5 ms·

Here's a little mystery for HN. Have you seen the fictional BBC segment someone produced about an escalating conflict between Russia and NATO? https://www.yout

Here's a little mystery for HN. Have you seen the fictional BBC segment someone produced about an escalating conflict between Russia and NATO? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZ3LGfSMhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZ3LGfSMhA It made the rounds on HN a couple months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14101405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14101405 It's the only piece of fiction that has made me feel deathly ill in quite the same way Threads did. The video is incredible. It's one of the best pieces of realistic fiction I've ever seen. But how was it made? Who made it? And why? I counted at least 10 professional-quality actors with convincing, in-character costumes. See this timestamp: https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=1053 https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=1053 The uploader of the video is "Ben Marking", only 8k subscribers, and no online presence. They left a comment: http://i.imgur.com/MJVh31d.png http://i.imgur.com/MJVh31d.png Other than that, no one's taking credit. So why make it? It's wonderful art, but is there anything more to it? Whoever's behind this has also uploaded nine revisions since last year: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/vid... including a Canadian and Australian version.

IanCal 9y ago
I'm not sure I get what you mean from the timestamped section. It looks like either simple to make footage or real footage where they've dubbed over. I think there are possibly only two actors, and only one for the vast majority of it. I think all the footage is just real clips, which is why it looks realistic. edit - I jumped to a random section and it has Fallon talking about Russia making a situation more dangerous, but it's a real clip as there's coverage back in 2015 of him saying these things: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-10-08/fallon-russia-is-making-syria-situation-more-dangerous/ http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-10-08/fallon-russia-is-m...
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Ah, thanks for pointing that out.
- baddox 9y ago
  I assumed it was stock footage. That sort of thing is pretty common even in major Hollywood films.
hdivider 9y ago
Thank you for posting this. Would not have found it otherwise. Reminds us we still live in the age of thermonuclear weapons. As long as that's true, our choices as citizens of nuclear-armed nations are more serious than anyone can imagine. Easy to forget.
cvwright 9y ago
Somebody read Gibson's Pattern Recognition and got a little carried away...
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Huh, my first thought also. "The footage" was a fascinating idea, but I didn't much think anyone would try to make a work that powerful and not claim it.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Blue Ant lives.
fokinsean 9y ago
Yeah that video gives me the chills. I am hoping we never have to see something like that in the future, but a cynical part of me feels like it is inevitable.
akfish 9y ago
Out top of my head: It could be used as the payload for some serious cyber attacks. Imagining the mass panic it would cause, if it was to be played on every TV across the country for real. This kind of attacks are hard to pull off and one'll have to nail it on the first try. It would be sad for the hackers, if they failed because of a poorly made fake news video. Practice makes perfect.
- ccozan 9y ago
  Just watched it. Indeed, is enough to hack the TV systems in an very busy airport like Frankfurt or Paris.
baddox 9y ago
I agree with the creepiness of the video, but I don't really see anything odd or mysterious about the fact that someone made the videos. They update them regularly to change the names of world leaders, but each new revision shares the vast majority of footage. The channel creator also leaves other comments. Four weeks ago: > We can only begin planning when the new South Korean President is elected, and we're now also going to wait to see what the British general election will reveal. It's hard to commit to a specific time when world events (which need to be reflected accurately and currently in the video), change so quickly. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/discussion https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/dis...
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  The use of "we" suggests an organization, supported by the fact that there are at least four actors: The news anchor, the female reporter, the male call-in actor, and Putin's translator. These actors are all very good. The video has dozens of tiny details, like the constant scrolling text at the bottom. I was wondering what kind of organization would make a video like this and not claim credit for it. If the creator were an individual, this video would serve as an excellent portfolio piece. If they were a company, it could serve as a recruitment tool or as an example of why clients should do business with you. Either way, remaining anonymous is odd. To make nine revisions in less than a year requires a fair amount of dedication, and setting up a fake pen name (Ben Marking) just to publish the videos is at least interesting. Maybe Ben is a real person and it's just four friends doing this as art. But it'd be quite unusual: no LinkedIn, no social media presence, no blog, nothing whatsoever except the YouTube channel. This suggests that if it's an organization, the Ben Marking pseudonym is an experimental playground for them. If it's an individual, it suggests they are remarkably privacy-oriented. The way the comments are phrased indicates that they've done this type of thing before or have industry experience. "Please use this video with due consideration. While you are welcome to copy and use this video, in doing so you accept full and absolute responsibility for any and all consequences as a result thereof." So an online Ben Marking persona popped into existence, uploaded nine variations of a brilliant video with four actors, and for no apparent reason. Why? I don't really know why I'm so curious about this, but I find all of it fascinating. I wish we knew more. EDIT: There are actually five actors. The fifth shows up at https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2031 https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2031 Possibly six, depending whether this is stock footage or Putin's translator: https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2401 https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2401
maus42 9y ago
Some things I consider quite glaringly fake / unrealistic. The maps that show the progress of the invasion in the Eastern Europe: the area taken by the advancing Russian army is shown with just a bit too much precision. This is supposed to be real time broadcast, and everything is happening under just an hour. I doubt the BBC graphics staff would have enough information to produce such maps (certain areas neatly colored in red); the military command might supply such information, but later in the day, not immediately, and in any case, they would probably be too busy and there is such a thing as a fog of war. At best, you'd have a list of towns where there have been reports of fighting by the local media and confirmation by the authorities that invasion is happening. Also, live video feed of fighter jets and bombers leaving RAF bases? I find it unlikely that BBC could obtain such a thing, and then decide to broadcast it. Likewise, the NATO stock footage (especially the press conference) is out of place at places. Nobody is going to talk with mild words such as "sabre-rattling" if there's major fighting going on. Actually, the whole thing going down in just one hour. While I can believe that things can escalate very quickly if tactical nuclear weapons are used (maybe even in a matter of minutes), I can't help but think that it's too short timeframe for the conventional fighting to even begin. (My guess is that the people who created this didn't have resources to create similarly realistic 48 hour long broadcast).

IanCal 9y ago

I'm not sure I get what you mean from the timestamped section. It looks like either simple to make footage or real footage where they've dubbed over. I think there are possibly only two actors, and only one for the vast majority of it. I think all the footage is just real clips, which is why it looks realistic. edit - I jumped to a random section and it has Fallon talking about Russia making a situation more dangerous, but it's a real clip as there's coverage back in 2015 of him saying these things: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-10-08/fallon-russia-is-making-syria-situation-more-dangerous/ http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-10-08/fallon-russia-is-m...

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Ah, thanks for pointing that out.
baddox 9y ago
I assumed it was stock footage. That sort of thing is pretty common even in major Hollywood films.

hdivider 9y ago

Thank you for posting this. Would not have found it otherwise. Reminds us we still live in the age of thermonuclear weapons. As long as that's true, our choices as citizens of nuclear-armed nations are more serious than anyone can imagine. Easy to forget.

cvwright 9y ago

Somebody read Gibson's Pattern Recognition and got a little carried away...

Bartweiss 9y ago
Huh, my first thought also. "The footage" was a fascinating idea, but I didn't much think anyone would try to make a work that powerful and not claim it.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Blue Ant lives.

fokinsean 9y ago

Yeah that video gives me the chills. I am hoping we never have to see something like that in the future, but a cynical part of me feels like it is inevitable.

akfish 9y ago

Out top of my head: It could be used as the payload for some serious cyber attacks. Imagining the mass panic it would cause, if it was to be played on every TV across the country for real. This kind of attacks are hard to pull off and one'll have to nail it on the first try. It would be sad for the hackers, if they failed because of a poorly made fake news video. Practice makes perfect.

ccozan 9y ago
Just watched it. Indeed, is enough to hack the TV systems in an very busy airport like Frankfurt or Paris.

baddox 9y ago

I agree with the creepiness of the video, but I don't really see anything odd or mysterious about the fact that someone made the videos. They update them regularly to change the names of world leaders, but each new revision shares the vast majority of footage. The channel creator also leaves other comments. Four weeks ago: > We can only begin planning when the new South Korean President is elected, and we're now also going to wait to see what the British general election will reveal. It's hard to commit to a specific time when world events (which need to be reflected accurately and currently in the video), change so quickly. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/discussion https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/dis...

sillysaurus3 9y ago
The use of "we" suggests an organization, supported by the fact that there are at least four actors: The news anchor, the female reporter, the male call-in actor, and Putin's translator. These actors are all very good. The video has dozens of tiny details, like the constant scrolling text at the bottom. I was wondering what kind of organization would make a video like this and not claim credit for it. If the creator were an individual, this video would serve as an excellent portfolio piece. If they were a company, it could serve as a recruitment tool or as an example of why clients should do business with you. Either way, remaining anonymous is odd. To make nine revisions in less than a year requires a fair amount of dedication, and setting up a fake pen name (Ben Marking) just to publish the videos is at least interesting. Maybe Ben is a real person and it's just four friends doing this as art. But it'd be quite unusual: no LinkedIn, no social media presence, no blog, nothing whatsoever except the YouTube channel. This suggests that if it's an organization, the Ben Marking pseudonym is an experimental playground for them. If it's an individual, it suggests they are remarkably privacy-oriented. The way the comments are phrased indicates that they've done this type of thing before or have industry experience. "Please use this video with due consideration. While you are welcome to copy and use this video, in doing so you accept full and absolute responsibility for any and all consequences as a result thereof." So an online Ben Marking persona popped into existence, uploaded nine variations of a brilliant video with four actors, and for no apparent reason. Why? I don't really know why I'm so curious about this, but I find all of it fascinating. I wish we knew more. EDIT: There are actually five actors. The fifth shows up at https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2031 https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2031 Possibly six, depending whether this is stock footage or Putin's translator: https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2401 https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2401

maus42 9y ago

Some things I consider quite glaringly fake / unrealistic. The maps that show the progress of the invasion in the Eastern Europe: the area taken by the advancing Russian army is shown with just a bit too much precision. This is supposed to be real time broadcast, and everything is happening under just an hour. I doubt the BBC graphics staff would have enough information to produce such maps (certain areas neatly colored in red); the military command might supply such information, but later in the day, not immediately, and in any case, they would probably be too busy and there is such a thing as a fog of war. At best, you'd have a list of towns where there have been reports of fighting by the local media and confirmation by the authorities that invasion is happening. Also, live video feed of fighter jets and bombers leaving RAF bases? I find it unlikely that BBC could obtain such a thing, and then decide to broadcast it. Likewise, the NATO stock footage (especially the press conference) is out of place at places. Nobody is going to talk with mild words such as "sabre-rattling" if there's major fighting going on. Actually, the whole thing going down in just one hour. While I can believe that things can escalate very quickly if tactical nuclear weapons are used (maybe even in a matter of minutes), I can't help but think that it's too short timeframe for the conventional fighting to even begin. (My guess is that the people who created this didn't have resources to create similarly realistic 48 hour long broadcast).