason to assume he couldn't be fooled by something like this. You really think he's gonna call him out live? He didn't even ask anything regarding the lack of trust in WikiLeaks or files with mismatches hashes. Wish we had time for a #AskAssange campaign
He's the real deal, I 'know' him fairly well. It is only since just before the election that he redpilled, and I think he's only digested about half of that pill, when he gets the full effect he's gonna slow down out of fear.
reasonedandinformed ago
Dunno. I would be surprised if audio analysis tools do not exist at the same level as for video. They could detect breaks/alteration/aberrations in the speech pattern...
Kristina_Gilliam ago
Audio Photoshop is fake as hell. I'm sure the CIA has something better but there's pretty much zero chance that this interview is fake.
Hazilla ago
What are you guys smoking? You really think they used something like this? It was painfully obvious how fake that thing sounded when they changed it to say "They kissed Jordan and my dogs" and you think they can get it to work flawlessly in a 30 minute live interview as well as having all the usual utterances you make in conversation, also making perfectly coherent responses without sounding fake whatsoever? Stop this guys, this isn't helping our cause
antiracistNew ago
I tried making the thread before the interview began, although the interview began before I made the thread. I wasn't claiming it was faked. I was just telling people to be on the look out for if it was.
I don't know that the interview was live. Audio artifacts could be cleaned up. That responses are coherent is irrelevant if they're faked.
jenidaninja ago
That's definitely not a free flowing Assange . ft's a bad fake.
MAGABoomer ago
And if it were video you'd remind us that video can be faked. Nothing is going to please you, and aside from you standing right in front of him, there literally isn't going to be any way to satisfy you. Voice print him. That can't be faked. The interview prevented his dead man's files from being released. Which, if he's alive, sort of seems important.
antiracistNew ago
Video is much harder to fake than audio. In either case, original sources need to be identified. But in the case of video, the use of different sources would be more apparent, and the video could be studied for unnatural conditions. Simply put, with a video we can test the video and the audio, but with the audio we can only test the audio. For someone who knows the world has been demanding his proof of life, he should have given us the strongest proof rather than the weakest. If he provided a video, I couldn't complain that he didn't provide some more authentic format. But with audio, there is room to complain that he didn't provide video. So complain I shall. There's a difference, and you know it now at least.
SIash ago
I would rather Assange answer why he would put his own credibility on the line because he doesn't want to go through the effort to record a 10 second video of him holding the current day news paper? I believe Assange to be alive but what I am really unsure about is whether he has been compromised in some way.
Hashtag_pedofiles ago
Not necessarily. I've been listening to his station on and off for the past two months as well as the radio station I listen to, which he is on. When the news reports come on I've noticed they leave out specific detail and would express news, a lot more often about, Trump in a negative sense.
Going off of that info, the people who own the station set what advertisements come on. I've heard Ron Paul advertising a freezer product on that radio station before.
He said he loved Romney I'm 2012 but I thought to myself he's just a RINO and the fact he flip flopped on so many issues over the years I don't know how he liked him that much, and even Rush Limbaugh loved the guy also.
Something smells but lately they have been better on reporting the facts but I'll still remain skeptical of him
madmanpg ago
The speech being used, particularly referencing current events, is way too quick and smooth to have been stitched together.
I don't like this proof of life, but proof of life it is. I am going to reserve overall judgment till we get video. For all we know a CIA agent had a gun to his head during that call.
Echo_of_Savages ago
Thats pretty cool tech. But I can easily hear the artifacts generated by the program. It sounds fake. In order for it to sound real, an engineer would have to spend time cleaning up the audio. It wouldnt be possible for someone to use this specific software live in an interview without it sounding artificial.... Now for a speech, or something where they have time to edit the reworked audio, thats where I can see this being an issue.
Rigg5 ago
I"m thinking that the technology is actually black ops (much older and refined) than the version we see in VoCo. I can see this being perfected around 2010ish. However, I'm leaning to think this is a real broadcast and it's him.
Echo_of_Savages ago
Yeah i can see that being the case. Its crazy how even more orwellian this could become if true.
Rigg5 ago
Intel has always confirmed that if it came out today, black operations has had it for 20 years already. Think about that.
Echo_of_Savages ago
Fake Osama Bin Laden videos
solar_flare ago
get a grip
Baconmon ago
People need to keep in mind that you don't always have to make a clear-cut decision right now.. You don't have to say that you believe this is 100% real, or 100% fake.. This audio is better than nothing, but we all realize that a video clip would be better.. The people saying that the interview is fake are just the people that require a higher standard of proof.. Even if you don't agree with them, can you really blame them?..
dwildstar ago
What "People" are voicing, is their gut, and should feel free do to that on VOAT.
pontagon ago
yeh, this is the only stance in my opinion right now.. the other thread is just full of people calling bullshit, which is ultimately just speculation - I listened to it, and I think it sounded pretty legit, especially with some of the stumbling, and hesitation which would be hard to pull off as naturally with 'audio photoshop' - but im not expert, so I can only speculate too.. I'm leaving it at this whole situation is very curious, and I will be following it closely.
bopper ago
Right.
reasonedandinformed ago
The problem with video is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk
We have good people with many eyes on everything, so the group is good at discerning things with time and info.
norobotono ago
The problem is that the problem can now happen with audio, which can now be changed real-time to sound like somebody else. That is why people are wary and questioning and demanding real POL.
reasonedandinformed ago
Yes. Technology has created many benefits but some huge problems...problems that I never foresaw until more recent days.
reasonedandinformed ago
Good analysis. Things are uncertain.
Hazilla ago
You've got to be a complete tard to think that is being used here. I believe this interview isn't live, but was pre-recorded from earlier in the day and edited and clipped together for radio. That's why it appears that there's no delay between question and answer, and that he's talking quick
jml1201 ago
Hey, you never know. Don't be so close minded. Just hear everyone out unless you have definitive proof....which we don't.
Cantilever ago
Why is OP "a complete tard?" This is a very credible hypothesis.
bopper ago
It's him.
Jehosefat ago
Sorry dude, I'm listening to it right now, I don't think its fake. Also Hannity knows Assange and would know immediately if he was being trolled.
SheSaidDestroy ago
But can Hannity even be 100% trusted? Serious question, what do you think, I have never listened to him / know almost nothing about him.
norobotono ago
It wasn't too long ago that he was Anti-Assange so what changed?
pocketfulofstones ago
He is just a Republican shill. He had no issues with defending the establishment during Bush, and I don't see any reason to assume he couldn't be fooled by something like this. You really think he's gonna call him out live? He didn't even ask anything regarding the lack of trust in WikiLeaks or files with mismatches hashes. Wish we had time for a #AskAssange campaign
bopper ago
He's the real deal, I 'know' him fairly well. It is only since just before the election that he redpilled, and I think he's only digested about half of that pill, when he gets the full effect he's gonna slow down out of fear.
pizzagatewillnotdie ago
Hannity still owes us a waterboarding.
https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/2m38y5/was_sean_hannity_ever_waterboarded_like_he_said/