You said "Everybody here in the comments seem to take the story on face value.".
You're implying that we shouldn't take the story at face value OR that the author is being dishonest about his experience.
Then you say, "Meanwhile, the only video attached to the post is pixelated to the highest degree, and you certainly can't see facial features on it. Am I missing something here?"
Everybody here in the comments seem to take the story on face value. Meanwhile, the only video attached to the post is pixelated to the highest degree, and you certainly can't see facial features on it.
I agree with everything you said. But I am too curious as to what you think of the posted video. I hardly see how there could be manipulation considering the chunks of raw footage posted are always following a Q/A format.
OP's point is that you can't make those kind of claims without evidence. If you're saying a video only looks bad because it's misleadingly edited, you need to provide proof of your claim. Unfortunately, the police also routinely fight tooth and nail to prevent access to their own video footage.
I'm not sure you read my comment prior to replying. I didn't make a claim, only posted quotes from a video that was referenced by a different poster. That way, people unfamiliar with the video would know its contents. So, I don't understand what claim of mine you attempted to debunk.
Instead of reading endless articles about a recording to determine if the recording exists, why not watch the recording itself?
If that shot of the person's face is from a video of the incident that person is not him. Yes, there's lossy compression applied but that don't make someone's nose into a completely different nose.
Healthy skepticism is good but the only thing worth questioning here is if that shot is in fact real–something that could only be evaluated if they released the tape. But since they're not exactly going out of their way to do that I can only assume that it would be against their interests. Until they produce it I'll have to take his word at face value.
Usually there are other witnesses, other video sources. The more material exists, the harder it is to make the fake believable. You have to consider the sources. Who published the video, what are their motivations, who pays them.
Really, that's "internet user 101", I can't believe we're having such a discussion on HN :)
It was near impossible to create convincing fake videos of people speaking ( https://youtu.be/X17yrEV5sl4 ) and so even those who would not take an altered screenshot at face value might be more inclined to believe one such.
I didn't mean to insinuate that anybody faked anything. Just that video evidence on its own isn't per se any more credible than if they unambiguously made the same claim in writing. The technology for making fake or misleading videos is easy to come by, so why mentally lean on the fact that they were videos at all? Our answers wrt likelihood of truthfulness simply lie in provenance and other indicia of credibility that would be shared with claims in any other trivially falsified medium, like writing. Why, indeed, would multiple seemingly non-cooperating supposed researchers make the set of claims that have been made?
I don't think anything was faked, nor did I think anything was faked before videos began appearing. But that's precisely why this is an opportune time to exercise recalibrated judgment in not allowing the videographic character to inflate my cautious enthusiasm.
> People read "Navy confirms authenticity of the video" as "This is important and Navy can't explain it."
Precisely. There is a huge gap between what the Navy has actually claimed about the videos and what people think the Navy has claimed. 'The video is authentic' is not the same as 'the video shows what it's purported to show.'
FWIW, video doesn't need to be forged or manipulated in order to provide an untrustworthy or inaccurate portrayal.
It's possible a video doesn't reveal the appropriate context. (e.g. what happened before the start of the video, and maybe what happened afterwards; or what's happening out of view).
That said, that isn't inherent to video. (And, sure, "swapping faces" doesn't lead to a more accurate portrayal).
Videos are absolutely evidence. You’re looking for someone to replicate their findings, which is fine, but your basis for believing it to be possibly fraudulent is far-fetched.
Actually, I've found that they tend to be fairly accurate at reporting 'what' is happening - it's hard for several people at the same time to post unique, fake videos of people driving around with guns while others are posting corroborating textual accounts.
The 'why' part is a completely different matter. If there's any interpretation or time difference between the event and the post, scepticism is absolutely warranted.
I'm curious, why does it have to be a video? Is that a better proof in any way? Wouldn't you then say "oh we can't know if the video is actually authentic"?
It's not a technicality if the video can't be distinguished from perfect nonsense. Just as you don't let someone with a documented history of hallucinations testify on their own.
> But then what are you trying to hold him to? A subjective opinion?
He needs to make a claim about the evidence in question if he thinks it's fake. (He doesn't. He knows it's a genuine video.) Again, a vague assertion that "sometimes people make deepfakes about me" doesn't cut it.
> The defense will always contest its veracity if the burden is on the prosecution to prove it and they haven't.
The defense is highly unlikely to make the claim that a seven year old video on a prominent channel with top industry reporters didn't happen. Plenty of pieces of evidence get entered into the court's records without being contested.
Sorry I wasn't saying it was faked and I'm talking about the act of posting of the video, which I don't think it would be unreasonable to view as being deliberately provocative.
As the article mentioned these videos can not pass as genuine; they're obviously fakes. Rather than trying to pass off a lie, this is more akin to fiction where you're required to suspend your disbelief. At least until the technology improves.
You're implying that we shouldn't take the story at face value OR that the author is being dishonest about his experience.
Then you say, "Meanwhile, the only video attached to the post is pixelated to the highest degree, and you certainly can't see facial features on it. Am I missing something here?"
A clear call for proof.
reply