4 ms·
Actually the sound analysis doesn't prove it's a real video, it just cannot prove it is fake. One could totally make up a video keeping sound propagation times
by darkwater 7y ago
Actually the sound analysis doesn't prove it's a real video, it just cannot prove it is fake. One could totally make up a video keeping sound propagation times in mind.
The most important thing is tracking the footage real location and checking that the plane or missile weren't edited in.
- aaron695 7y agoNo one is faking footage. They are just re-posting old footage of different incidents. IE in the Australian fires atm. It's to hard to fake footage. You are just checking it's the right location, right time. It's entropy. Real leaks are way easier than fake leaks.
- mamon 7y ago>> Real leaks are way easier than fake leaks. Maybe for the private person. For a certain three letter agency looking to start a war with Iran it is quite easy to produce fake.
- smabie 7y agoI don’t think anyone wants a war with Iran, buddy. Not even the Saudis.
- darkwater 7y agoFaking footage will only get cheaper and easier. But yeah, right now probably the most used fake sources are simply different, older incidents.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nitwit005 7y agoGetting real footage from some location is kind of trivial. If you try to edit a person into a scene, you have to do a lot of work to carefully fix up the lighting and shadows, which is difficult to do perfectly. That's not the case with a tiny distant object against a dark sky. There aren't many editing artifacts to look for.