Fake video dramatically alters eyewitness accounts
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.”
This story was allegedly pulled because the show found out that the writer was telling (shockingly) fake stories! It’s still a good story and worth listening to.
Yeah, there is. I hated what I was doing. They get something out of it. But the reason I ended up leaving was because they really don’t get what they think they’re getting. It’s sort of therapy. That’s how psychic networks justify it, that’s it the freedom to contract and the freedom to have therapy and the freedom to do what you want with your money. But it’s all based on deception. And the problem is the other side doesn’t really know they’re being deceived.
Stephen Glass admitting to his fake ways: is this story of the admitted faker itself fake and or is Stephen Glass a sacrificial lamb for the whole lying flock?
Stephen Glass, who as a staff writer at the New Republic in the 1990s perpetrated what may be the most spectacular, sustained campaign of fabrication known to American journalism, is still retracting his work.
Why do they do it? is a question that often comes up. Here’s a possible reason.
Matthew’s pleasure at that moment was so palpable. He was so inside this memory of having Nick completely in his power. He got to experience what Nick must experienced every day, the joy of a perfect deception, of knowing exactly how to play someone to get what you want. That sense of power that comes from knowing someone better than they can imagine.
Here’s a story buried underneath a misleading headline. This media story may even be true – it’s hard to sort out in this age of disinformation.
It doesn’t even matter what the truth is – propaganda, through repetition, has convinced enough of the media consumers that Assad=chemical weapons. Nevermind that there is no proof, just stories like this.
If they tell the truth and bury it, the controllers can only deflect saying consumers had the truth but chose to ignore the propaganda.
“The results show that no nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties,” the OPCW report states. “Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is ongoing.”
The power of the fake person, multiplied! Curator Karen Patterson puts a fake outsider artist in the museum and artist David Levine puts on a museum show about the fake crowd. We hear from a 1937 radio play that featured both Orson Welles and the first fake crowd ever broadcast on the radio. And backstage on our Radiotopia live tour, your host turns to fellow ‘topes Roman Mars and Helen Zaltzman for help deciphering an unexpected laugh. PLUS!!!! The long awaited return of ToE’s original extra
A good episode that describes how they counted casualties in the Iraq war.
Recently, the British medical journal The Lancet published an study which updated their estimate of the number of Iraqis who’ve died since the U.S. invasion. With that in mind, we revisit a show we did in 2005 about the earlier study published in Lancet estimating the number of Iraqi deaths. That study was mostly ignored in the U.S. Alex Blumberg revisits the original study and looks at the new one.
As a fakeologist, you will probably agree with option #2 – that they made the numbers up – and made them so big – a big lie – that everybody would believe them.
Right. If you’re going to make up stuff, why go door to door in dangerous areas? Why not just sit in your office and make up stuff? And if you’re going to go door to door, why not just get the data?
Right. And if you’re going to make up stuff, why make up a number that even the people who are on your alleged side are going to argue with you about? That doesn’t make any sense at all. If he was going to fake the data, he would have said, there was 300,000 dead. And then everybody would have been joining in and saying, this is a horrible thing.
And instead, he comes up with this much larger number. It just doesn’t make any sense.
So if you’re going to lie, do a better job.
If you’re going to lie, make it a more plausible lie.
I’ve posted many of the MM essays I thought were bang on. I’m not interested in many of them, so haven’t posted or promoted them.
Is he a team of writers, like Mozart and Shakespeare?
What’s this fight all about? Is it a real fight, or itself scripted to misdirect from the voluminous research?
So … here’s a claim that keeps coming up again and again. In Taos, New Mexico there is a man with a mind greater than all the greatest thinkers in history. This man single-handedly is solving puzzles in physics and astronomy and mathematics and world history that no one else has ever solved before, and at a pace that seems superhuman. This man has accomplished these tremendous intellectual feats:
An amazing podcast on the secrets of magic tricks and how even our own minds, even if we know how a trick is done, can still be fooled. This podcast is instructional on how psyops and hoaxes can be constructed
Go to around the 50-minute mark for an explanation on how the audience or parts thereof are necessary to shill for the trick to really work.
Just a few years before he got the internship at NPR that started him in radio, our host Ira Glass had another career. He performed magic at children’s birthday parties. A powerful sense of embarrassment has prevented him from ever doing an episode on the subject, but when he learned that producer David Kestenbaum was also a kid conjurer, they decided to dive in together.
A common theme in all hoax/psyops is you never get enough information to form a resolution: both the official and alternative stories are always incomplete. This forces your brain to fill in the blanks, which helps you convince yourself that you’re right.
In essence, gaslighting, where they place conspiracy in the culture and then deny its there when you point it out, calling you crazy.