I'm not sure why the video won't post when I submit. The video is there when I preview.
Anyway, this is some scary tech. Outside of video games, I can't think of any good reason this exists. I can surely think of many nefarious reasons.
Additionally if this is known tech, it's easy to surmise it's low end. What isn't known would logically be higher end and more difficult to detect. Still, the vast majority of people wouldn't even think twice about what their eyes are telling them particularly if it's coming from their trusted evening news source.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
(03-26-2016, 03:05 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: He's a Reptilian obviously
When's the last time you saw a transparent appendage on any earthly being?
No, no. I'm not even gonna touch that one.
This thread is about existing earthly technology and it's implications in manipulating the masses. Combine this tech with tech that can place thoughts/voices in your head (yes,it exists) and you can easily see cause for concern. like the Obama video, combine these techs with holographic tech and the possibilities are endless.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
(03-26-2016, 06:06 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: But his torso is there too and visible.
Bad quality videos never get distorted in any way.
When you compress videos things like the hand or "reptilian eyes" happen. You can go and film yourself and then upload it and compress it and it will look like even you have reptilian eyes, and sometimes transparent body parts. That's also why his face (and most faces in that video) is distorted and blurred.
(03-26-2016, 10:30 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Bad quality videos never get distorted in any way.
When you compress videos things like the hand or "reptilian eyes" happen. You can go and film yourself and then upload it and compress it and it will look like even you have reptilian eyes, and sometimes transparent body parts. That's also why his face (and most faces in that video) is distorted and blurred.
Besides the 'reptilian eyes' (which I have no comment on), can you cite a similar video?
Can you show where the telepromter Or any other device has caused a similar effect?
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
(03-26-2016, 11:21 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Besides the 'reptilian eyes' (which I have no comment on), can you cite a similar video?
Can you show where the telepromter Or any other device has caused a similar effect?
This is like high comedy.
A guy starts a thread about how video can be deceiving and then refuses to believe that a video is deceiving.
"Don't believe everything you see on the internet unless it is posted to support some crazy conspiracy theory. In those cases the video can NEVER be deceiving! Especially when for some reason the entire video is blurry and total shit quality. Those are the videos that yiou have to believe arec 100% accurate."
(03-27-2016, 12:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is like high comedy.
A guy starts a thread about how video can be deceiving and then refuses to believe that a video is deceiving.
"Don't believe everything you see on the internet unless it is posted to support some crazy conspiracy theory. In those cases the video can NEVER be deceiving! Especially when for some reason the entire video is blurry and total shit quality. Those are the videos that yiou have to believe arec 100% accurate."
That's cute but I haven't denied anything.
'Brownshoe' posed a decent response and possible explanation. Am I not allow d to follow up?
Can you present another video that shows the same thing?
Why does his hand disappear but nothing else?
Just let this post be your ad hominem. Please if you respond again, debunk the video. If you can that's fine. Niether beaker nor Brownshoe have done so. Besides that, I see no one has much of an opinion on the other video.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
(03-26-2016, 11:21 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Besides the 'reptilian eyes' (which I have no comment on), can you cite a similar video?
Can you show where the telepromter Or any other device has caused a similar effect?
There's no teleprompter or any device that's "causing" it to look transparent in reality. What's making it look transparent is because the video has been compressed to a horrible quality and there are compression artifacts which make it seem like that. Look up where that original video came from with original quality and everything will look normal.
The original video is the 2013 state of the union, so you could go and look up a decent quality video and see that not once his hand turns transparent, or that his face looks like a demon. If you don't believe me that it's the 2013 state of the union you can look at the pins that some of the people are wearing (Joe Biden for one). They were wearing those pins at that event.
(03-27-2016, 07:09 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: There's no teleprompter or any device that's "causing" it to look transparent in reality. What's making it look transparent is because the video has been compressed to a horrible quality and there are compression artifacts which make it seem like that. Look up where that original video came from with original quality and everything will look normal.
The original video is the 2013 state of the union, so you could go and look up a decent quality video and see that not once his hand turns transparent, or that his face looks like a demon. If you don't believe me that it's the 2013 state of the union you can look at the pins that some of the people are wearing (Joe Biden for one). They were wearing those pins at that event.
Forget about the Obama video. I agree with Shoe's assessment. I honestly don't know why chose that one. But I did and here we are.
I shoulda used one like this, [video=Dailymotion]http://youtu.be/jpJCXnjvOlA[/video], as I like to stick to facts as much as possible. I normally do try to stay away from grainy videos. Some grainy video's are ok ... sometimes. But not this time and I understand that. I'm sure some of you will nit pick this post and that's fine. Go for it.
Back to the facts.
This technology is scary. But that's not all. Check this out.
(03-27-2016, 09:10 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Forget about the Obama video. I agree with Shoe's assessment. I honestly don't know why chose that one. But I did and here we are.
I shoulda used one like this, [video=Dailymotion]http://youtu.be/jpJCXnjvOlA[/video], as I like to stick to facts as much as possible. I normally do try to stay away from grainy videos. Some grainy video's are ok ... sometimes. But not this time and I understand that. I'm sure some of you will nit pick this post and that's fine. Go for it.
Back to the facts.
This technology is scary. But that's not all. Check this out.
Imagine the possibilities. Now imagine some one or some thing using these techs deceitfully. I know I know. America wouldn't do that.
The first video can only happen in a controlled environment. It's literally just a overhead projector and some glass reflecting the image onto a transparent piece of plastic. Sure, you might be able to pull off some nefarious scheme, but it would be very hard to do with the stage that technology is in.
I don't see how the second video could be scary at all. In fact I think that both videos are showing off some pretty cool technology.
The complexity of the tech is irrelevant really and a controlled environment isn't elusive. This tech could easily be used in releasing fake terrorist (OBL) video's.
It's difficult to to say this is fact although I believe it to be, but it's widely believed that any tech we see is decades behind what's available.
It is some pretty cool shit though.
Regarding the second video ( all three really). I can't remember which one it was, but torturing one of Al Qaeda's leaders didn't work. The guy just wasn't talking. Until his God appeared to him one night in his cell and told him to talk. It's speculated that this this tech was used to convince this guy to spill the beans. Of course this isn't a bad application of this tech, so maybe there's more good use for it than I first thought. I don't know if this type of tech has ever been applied in a deceitful way or at all, none of us do. But it exists and that's the point. Knowledge = power.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
(03-26-2016, 12:09 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I'm not sure why the video won't post when I submit. The video is there when I preview.
Anyway, this is some scary tech. Outside of video games, I can't think of any good reason this exists. I can surely think of many nefarious reasons.
Additionally if this is known tech, it's easy to surmise it's low end. What isn't known would logically be higher end and more difficult to detect. Still, the vast majority of people wouldn't even think twice about what their eyes are telling them particularly if it's coming from their trusted evening news source.
At the end of it, they compare this against previous tech, so similar capabilities have been around for a little while. None the less, this is impressive. I do think that just as the technology to render this in real time becomes more advanced, so will an amateur's ability to spot or recognize when its in use.
(03-28-2016, 01:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think we can all safely assume that if a faked video was ever released the person in the video would let everyone know it was fake.
They wouldn't talk if they were in on it.
And if this tech were used to say, I don't know ... propagate a dictator or foreign president, who's gonna believe them if they did say something?
What if it were used to record a confession? Who's gonna believe a defendant? You work in the courts; you know how it goes. 'Criminals' have zero creditability. Especially if a jury witnesses the defendant, via a recorded video confessing. Nope. That guy ain't walkin. Again, I can't say it's ever been used. I'm only showing you that it exists.
-That which we need most, will be found where we want to visit least.-
(03-28-2016, 02:00 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: They wouldn't talk if they were in on it.
And if this tech were used to say, I don't know ... propagate a dictator or foreign president, who's gonna believe them if they did say something?
What if it were used to record a confession? Who's gonna believe a defendant? You work in the courts; you know how it goes. 'Criminals' have zero creditability. Especially if a jury witnesses the defendant, via a recorded video confessing. Nope. That guy ain't walkin. Again, I can't say it's ever been used. I'm only showing you that it exists.
Defense attorney could easily prove a taped confession can be manipulated, by merely showing this video in reality.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
