'Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see'

[Devils Advocate]

Maybe a defense could prove a false confession. I admit it's stretch to think this could be implemented against a defendant (or any scenario). But only a stretch. It's not beyond impossible.

 And like I said, who knows what kind of tech we're unaware of or how much better any government ABC organization has it. It's not impossible that somewhere, undetectable tech just like this exists. 


And no hillbilly American is gonna question anything nefarious coming outta North Korea, Russia, Syria or any other place that these hillbilly's think is after us. Even if they are aware of the tech. 

[jfkbengals]

(03-28-2016, 02:00 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: They wouldn't talk if they were in on it. 

In which case, they would have no need to alter it in the first place.  The person would just do it that way from the get go.

For example, a video of me is altered using this technology to have me say "Boobs are great".  But if I'm in on it, why in the hell would we use this technology instead of just having me say it in the first place, in my own voice, without any risk of a glitch or our conspiracy being discovered?

[Brownshoe]

(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. 

If they were in on it then why wouldn't they just make the speech? Why would there be a need to fake a it?

Everyone has already propagandized foreign leaders they don't like even without this technology. Hell, they already spin what people say in this country constantly.

You can easily prove that the video is manipulated if you closely inspect it.

[Devils Advocate]

I'm just sayin' GWBII was a bumbling idiot who, it is believed had to have an ear piece connected during a debate in 04. 

It's also believe that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's(?) during the last part of his run. I can think of a million reasons, mostly mundane, as to why someone who's 'in on it' would use this tech. And there's prolly several more reasons that hasn't even crossed my mind. 

Again, im not really implying this has been used. Im simply showing the tech exists. And if there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that some people would use anything to gain an advantage. 

[Devils Advocate]

Some of you have made fair points. But what's the saying? ... 'Absence of evidence isn't equal to evidence of absence'.

[jfkbengals]

(03-28-2016, 10:43 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Some of you have made fair points. But what's the saying? ... 'Absence of evidence isn't equal to evidence of absence'.

So what you are saying is that you are an alien baby.


There is no evidence of this.  However, that isn't equal to evidence of absence.

[Devils Advocate]

(03-29-2016, 07:53 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: So what you are saying is that you are an alien baby.


There is no evidence of this.  However, that isn't equal to evidence of absence.

Hyperbole