At MIT, they can put words in our mouths
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff, 5/15/2002
CAMBRIDGE - Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have created the first realistic videos of people saying things they never said - a scientific leap that raises unsettling questions about falsifying the moving image.
In one demonstration, the researchers taped a woman speaking into a camera, and then reprocessed the footage into a new video that showed her speaking entirely new sentences, and even mouthing words to a song in Japanese, a language she does not speak. The results were enough to fool viewers consistently, the researchers report.
(snip)
Currently, the MIT method is limited: It works only on video of a person facing a camera and not moving much, like a newscaster. The technique only generates new video, not new audio.
But it should not be difficult to extend the discovery to work on a moving head at any angle, according to Tomaso Poggio, a neuroscientist at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, who is on the MIT team and runs the lab where the work is being done. And while state-of-the-art audio simulations are not as convincing as the MIT software, that barrier is likely to fall soon, researchers say.
''It is only a matter of time before somebody can get enough good video of your face to have it do what they like,'' said Matthew Brand, a research scientist at MERL, a Cambridge-based laboratory for Mitsubishi Electric.
http://cbcl.mit.edu/cbcl/news/files/bostonglobe-ezzat.shtmlPDF of the 2002 presentation here:
http://fpn.mit.edu/9.520Spring2002/Papers/siggraph02.pdfThis is the commercially available technology, I'd assume more advanced refinements exist.
Not saying it was faked, I couldn't know, just saying it's possible. Granted, the content (My Pet Goat) would argue against it for one but I'm not sure OBL reciting "liberal talking points" is so beneficial, also it's obvious everyone would harbour such suspicions, if OBL gave a statement that blatantly helped Bush I think even much of the media would have speculated about dirty tricks and collusion. As it is the impact is less clear, but there'd probably be an assumption by the ratfuckers that raising the spectre alone would help Bush, regardless of content. (I know, second guessing, triple guessing, the Spanish election showed the unreliability of such assumptions).