UPDATE: The footage had been kinda debunked
https://twitter.com/JonasDeRo/status/1733120958125482140?t=sGqqtsr3f1chgsfPrlq4-A&s=19
Obviously my blog post's premise was
based on this being a footage, but oh well, it was a composite image lol.
It still though interesting to me
what the output would've been if the techniques were executed (maybe noise and
no date?)..
Anyway, now you know
The Article comes after this line I'm
writing right now
Peace out!
UPDATE 2: Someone recently made a
new motion displaying technique
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSS6yAMZF78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woj4vfMLpao
FOREWORD:
•Not expert, just idiot
•Hypothesis verification needs experts in sound, forensics, programming, AI, social engineering, law..
•Will avoid readers’ boredom from blog’s length via:
>> Blogpost as bullet points
>> Not displaying videos
>> Will make notes for shortcuts
I.
PRELUDE
We don’t have 2 UFO videos… we have 6:
• 2 satellite & drone composites
• 2 leaker’s screenrecordings (thermal one manually recorded?)
• 2 Youtuber’s uploads
II.
REASONING
Dating the:
• 2 Youtuber videos: Will (dis)prove the uploader’s claim in the description.
• 2 leaker’s screen recordings: Will (dis)prove the claim embodied by the footage as a fringe incident with a plane.
•2 satellite & drone composites: Will (dis)prove the claim embodied by the footage of a fringe incident with MH370.
Since there
is a chain of events in the claim made around the videos,
Then being
able to date any video, in any of the 3 types will:
(dis)prove the rest of the story
Meaning that
If, and only if we have one date that has been forensically found,
Then the whole story will be validated, or invalidated
III.
PROBABILITIES
• In my opinion, dating is possible for all the video; but given the nature of the techniques that will be used, it’s:
1) Unlikely to date The Youtube video
2) Likely to date the events happening in the footage
3) Unlikely to date the videotaping of the UFO footage
IV.
DATING TECHNIQUE
---[[[ Mains hum
]]] ----
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0elNU0iOMY&t=82s
• It’s an audio artifact that –theoretically - exists in most modern audio recordings
• Used as a tool in crime forensics to date audio records & detect possible edits to them.
è
Meaning:
Extracting audio from one of the videos increases the chances of dating
V.
SOUND EXTRACTION METHODS
1)
Method 1: Metadata Extraction
If:
there is no sound whatsoever on that Archive.org video[1]
Then:
We should first suspect or suppose our ignorance of how Archive platform works, then:
• Try with the other videos from Youtube[2] and Vimeo[3]:
• Check for potential audiofiles in Archive’s video metadata that’s available in the platform & through “inspect” tool.
Moreover:
If:
the supposition stated above is:
- Unverifiable, then there is a chance such metadata is in the servers of the Internet Archive..
In which case we should create a petition concerning the Internet Archive giving us access to the raw data in their servers[4] (like CR2 files, etc).
(same contact attempts & quasi “social engineering” could be tried with the old Ytb and Vimeo uploaders)
- Invalid, then we move directly to the next extraction method.
2)
Method 2: Magnifiers
N.B:
1st video for integral understanding,
4th video for testing w/ links in the description
• Color Magnification technique is used to create the color microscope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHfhorJnAEI
• That technique gave birth to video magnification technique, which allowed creating the Motion microscope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npNYP2vzaPo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzB0L0mSCI
• Motion microscope captures subtle movements in video
• We get a visual microphone using a special program that translates the subtle movements captured by the motion microscope into sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8&t=109s
P.S:
There are 2 other magnifiers:
• One open source:
(research material in the description)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFzpHiXvSeI
• The other proprietary:
(mentioned at the beginning, 2nd part had open sourced one w/ testing links in the description) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEoc0YoALt0
VI.
POSTLUDE
Don’t be surprised by all of these techniques (& how old they are), it’s even possible to get audio from light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njzjevj9KoM&t=332s
Let alone what is hidden from us..
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170606182854/https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Ok1A1fSzxY
https://web.archive.org/web/20140827060121/https://youtube.com/watch?v=ShapuD290K0
[4] They are a non-profit that’s
functioning with public donations; I don’t think a request and a petition will
be any riskier or harder than filling FOIA requests.
No comments:
Post a Comment