Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.

Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.

Dr Wade's research team filmed 60 subjects as they took part in a computerised gambling task. The subjects were unknowingly seated next to a member of the research team as they both separately answered a series of multiple-choice general knowledge questions.

All subjects were given a pile of fake money to gamble with and they shared a pile of money that represented the bank. Their task was to earn as much money as possible by typing in an amount of money to gamble on the chances of them answering each question correctly. They were told the person who made the highest profit would win a prize.

When they answered each question, subjects saw either a green tick on their computer monitor to show their answer was correct, or a red cross to show it was incorrect. If the answer was wrong, they would be told to return the money to the bank.

After the session, the video footage was doctored to make it look as if the member of the research team sat next to the subject was cheating by not putting money back into the bank.

One third of the subjects were told that the person sat next to them was suspected of cheating. Another third were told the person had been caught on camera cheating, and the remaining group were actually shown the fake video footage. All subjects were then asked to sign a statement only if they had seen the cheating take place.

Nearly 40% of the participants who had seen the doctored video complied. Another 10% of the group signed when asked a second time by the researchers. Only 10% of those who were told the incident had been caught on film but were not shown the video agreed to sign, and about 5% of the control group who were just told about the cheating signed the statement.

Dr Wade said: "Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed."

For more information, please contact Kelly Parkes-Harrison, Communications Officer, University of Warwick 02476 150483/02476 574255, 07824 540863, K.E.Parkes@warwick.ac.uk

.............................................................

Kelly Parkes-Harrison

Communications Officer 

University of Warwick 02476

Dear Kelly,

I read with tremendous interest Dr. Wade's recent study on fake video altering eyewitness accounts. I'm an expert in video compositing, and I have authored a treatise proving that the airplane videos broadcast on 9/11 were in fact fake. That is, the 9/11 airplane videos were authentic footage with a fake airplane image inserted into them. 

None of the live 9/11 airplane videos actually showed an airplane hitting anything, rather the airplane disappears across the straight edge of a tower. The live videos had all of the compositional characteristics required for live video compositing, which in and of itself would be extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. Those that did show the penetration came only later, after there was plenty of time to composite in the actual airplane penetration. 

These penetration videos are provably fake. The airplane goes through the steel wall without any physics at all -  no bending, crashing, breaking, slowing down - quite impossible. A real airplane would react to the impact with the much stronger tower, parts would break off, many would fall to the ground. 

One frame of video shows the wing of the airplane past the wall of the tower, yet no damage to the wall. 

Mistakes were made in one live video, known as "Chopper 5". The nose of the fake airplane image accidentally popped out of the back site of a video mask, making it appear as though the nose of the airplane came out the back side of the tower. This is quite impossible, as the nose of a 767 airplane is plastic, and hollow, and nobody alleges that the nose actually came out. Various attempts have been made to explain it away, but the fact is, it looks exactly like the nose of a Boeing 767, and this is exactly the kind of problem you might have in trying to do a live video composite like this. 

There are many, many other anomalies, all supporting the video composite hypothesis, and ruling out real airplane crashes. The only evidence for real airplanes are the eyewitnesses, and that's where Dr. Wade's study comes in. I wish to thank her for it, and you can rest assured I will reference it in my future work, including my upcoming film, "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera". 

My treatise may be studied here:

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/

 

I would welcome any comment you have.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

Frank Legge Says it All

Anyone who pushes the idea that the planes were not real, regardless of whether or not they were real, is doing a terrible disservice to the truth movement.

                                -Frank Legge

A Few Quick Comments on Nat Geo Hit Piece

The National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth aired 2 nights ago. It was called "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" or something similar. I recorded it and will get around to a more rigorous critique at some point.

A few observations of the top of my head -

1. The editing was malicious in the extreme. The "truthers" - Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, and Richard Gage, were barely allowed to say anything. Though I have differences of opinion with Gage on explosive type used, Gage can do a competent job of explaining the evidence for explosive demolition. In particular, I have heard Richard gage point out that the steel floor pans were disintegrated. I am very confident that Richard Gage must have offered a good deal more substantive material than Nat Geo chose to include.

2. The softening beam experiment. Nat Geo built a nice kerosene fire under a loaded steel beam, and got it to sag and fail quite quickly. OK. So what? How could a fire in the twin towers get ALL of the beams in a story to fail at the same time?

Worse, assume all of the support in a story fails at the same time. Assume it melts. Assume it evaporates and disappears, allowing the upper structure to fall unimpeded down onto the lower structure. How does softened support at floor 96 explain how the entire tower exploded into dust? How does it explain the mushroom cloud? How does it explain the dust tsunami? How does it explain the particle size?

3. The projectile experiment. They shot an aluminum cylinder at some walls, and it penetrated, leaving holes roughly in the shape of the projectile. FIrst of all, the holes weren't circular, they were ripped out.

But more importantly, what happened to the projectile? Nat Geo didn't show us. The projectile emerges out the back side after passing through several walls. I suspect the projectile sustained little damage. This makes sense. It was stronger than the walls, so it made a cutout of itself, and went through. On 9/11, we're asked to believe that airplanes made cutouts of themselves, but then disintegrated. It makes no sense.

4. No det cord means no demolition. Nat Geo tried to suggest that because the rubble had no det cord, and it would have taken workers months to rig a standard demolition, and would have needed to cut away walls, it couldn't have been demolished. This simply means it wasn't a standard demolition, which is quite obvious anyway.

5. David Ray Griffin said the twin towers "imploded" and went "into their footprint". This is false, disinformation from David Ray Griffin. The towers EX-ploded, not IM-ploded. The mass of the towers went almost entirely OUTSIDE the footprint, which is one of the best proofs of explosive demolition. Official collapse modelers Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant agree that anything more than 20% outside the footprint rules out a gravity collapse.