The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adverts

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery
Boethius
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by Boethius »

bostonterrierowner wrote:I was thinking about the motives behind all this "Snowden" whistleblowing and after watching parts of ARD "interview" I can share some comments.
4. Why did they choose to let us know that there is no privacy anymore? Is it to make us focus on wiretapping and google engine spying when in fact the new technologies are developed, way more sophisticated and sinister or just to make us think that PTB are more powerful than it really is the case?

It seems to me that a major aspect of the Snowden hoax is getting people to believe that government supercomputers are spying on us. Yes, they are gathering data (always have been always will be) but that is a far cry from actively spying. A human being still needs to evaluate and examine that data. Automated methods of analysis such as artificial intelligence (Natural Language Processing et. al.) have been a bust at the academic and practical levels. Computers still can't understand the human mind after 50+ years of trying.

Google Inc., the NSA, Facebook, etc... are only databases, places to store and retrieve information, nothing more. Just take a look at the major application of data mining: advertising. How many times did you buy something because an online ad hit you at just the right moment?

The government is in the same position it was 50 years ago in terms of spying on its citizens. If they really don't like you they can get all the data they need but can they just turn on a computer have it figure out what you're thinking/planning in some kind of "Minority Report" world? No.

Disclosure: I've never listened to a word Snowden said nor read a word he/she/it has written. From day 1 I felt it to be a hoax and a sham. Snowden is a character out of some 1950's Heinlein short story.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Whilst the original direction of this thread has fascinatingly-deviated into all sorts of related side-lobes, it's interesting to see that the reference source page that I'd stumbled upon http://www.good-housekeeping.co/beauty/ ... t-exposed/ seems now to have vanished from the web completely.

I hadn't realised until now that the link itself is a semi-phishing lookalike for the real magazine http://www.goodhousekeeping.com

So will these doubtful Facespook entities also have evaporated, I wonder? Are their pixels now pixie-dust?

How very odd. A page, which wasn't really representing the magazine it first appeared to, advertising a product which probably never existed, endorsed by people who probably have never been born.

To what end?? Harmless distraction? Arthouse banality? Cyber-trapping? Strange.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by lux »

Snowden made a surprise "appearance" as a talking head on a little screen at TED yesterday ...
Image
... speaking, they said, "from an undisclosed location." source


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVwAodrjZMY
sunshine05
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Unread post by sunshine05 »

There's a new "exclusive" NBC hour long interview with "Snowden". I'm not as good at picking up on video anomalies as many of you here, but "he/it" just doesn't look right.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-s ... en-n117126

Here are a few of my observations:

1) The lighting doesn't look right to me. The lighting on Bryan Williams looks very different than the lighting on "Snowden".
2) The background --- There is a wood and glass door to the left and when they pan to Bryan Williams, instead of the glass door appearing behind him, you only see the wood and it seems like we should see the glass windows as well.

Image

Image

3) Of course they had to bring up 9/11 and it just so happens that "Snowden's" grandfather was in the pentagon that day. How convenient that he happens to have that connection.
4) The whole thing seems so scripted and he is just a bit too smooth.
5) What is his source of income? They say he is working for some website in Russia but they won't reveal which one; however he didn't get that job until November (allegedly) as cartoon characters can't actually hold a job. How was he able to live in Russia with no job from June until November?
6) The whole story of him leaving Hawaii and traveling to Hong Kong to release his files to a reporter and then getting stuck in Russia while attempting to finish his journey to Latin America is ridiculous. Why didn't he just wait until he got there to release all of this "top secret" information?
7) Then they have him stuck in the Russian airport like the Tom Hanks movie "The Terminal".
8) I saw some odd glitchy movements from "Snowden" but not Williams. I'll be curious to see if anyone else notices them. It is a 6 part video.
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in adverts

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

The most recent interview with Snowden is online. I have to wonder ... Brian Williams says at the beginning of the piece that Snowden is the most wanted man in the world and that there were "months of behind the scenes back and forth" ... are we really supposed to believe that Brian Williams and an entire NBC crew went to Moscow to interview Snowden? He also says that Snowden agreed that no questions would be off-limits.

If any of this is true, doesn't this make Brian Williams and NBC crew accomplices in crime? Harboring a fugitive or what not?

What a joke.

Forward to 2:10 of part 2 for the 9/11 propaganda. He says his grandfather was in the Pentagon when the plane hit it. :P

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/resou ... d-snowden/
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Sorry for the double post, looks like sunshine and I posted at about the same time.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

You're on the same wave length and you both offer interesting view points. It's awesome. :lol:
sunshine05
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by sunshine05 »

Here's Snowden in April doing a "phone in" interview with Putin. They clearly want this Snowden character to have international influence. Check out the video feed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/ ... e-in-video
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by simonshack »

All (or almost all) good observations and points, Sunshine and Anonjedi. Thanks.

I only have issues with Sunshine's points 1 and 2 - which I think can be explained. Point 1: the lighting in a TV studio (what with its multiple, directional spotlight sources) is very hard to analyze - so little can be made of that. Point 2: The head-on Brian Williams shot shows him with his back facing another angle of the room - and a different (wooden) door.

As a matter of fact, the other day I watched part of this interview and, prompted by these questions raised by Calcified Lies on his blog, took a closer look at it. Calcified Lies noted, for instance, that Snowden's hands 'behaved' oddly and that the tip of his right ring finger, as we can see here, appears to 'chop off': (as a side note, the very aspect ratio / 'fish-eye-feel' of this video interview is rather odd all by itself).

Image

Snowden's "glass hand":
Below is another frame I captured. Here we see a neatly 'chopped' section of Snowden's hand (the three fingertips) which appears to "bleach out" as it gets cast against the vertical dark / bright line (separating the brown library / and the white wall strip). Now, this is very odd indeed. If this were a real, legit video, one would have to argue that "oh, it's just a matter of random coincidence that Snowden's hand seems to 'go transparent' EXACTLY along that vertical line in the backdrop." Well, that argument would be a very, very tough sell. A more sensible, serious and rational explanation would be: "some sort of chroma /luma-key ("greenscreening") masking boundary went awry":

Image


But here's when it gets odder still. Surely, Brian Williams is a real, flesh-and-blood NBC anchorman? I personally do not doubt that he is. Now, let's take a look at these two frames (extracted from the same Williams-Snowden NBC interview). Here's a shot showing Mr. Williams' right hand. It looks like a fairly normal human hand - (although one may perhaps question its relative finger-lenghts):
Image

Brian Williams' six-fingered hand:
Here's another shot of the same hand (from another moment of the interview). Well, I still have to make out what I'm seeing here.
Can you? Can anyone explain what we are seeing here - or how any normal, studio-quality camera lens would produce such an image?
Image


Let me just say that I do not pretend to know exactly (in technical terms) what is going on here - as I don't believe anyone could, unless fully familiar with the sort of imaging software being employed. What we DO know however, from experience and beyond reasonable doubt, is that the mainstream TV networks are constantly experimenting new imaging technology - including so-called Augmented Reality and IMAGE METRICS. The girl you see in the below video ("Emily") is entirely digitalized - but please keep in mind that she was digitalized from a REAL, flesh-and-blood person / actress. You may ask: "Hey, WHY would you want to digitalize a REAL person /actress - and make her 'act' in the digital realm?" Why not just use the REAL actress to perform whatever you wish her to perform? Wouldn't it save time and money?

Well, for now - I will just leave you with these thoughts to ponder about for yourselves...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErODDCNQWdA

http://ict.usc.edu/prototypes/digital-emily/
sunshine05
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by sunshine05 »

Oh, so they're showing him from a different door. I wasn't able to see that and the picture frame and wall behind him didn't look right.

Good catch on the transparent hand. I don't know what to make of Bryan Williams' hand. That is really strange.

Thanks, Simon.
iCONOCLAST
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:15 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by iCONOCLAST »

To me, the scene looks like the "Hologram" effect from Lucas' Star Wars. There is an ethereal
quality to the images that look totally CGI.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1IQvYjLpY0
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

If you actually try to listen to what Snowden says, you end up with articulate words about what people merely feel may be the case about the secret government. But he never seems to mention the DARPA and military programs to simulate and create modern propaganda and any artificial intelligence developed from the complicated PR studies the military seem to be running. He never offers much beyond 'cut scenes' from a video-game type simulation of the leftist media's writings, assumptions and script.

I can only conclude at this point that the Snowden game is part of the technocratic evolution of a branch of government which is developing technocracy behind a distracting cover. To be clear, this is a cover for the next wave of power that is transforming how power operates in the world.
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by dblitz »

I've watched hours of 'Reptilian Shapeshifting' videos, or what Simon refers to as 'Zombie Glitches' and one of my theories is that it is bad tweening in some kind of high powered CGI morphing program. Have a look at this example from RT:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2zLO6lYKEw

A lot of what we see in this clip is similar to the problems evident in the anchorman's hand. Too many fingers, or badly morphed hand motions seem to be fairly prevalent in these clips. See especially the fingers 'morphing' motion at around 40 seconds and the wrist and pinky at around 1:30.

It may be that these 'reptoid' clips are promoted through social media and in popular culture like video games and such as a way of poisoning the well against the simple explanation that some of these people have never even existed, but it's harder to explain cases like this one where the 'humanoid' appears to react to the image breakdown as it happens, as in this clip at around 8:20, unless it's a way of adding credibility to the alien explanation in order to foster a mythology about themselves that is more intimidating than just a bunch of posers and fakes with super computers and advanced software that occasionally falters with scenes of high complexity such as those simulating hands and human faces on the fly.

As for Snowden, I'm with Hoi on the purpose of that op. I think it's a cover for a transition to a deeper layer of control by allowing viewers to catch up with what was true around 15 - 20 years ago.
CitronBleu
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by CitronBleu »

dblitz wrote:but it's harder to explain cases like this one where the 'humanoid' appears to react to the image breakdown as it happens, as in this clip at around 8:20
I don't find this odd at all. There is a real person behind the scenes making the movements which are then transcribed to the digital simulation. This person most probably faces a TV screen of their performance, and, as in the case of this "RT anchorwoman", identify glitches live and attempt to 1. modify the digital simulation as it is acting out or 2. hide the defective part of the simulation (as in the RT character and her fidgety hands, or her back head movement in order to reshift facial features).

I would like to add I am completely dumbfounded. When I first registered onto this forum I dismissed any suggestion of the existence of digital video character simulations as utterly implausible.

I now admit I was totally wrong. Thank you!
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The probability of simulated model entities in TV & adve

Unread post by dblitz »

CitronBleu wrote:I don't find this odd at all. There is a real person behind the scenes making the movements which are then transcribed to the digital simulation. This person most probably faces a TV screen of their performance, and, as in the case of this "RT anchorwoman", identify glitches live and attempt to 1. modify the digital simulation as it is acting out or 2. hide the defective part of the simulation (as in the RT character and her fidgety hands, or her back head movement in order to reshift facial features).
Okay, I get your point, but why the overlay if it's just a real girl anyway? Are we ruled by robots, aliens or very ugly people? B)
Post Reply