Voice Disguise Deception

Home Forums The Big Picture Voice Disguise Deception

This topic contains 19 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  xileffilex 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #855815
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    ===
    Voice Disguise Deception

    Electronic & Non-Electronic Voice Modification
    ===

    ”   In the same manner that we use voice as a biometric identifier in our daily lives it should not come as a surprise that disguising our voices is a natural human counter-identification tactic.

    Disguising a voice is not a modern phenomenon; it could be reasonably argued that it probably began in pre-historic times as a natural result of the human social evolution. From the earliest writings we find stories with examples of the use of voice disguises. For example in the biblical book of Genesis, Chapter 27, we read a story about inheritance and deceit. Jacob, aided by his mother Rebekah, tricks his elderly and blind father Isaac into pronouncing the socially significant patriarchal blessing upon him instead of the legitimate heir, his brother Esau.

    ” And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau’ ”

    If we analyzed this story as a forensic speaker identification (FSID) case we could state that Jacob used a “multimode” disguise approach, changing his physical appearance as well as his voice. Under normal circumstances Isaac could have been considered a subject matter expert (SME) in FSID when it came to his sons but his failing health produced a “false positive” identity assessment.   ”

    Eliud Bonilla 2017 thesis


    There is no doubt that voice as a part of natural, biometric human makeup is a characteristic that has been used deceptively for a long time. The fact voice is a performance based human trait has made it particularly interesting. Compared to other biometric characteristics such as fingerprints, iris pattern or facial geometry – it is evident how changing your voice or signature would be easier to forge than other biometric parameters.

    Non-electronic voice disguise as described in the citation from Eliud Bonilla 2017 thesis (here) requires great ability, focus and stamina from the speaker. A trained voice-actor would be suited for such a type of disguise which can prove difficult to detect. Reaching a consistent level of performance with voice is not easy and excludes the majority of the public from using such techniques.

    The need for training and skill is not required when using electronic means and this has opened voice-disguise for much wider use just like the propagation of software solutions available today very clearly testify to.


    There is today no shortage of software and hardware solutions for voice disguise, and we are in our right to be skeptical of online identity of individuals who we identify primarily by voice alone. The performance of today’s solutions for modifying speaking patterns and vocal frequencies makes the question of voice identity more troublesome than ever before.

    There are two main types of applying digital electronic voice disguise, also referred to as protecting an identity for illegal acts (a) and protecting an identity for legal acts (b).

      a Voices disguised in subtle ways in an attempt to not be discovered
      b Voices clearly identified as disguised by listeners (i.e. Aliens, dogs etc.)


    The naive voice-modifications are often popularized by amateur software as it concerns the fun and prank side to voice disguise. It is also this type of apparent disguise that is used to protect the identity of a witness or interviewee. In these cases, voice-disguise is used in a legal manner and not with direct criminal intent.

    Naive voice disguise is easily recognized and the aural characteristics are rather severe with frequencies modified to sound much higher or lower than any natural state. It is apparent the voice is manipulated, but not to the point of being unlistenable as the content must be understood by the listener.

    Voices that are manipulated in a subtle manner on the other hand have the goal remain undetected for the public and imperceptible for aural analysis. This type of subtle voice-disguise will maintain enough natural sounding characteristics to sound authentic, while the voice features are modified sufficiently to constitute a recognizable new identity.

    The implementation of subtle electronic voice disguise is normally more difficult to attain as it uses more sophisticated algorithms and high quality audio channels will further put stress on the quality of the software as more information is processed and more detail is revealed by quality sound.

    It is quite recurrent to hear appeal to ridicule fallacies whenever voice-disguise is mentioned related to Conspiracy Theory. How anyone can be ignorant of the wide use and easy access of reliable voice modulating technology is problematic and speak more of the deceptive nature of conspiracy theory as a topic (article) than it speaks of genuine research.

    The very fact that the use of subtle voice disguise is closely linked to corrupt and unlawful behavior further stress how those who employ such techniques are already guilty of subterfuge and will not hesitate to use deception anew in order to protect their immoral actions.

    There is more to uncovering voice-disguise that mere opinions and in order to better research and validate suspicion of deceptive occurrences of voice-disguise. Not only do we all possess a very acute auditory system ourselves and should be capable ear witnesses in our own right, there is also an increasing number of forensic tools available (some automated) as well as usual corroborating evidence such veiled admissions, recognition of arguments and discourse, often used words, and recourse to forensic expertise and discrete expert analyses.

    Voice Vices (article)

    Voice Vices

    #855817
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    ”   The earliest commercial use of Auto-Tune as a vocal effect in a popular song was Roy Vedas Fragments Of Life in 1998 and later with Cher in Believe and Eiffel 65 Blue. The effect of Auto-Tune should not be confused with a Vocoder or the Talk box, both devices referenced by the producers of these songs when they were new in order to hide their use of Auto-Tune from music audiences.

    For example, in an early interview, the producers of ‘Believe’ claimed they had used a DigiTech Talker FX pedal, in what ‘Sound on Sound’ editors felt was an attempt to “preserve a trade secret”. After the success of ‘Believe’ the technique became known as the ‘Cher Effect’.   “


    No doubt the careful wording of the Wikipedia entry on Auto-Tune is intentionally “tuned down” as the actual technology of Auto-Tune (wiki) is better described as voice-modulation or voice-morphing.

    The fact all the above songs seems deliberately over-modulated as to be very distinctly recognized as artificially sounding voices further emphasize how the focus on Auto-Tune was most possibly intended leaks and that Auto-Tune in reality had been used for quite a while at the time of the Auto-Tune exposure…

    The exaggerated effects applied to the voices of the artists who broke the spell so to say could easily be mistaken with the inability of Auto-Tune technology to produce realisticly altered human voices. Nothing could be further from the truth as once sound is digitized, the result only depend on one’s preference, be it for producing a synthetic or natural voice.

    In many songs the producers seem to privilege an artificial sound style, but if they would like to produce a convincing fake new voice (electronic voice disguise), Auto-Tune is still one of the best ways to go…


    Proof The Music Industry Is Fake, Everybody Using Autotune & LipSync
    YouTube – Providence – 22 Dec 2014 – 12:54 mm:ss

    #855818

    xileffilex
    Participant

    This is slightly off-topic,but I have always wondered about well known new-lifers who can easily change their hair, wear dark glasses, have plastic and dental surgery, slim/fatten up and age, yet their instantly recognisable voice will be a constant. Of course it couldn’t be [fill in your favourite celeb] next to you at the airport/on the beach because they died, didn’t they?

    But then there’s laryngoplasty.
    http://www.yanhee.net/treatment-procedure/voice-change-surgery

    https://www.voicedoctor.net/surgery/pitch-altering-surgeries

    https://www.realself.com/question/surgery-alter-sound-voice

    I think it would be fairly standard procedure for fake death processing.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  xileffilex.
    #855820
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    But then there’s laryngoplasty.

    I think it would be fairly standard procedure for fake death processing.


    As you highlight with possible voice-box (larynx) surgery as part of required disguise for a reassigned lifetime actor, it also goes to show the importance of sound and particularly the acute ability humans have to recognize voices.

    We have seen from the TCC thread how some contrived truthers do not shy away from using wigs, hats, fake teeth and acting out fake drinking and smoking habits (here). To alter one’s voice or accent would be just as intuitive for these characters as putting on their sunglasses or fake mustache. Or maybe even more if all we know of these types of individuals would be their voice from a recorded podcast series.

    In researching gender-deception in the EGI forum thread, it quite quickly became evident that altering the voice was one of the strong gender-typical parameters a transgender would think of modifying (here).

    Looking anew at laryngoplasty surgery it seems pretty invasive and probably not what a fake radio-host Truther would think of when starting a new show… lol.

    What i seem to have missed when i looked into voice-modification for transgenders is the fact that it is possible to alter a voice – less significantly than gender inversion – with something as straightforward as a filler… And it has been done for over a 100 years…

    In essence, to slightly change one’s voice for a new long-con role, it would only require a skilled practitioner and a syringe under local anesthesia. This type of hit and run procedure is previously known as Vocal fold Injection, now marketed as Injection laryngoplasty

    Vocal fold injection is a procedure that has over a 100 year history but was rarely done as short as 20 years ago. A renaissance has occurred with respect to vocal fold injection due to new technologies (visualization and materials) and new injection approaches. Awake, un-sedated vocal fold injection offers many distinct advantages for the treatment of dysphonia

    #855825
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    ===
    Electronic voice cloning (software)
    ===
    The increased use of voice disguise that we see today is clearly influenced by new digital advancements and research on biometric recognition and security which understandably are areas where State and Military intelligence communities have high stakes as they seek to surveil and control as best they can.

    The high stakes and security issues involved makes it difficult to assess how far the current state of the art voice recognition and voice disguise technology really has developed.

    Some recent voice-manipulation projects do give us some insight of what the technology is capable of and the sudden launch, then retreat of Adobe’s project VoCo represents a curious incidence.

    Adobe VoCo was launched in 2016 (wiki) as the “Photoshop for Voice” with quite some attention, but the software has since been left unpublished. The software nevertheless seemed to work quite well back in 2016 and was able to clone a voice with proximately 20 minutes of recorded speech and render it from text input thereafter. In short, Adobe VoCo made it possible to make someone say anything – with as little as 20 minutes of recorded speech…

    As Adobe broke water then retrieved, a number of new software solutions have become available with the very same abilities of cloning a voice then recreating it from text based input and the sample time has been dropped from 20 minutes to 60 seconds or less according to companies like Lyrebird, Baidu, Google Wavenet and more.


    Adobe MAX 2016 | Sneak Peeks (Adobe VoCo)
    Adobe Creative Cloud – 4 Nov 2016 – 07:20 mm:ss – 1,55 Million views



    VoCo: Text-based Insertion and Replacement in Audio Narration
    Adam Finkelstein – 11 Mai 2017 – 06:03 mm:ss – 60 K views



    This AI Can Clone Any Voice, Including Yours (Lyrebird)
    Bloomberg – 5 Jun 2018 – 06:13 mm:ss – 708 K views


    Adobe is Developing Photoshop for Your Voice
    Technology Going Too Far: Why Adobe’s New “VoCo” Causes Concern
    Adobe Voco ‘Photoshop-for-voice’ causes concern
    Adobe’s new software raises major security and privacy concerns
    Creepy Technology Can Mimic Your Voice With Just 60 Seconds Of Audio
    Lyrebird is an AI that can recreate your voice from 60 seconds of speech

    #856444
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    ”  I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad.  “
    Howard Beale, Network (1976)

    Network Speach – lbtve YT channel – 17 Aug 2013 – 03:49 (mm:ss)

    Much like Howard Beale (Peter Finch) from the epic movie “Network”, it is quite obvious that the Truther scene is pretty “bad” when it comes to deception* and advanced hoaxery.

    #856450
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    ===
    Voice Disguise Deception
    Suspicion of live Voice Morphing
    ===


    From the hostile attitude and repetitive, numerous appeal to ridicule arguments it is obvious that those involved with voice manipulation are working hard not to discuss this topic in any serious way, despite it is undeniable that voice disguise is a very real, efficient technology with definite benefits for intelligence operators in the field of conspiracy research.

    There are many ways one can deduce how voice acting and electronic voice disguise represent a very concrete technique for disguising agents and protecting their ‘real’ private life and how it is useful to recycle agents as PsyOps and conspiracies evolve and change. Silence and superficial rebuttals are part of the tacit admission we currently can verify as being overly present in an audience that on the contrary is supposed to be inquisitive and open to argumented opinions and research.

    In regards to voice disguise we see very little of what should be a natural reaction to suspected hoaxery and prominent revelations which should be astonishment and curiosity. It is of course too late to be astonished or surprised by now for those who do follow this forum thread, recent articles (here) or current discussion on Fakeologist (comments).

    As anyone can establish by following alternative media, most Truthers have a definite broadcast quality voice and above average representational skills which of course is not by accident, but rather comes from targeted training of voice, expression, argumentation and rhetoric.

    For musicians and trained presenters, modelling voice is a craft that is central – so for a large part it will be possible at a minimum to rehearse a general voice that is differentiated enough from their private voice as to their family and friends would not be able to find an exact match online or in the media.

    To find the “true” voice of any lifetime actor or contrived Truther will by nature be very difficult as we simply do not know who these people are, where they really live and come from. Suffice to say that American intelligence operators will often easily take on a Canadian accent, and British intelligence operators will be more at ease impersonating Australian and New Zealand accents.

    So, if anyone wonders why there are so many Australians that are Truthers – it is probably not the right question to ask – the British intelligence community is quite a ways more advanced and prominent. The same goes of course for the American intel operatives who seemingly are quite at ease with Canadian. Common for all is the fact they like to emphasize and linger on particular words that are typically recognizable – try listening closer and you might hear what i’m alluding to.

    Nothing of what is stated so far in this post is really as “far out” as some will probably comment upon at a later stage – and it really is merely pointing out what is obvious when we are aware that conspiracy theory was invented by intelligence services and still is operated in majority by intelligence agencies and their paid operators.

    At the outset then we must presume an intelligence field agent who actively participate in the Truther scene will have extensive broadcast training and at least one solid voice impression with some element that differentiate their real life voice from their alter ego Truther voice. This might be very slight variations and merely consist of moderate alteration of merely a slight accent or the use of chosen words that are pronounced with an altered intonation.

    The fact that many Truther outlets contend to be open platforms for public participation is clearly where electronic means for voice alteration seems the most efficient as such personas do not have extended presence and therefore provide little opportunity for comparison and analyses.

    The benefit of voice morphing used on fake fans is therefore huge as it is easy to do and efficient regarding the content – just as in regular radio they use planted participants to stimulate dialogue and create conflict and interest. Just as we can see patterns in how Truthers jump from show to show appearing with many of the same fake truthers – so is it plausible these operators can assist with additional help by “calling in” or perticipating with voice disguise in order to help certain narratives or policies.

    When we look back at the few “voice morphing” scandals we will quickly be able to see how these cases all are similar in that they concern apparently “regular” members or pretended “layman” researchers. This is clumsy by nature, but also a sign that electronic voice disguise is in use – there would be no such examples if voice morphing was NOT in use…

    The unfortunate fact is nevertheless that electronic voice alteration is so performant that we normally should not have any cases of malfunction, but we do (Sami, Psyopticon, etc) which in my opinion is a sign not only that such technology is in use, but more probably systematically used and probably widely used – for obvious reasons.

    As an example how “Everybody knows things are bad” as Howard Beale would have coined it, hereunder is a sample from a recent audiochat where Dante from NY came on air with very obvious duping delight as he testified to being very real and different from Marcus Allen who i still suspect him to be – even so if he hides behind a voice morpher and is cleverly produced by Love/Velo under his technical audio-mastery.

    Not only does Dante have digital artefacts that show in his voice-print, but everyone present in the conversation seems to be equally amused and thriving in dupers delight together as they all seem to be in on the hoax performed live on air.



    FAC493b-9/11 Special part 2extract (from 7:29 h:mm, 46 seconds clip)

    Dante Voice Pitch analyses
    Voice print of “Dante” shows artefacts of digital sampling and a broken baseline

    #856625
    Tom Dalpra
    Tom Dalpra
    Participant

    A full two months passed on this thread after it’s initial little flurry of posts.
    Then, on 22nd November UNreal posted a piece called ”Suspicion of live Voice Morphing”.

    The next day, Terran Downvale accused ab of using voice deception in being Paolo Waolo on a Brian Staveley call and Johnny Clues, back for a second go, apparently fell for it and had a meltdown.

    Good timing on the post, wasn’t it !?

    Hey, there’s more people on this tack, it seems quite the rage.
    Calcified Lies has even joined in.

    The thing is, apart from not sounding like him, Chris has also done audio with
    Russ.

    Who started this nonsense?

    DalTampra

    #856626
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    Who started this nonsense?

    Great to see Tom Dalpra closely following every forum topic i’m engaged in. And yet more constructive, supportive remarks ! Many factually solid points have been made by Tom Dalpra lately. All backed by serious research and verifiable sources.

    “ I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers. ”
    Kahlil Gibran

    There has been more focus on voice disguise on Fakeologist since mid-November* with several new voice disguise comparisons and suspect cases having come into question. Many suspect cases have also been brought up before (Bobby Kendall, Psyopticon) while information and research on voice forensics and voice modification technology has been scarce – this topic excepted (first post mid-September).

    Not surprisingly, the suspect cases of voice disguise have brought the most reactions, not the factual research topic itself. This is unfortunate in my view, as there is not really any doubt about the presence of neither voice altering technology and techniques nor that factual cases testify to the use of both non-electronic and electronic voice modulation & disguise presently and historically.

    In reality, nobody denies Voice Disguise and voice modulation technology is factually effective and widely professionally implemented. Not to mention it has become the standard in the music recording industry (Auto-Tune).

    So why is Voice Disguise research is labeled “nonsense” when in fact it is easily verifiable ? The technology is efficient, widely used and also deployed without informing the public in several well proven cases (article).

    Maybe the opponents to any mention or reference to these powerful technologies simply are unfamiliar with the facts. Or worse – such critical super skeptics involuntarily engage in wishful thinking : the existence of an invisible barrier and moral contract in alternative media of the non-transfer and non-use of any voice modulation technology presently and historically used in music, film and acting. Akin the Antarctic Treaty System, this might really help genuine research…

    Unfortunately, fact-inhibition and wishful thinking are not the only reasons there is unwarranted resistance to conducting intelligible research about voice disguise. If there is no invisible barrier contract that exclude voice disguise and voice modulation from use in the alternative media, then such techniques could actually be in use, despite the fact nobody admit to using such technology.

    This would mean – oh my – that alternative media could very well use any or all such voice effects without the public being aware… The motive behind vilifying voice disguise research in this case would thereby be of deceptive nature, and made to protect both the privacy and credibility of those who rely upon such artefacts as voice disguise. But surely, intelligence operatives would not be that deceptive as to use existing, reliable technology to their advantage and purpose of misinforming the public..

    Sure, a fake Truther might release 150 two-hour radio shows each year, but they would never think of bringing on a scripted character with a disguised voice in order to gatekeep a topic like 9/11 with something like a fake testimony. That would be crazy and utter nonsense – Jim Fetzer is who says he is, and so are all his 500+ guests (article).


    Bill Clinton – I did not have sexual relations with that woman
    victortest89 – 31 Jan 2015 – 00:08 (mm:ss) – 112K views


    Considering we do know there are indeed intel agents infiltrating even our neck of the woods at Fakeologist (i.e. AA MoreIs, A Carrion, K Hammad recently) then it is even more important we consider facts moreso than speculation. So, despite the efforts made to start this forum thread and writing about this issue on my blog (article) – few fellow researchers so far have contributed with factual information in the topic, while many engage superficially with unsupported opinion.

    As a music professional, Tom Dalpra would normally familiar with the inner workings and professional possibilities of modifying voice – both with studio technology, advanced sampling techniques and voice training. Not only does Tom Dalpra not contribute with any of his music industry knowledge or experience, he jumps right onto the subjective side of the minute speculation this thread contains so far (Dante/Markus Allen) – leaving all the facts and forensics behind.

    The amount of speculation in this thread represents only a minute part of the topic of voice disguise as a whole. So far, much more hearsay is brought up for discussion that ignore the valid basis for this research in order to cherry-pick and strawman-attack the few sensationalist opinions there are about the use of human and electronic voice disguise.

    I’m quite open to giving my opinion and be proven wrong with better arguments, more precise voice analysis and better voice-prints, but this does not change the existence of and wide use of voice modifying technology. To ignore the fact voice modulation is part of the basic broadcasting sound engineer’s skillset is a major obstacle to intelligent discussion, as is the fact 95+ percent of alternative media is produced by the same henchmen who gave us the MSM (mainstream media) where no technology is left untouched in order to decieve us.


    Bin Laden Releases Audio Tape, Wants Aid Relief
    Associated Press – 1 Oct 2010 – 00:53 (mm:ss) – 11K views


    But of course, Truthers are too truthful for using voice disguise and invent false, scripted characters…

    *the new focus on voice disguise has closely followed a series of audiochats released between the 15-25th November 2018 (FAC511 – FAC515)

    #856627

    xileffilex
    Participant

    @1:02 video ^^^

    Calcified Lies:

    “….it’s obviously Chris Kendall [laughter]….”

    It sounds nothing like CK. It’s obviously not Chris Kendall. LOL.

    BTW, do I now understand correctly that it is now an historical fact that Psyopticon used voice morphing on his seven hour call with, inter alia PShea, where he obviously was impersonating himself mid-call, LOL!?

    Tom Dalpra wrote

    A full two months passed on this thread after it’s initial little flurry of posts.
    Then, on 22nd November UNreal posted a piece called ”Suspicion of live Voice Morphing”.
    The next day, Terran Downvale accused ab of using voice deception in being Paolo Waolo on a Brian Staveley call and Johnny Clues, back for a second go, apparently fell for it and had a meltdown.

    Good timing on the post, wasn’t it !?

    er, didn’t Terran Downvale kick off the accusation that Ab was Paulo Waulo on
    November 21, 2018 at 2:08 pm, Tom?

    and Tom Dalpra chimed in on November 22 at 2:31 pm a full 24 hours later? And as we can see above, the UNreal post is timed at 5:11 am November 22, in response to the flurry of activity at FAK512. [All times Eastern Time] Er, surely UNreal was responding to the Downvale worm-can opening event and the re-heating of the long running but quasi-dormant Psyopticon saga, Tom, which has kept us all hamsterwheeling for several years!
    Which reminds me, is Ab Paulo Waulo? Perhaps occasional visitor Vercite2 ** can assist?
    ** Vercite2 seems to contribute almost entirely to EGI…. and has seemingly little interest in all other areas of Fakeology. Hmmmmm

    #856628
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    BTW, do I now understand correctly that it is now an historical fact that Psyopticon used voice morphing on his seven hour call with, inter alia PShea, where he obviously was impersonating himself mid-call, LOL!?

    Your reference to Psyopticon goes to show how we must assume that technology such as electronic voice disguise is indeed used and present even at this platform : in this case as a fake, past member.

    What is unfortunate even today is how the focus remains on isolated cases and that discussion is replaced with a sterile debate between haters and proponents of the use of voice disguise.

    For instance – if Psyopticon used a voice changer in any professional capacity – why did it slip up? Any decent voice modifying intel operator would use a system where the modulated voice is hard-fed into the computer from an independent audio-mixer – hence no chance of any slip-up.

    Regarding Calcified Lies – why does he use a contrived example to make his case ? And why is the sound tweaked in his video to the point where Originalstimulant’s voice is not recognizable ? And why laugh if you are making a serious claim ?

    I’m not buying either of the above stories or characters and find their contribution to gain better understanding of voice disguise rather counterproductive.

    First point here is the induced belief one needs a Darth Vader capable piece of software to alter voice – this is quite misleading. The best voice disguise is made from very subtle changes, such as speaking fast or slow, emphasizing certain words or not and the like. And just simply tuning your mic settings for bass & treble.

    Only by altering these basic speech constituents input one will already have quite a different impression of who’s speaking. If you in addition use a mechanical tool such as a nose-clip, mouth-piece or a tight neck-band you are very close already to being someone else. Now – combine these techniques with voice impression training and a decent sound-engineer and it is already quite clear the sky is the limit for making phony “natural” voices. No chipmunk voice software needed.

    So if we just can agree how both technology and techniques are clearly able to alter our perception of a person’s “natural” voice consistently – only at this point will there be any meaning in questionning who imitates what character and for what reason. Of course, if all Truthers are genuine and there are no paid intel operators actively working to deceive us, then motivation clearly would be lacking in a no-paid-shills-world.

    On the other hand, if we do not believe Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Brian BS and friends are anything else than paid actors playing their roles, then we might consider the advantages of being able to make up fake voices and characters in order to fill the large cast of characters that the contrived Truther community really demands. Are all Jim Fetzer’s 500+ guests played by different actors using their single, unique natural voice ? Could one of Henrik Palmgren’s 780+ guests actually have been played by the same actor with a slightly modified voice & accent ?

    Normally, all the above should lend itself for intelligible discussion among like-minded researchers on this site, but no such dialogue can seemingly be held on Fakeologist today as every participant seek to polarize their position – with the end result of no advances made for any better insight or wider perspective. Unfortunately – fallacies and derailing has become commonplace on Fakeologist and bullies are left unchallenged in command with their reprehensive behavior and biased, navel-gazing perspective*.

    *it is quite hard to make a difference between bully-like behaviour & discouraging any type of new research, and what is referred to as “gatekeeping”. Thenagain, in this case it is probably “voicekeeping”. Still, this all overlaps pretty well, and i’m reminded of how gatekeeping might be the second biggest intel-activity after false information…

    #856629

    xileffilex
    Participant

    It’s interesting to remember who chimed in on the Psyopticon brouhaha, no other than Kham

    and of course the “say guys” catchphrase was used remorselessly on the videos attacking Fakeologist.
    OK, the voice does sound different in that small clip, but so what? We have hours of Psyopticon chats available, so I’m not quite clear about what is meant by
    fake, past member [Psyopticon].. Not even past member if one recognises recent post by Evil Edna….

    [Sorry, it was the call with Jan Erik anind UNreal AC0005 which attracted the maelstrom of interest in voice morphing]

    #856630
    Terran Downvale
    Terran Downvale
    Participant

    Ugh, guys. Didn’t I express my preference to drop the whole Ab/Paolo thing back on the K Shooting thread? Now I’ll be forced to talk about it some more since I’m being dragged back into the drama. I really don’t want to! But just to clear things up, first of all, I did not “accuse” Ab of being Paolo! I did ask him if he was playing Paola as a prank AFTER Faye noticed a vocal similarity and suggested that this may be the case. I listened to it myself and noticed a striking similarity as well. It really does sound like someone with Ab’s voice putting on another accent and playing a character!

    But I also suggested it was possible it was someone impersonating Ab pretending to be another character. A prime suspect is someone like John Adams, a proven deceiver who appears to have been playing some kind of game with us with his Carrion claim. He also was likely involved in The 138 Show w/ Bobby & Bobby voice disguise deception incident (which “coincidentally” began on April 2, the very same day Adams made his Carrion claim) where he may well have been playing Bobby #2 to Kendall’s obvious and barely “disguised” (flanged) Bobby #1. I believe former Fakeologist regular Delcroix may be suggesting the same thing in his comment here, just to remind you that I’m not the only one noticing these things so please quit using me as your whipping boy/scapegoat!

    The curiously timed Bobby & Bobby incident was, of course, summarily dismissed as “nothing to hear” even though Faye once again independently confirmed the vocal likeness to Kendall. Connecting those dots may have helped explain what had gone on with Adams’ self-outing if anyone cared to think about it a bit, which I encouraged everyone to do only to fall on deaf ears, as usual. It also may have helped explain the sudden appearance of AA Morris, another distinctively-accented vocal character who suddenly appeared on March 6, roughly a month before Adams’ Carrion claim and only a week after Adams and Kendall’s seemingly subtextually-rich Hoaxbuster’s Call on February 26 where they awkwardly discussed a “broken flange” in Adams’ “new place” which caused a “leak,” destroying much of his audio CD collection while sparing his “records.” In this same call, we hear “Not So Free Mason” show up on the call like Superman just after Adams “disappears into a phone booth” like Clark Kent, only to suddenly drop off the call once Adams/Kent shows up again, LOL.

    And then Morris has a sudden “meltdown” some months later where he rambles on about Rich Little and voice impressions, bringing “John” into the discussion in one of his final clips which can be heard here. So it seems we have some kind of vocal impression pranking going on with these characters in one way or another, which I would think should be of great interest to anyone who truly cares about TRUTH. But other than the dogged efforts of UNreal, this is something that is of ZERO interest to anyone at Fakeologist, unless you count the curiously departed Faye.

    Can we all at least agree that something fishy is going on here? I’ve pointed out Adams’ vocal impression abilities numerous times, which he displayed regularly in his calls. If it’s agreed now that Adams is a proven deceiver, could these vocal skills have been part of the deception? And along with that deception, could making his publicly acknowledged impressions deliberately weaker sounding than what he was actually capable of doing be part of the ruse? For example his comical nose-pinched impression of Ab in his call with JLB two days before Carrion’s alleged death?

    Putting technological “voice morphing” aside, wouldn’t a professionally skilled impressionist like the following be of GREAT USE in the controlled opposition audio game?

    Again, as much as I don’t want to be dragged back into this discussion again, I have to tip my hat to UNreal for keeping the topic alive for all the serious “No Limits Hold ‘Em” Fakeologists out there!

    #856635
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    OK, the voice does sound different in that small clip, but so what? We have hours of Psyopticon chats available, so I’m not quite clear about what is meant by fake, past member [Psyopticon]

    By calling Psyopticon a fake, past Fakeologist member*, the intent was to highlight what to my knowledge is a “known case” of Voice Disguise where a majority of Fakeologists seem to agree Psyopticon purposefully did alter his voice, as his slip-up from the clip above illustrates. The Psyopticon “affair” therefore effectively should qualify as a case of Voice Disguise, and the author (Psyopticon) therefore would not be a genuine FAK member – thereby the use of “fake” above.

    From your comment (Xileffilex) it is not really clear to me whether your opinion is that Psyopticon did alter his voice or not. If your opinion is that he did not disguise his voice, then of course his particular example will not be very appropriate, so it might be helpful you clarify your stance on the Psyopticon voice disguise “scandal” – if he did alter his voice purposefully or not.

    What is rather important here, is to be clear about the fact voice disguise is quite easy to perform and very purposeful for active intelligence field operators who would need to conceal their real identity. The benefits of using voice disguise to play multiple characters in many misinformation and gatekeeping efforts is also very evident, and that professional agents would possess the voice disguise training and equipment required. So it is not really that older cases like Psyopticon is of vital importance, it is the principle of voice disguise itself that is of the essence – and to be clear about where one stands on this issue as a principle is of importance.

    The members that participate in debate around the various suspect cases brought up recently clearly would behave deceptively if they did not make it clear they oppose the very idea that voice disguise is part of Psychological warfare and used by intelligence. Unfortunately – those who dismiss every occurence of audio likeness all seem to fall into the ‘always-negative’ category, thereby hoping to appear openminded as they in reality are not.

    Making it clear whether we agree Voice Disguise is used or not in AltMedia is therefore important.

    *i am not aware whether Evil Edna acknowledges being former FAK member Psyopticon or not, and unsure what of what importance this might be (not seen much contribution from EE lately)

    #856636

    xileffilex
    Participant

    So it is not really that older cases like Psyopticon is of vital importance

    You can say that again. But the “fake”Fakeologist “former” member may be contacted directly if you follow this amusing reigniting the embers of the alleged voice morphing outrage at LRF and join up there [unless you already are…]
    http://letsrollforums.com//simon-shack-maker-sept-t28060p55.html
    Pay especial attention to post #543 from field operative Ozzy Bin Oswald.

    Sorry Terran, I accept it wasn’t an outright accusation, rather a polite enquiry, rather like a bowler in Adelaide or Sydney might suggest that the batsman is Leg Before Wicket.
    Howzat?

    #856637

    xileffilex
    Participant

    …and a trip down memory lane [2007, early days of 9/11 deep research] will bring us to a claim of voice morphing which served the purpose of supporting the official position that people really died on 9/11.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89861
    Neat.

    That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers.

    Terrible.

    down a more recent memory lane, 2014, AC0005 with Psyopticon and Ab
    “Hello Evil” “Hi again, yep, ha ha ha” “Hello hello hello. how are you?…”

    AC0005-Audiochat with PsyOpticon

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  xileffilex.
    #856640
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    But the “fake”Fakeologist “former” member may be contacted directly if you follow this amusing reigniting the embers of the alleged voice morphing outrage at LRF and join up there [unless you already are…] Pay especial attention to post #543 from field operative Ozzy Bin Oswald.

    Never been a member or followed Let’s Roll Forums (LRF) so the discussion you (Xileffilex) reference is new to me and quite lenghty as well (63 pages). In this forum thread it is both Simon Shack and Psyopticon that are questionned about their legitimacy – the inference being Psyopticon is suck puppet (fake persona) writing in Simon Shack’s interests, and that Simon Shack is intel through his family connections with Bin Laden & Kissinger.

    Regarding Clues Forum, my opinion is expressed in the K Shooting thread (here) and i’m not surprised others would come to similar positions about Simon Shack and Clues Forum. What is a bit difficult to understand for me in your comment (Xileffilex) is what your opinion of Psyopticon really is, and where you (Xileffilex) stand on the use of Voice Disguise in general, and in the particular case of Psyopticon ?

    Overall, the topic of Psyopticon being genuine or not takes us quite some time back, and when we combine the voice effects present in the Fakeologist 2014 Audiochat, Kham’s expert Psyopticon video testimony and LRF connecting Psyopticon to writing in the interest of Clues Forum – things become rather complex and at no point makes any of the involved parties look particularly genuine…

    As stated above, i’m not familiar with the topics and intrigue raised via Let’s Roll Forum and understand it is BS Staveley’s former radio co-host Phil Jayhan who is in charge for that outlet*. For those who really are familiar with this outlet and its inter-relations with known characters on this site, it would helpful and necessesary that they do spend some effort explaing the context for their references, and if possible what their opinion is.

    *regarding Jahan’s claim-to-fame (imo), the hollow WTC tower pictures are misleading and probably not of the actual building but of the model. The reason for this is the lack of shadow casued by the massive size of the bearing metal beams (drawings). In architecture, such glitches of transparency as in LRF imagery always are present in a scale-model which results in dissappointing rates of transparency in the real world. Same goes today for 3d images where glass is see-through from every angle in renders, whereas in reality glass is much more versatile on large surfaces and changing angles, distances. Architects used to draw glass as all black, transcribing how glass really is the opposite of transparant in natural daylight

    #856641
    Tom Dalpra
    Tom Dalpra
    Participant

    er, didn’t Terran Downvale kick off the accusation that Ab was Paulo Waulo on
    November 21, 2018 at 2:08 pm, Tom?

    Ah thanks xileffilex, that’s sloppy on my part. I fell into the trap of letting my bias rule my clear research there. I was ‘expecting’ UNreals timing to have been thus, which is to my fault.

    That said. Did Terran’s accusation then inspire UNreal to make his post?
    It suddenly seems fashionable.

    UNreal, the only thing I’m calling nonsense are the palpably wrong accusations.

    Felix again, I must return to those Psyopticon audios when I have time and listen with interest!

    DalTampra

    #856642
    Unreal
    Unreal
    Participant

    The voice morphing discussion from 2007 (here) is a really interesting flash-back (very good find, Xileffilex). In this case, the forensic voice expert Dr. George Papcun* certifies none of the calls from United Flight 93 could have been faked using voice morphing.

    What particularly is interesting is the focus on “Voice Morphing” which i hope readers of this forum thread understand in its true meaning of making a close copy of a person’s voice artificially from a voice sample. In other words, the discussion within a parameter that is voluntarily lackluster as it does not refer to voice disguise as a whole, but rather a very specific technique that is overkill to use in the case of doctored voiced from an airplane (referring to the 2007 discussion on Flight 93).

    In the second post in this thread, the subject of voice morphing software (here, now mostly referred to as voice cloning) is detailed with the never released Adobe “Photoshop for Voice” VoCo, Lyrebird, WaveNet and Baidu. All these tech-solutions propose to faithfully clone a person’s voice and render it with any text-input thereafter – much like Siri with the option of making the voice sound like anyone you like, given a 60 second sample.

    It is significant therefore that the debate on about voice deception in the Truther community has been so focused on an “over-kill” type of technology that seems in addition help confuse the public as factual information is rare and speculation and experts common.

    The practice of voice disguise does not rely on any particular technology or technique and is comprised on a wide set of practices of which voice cloning & voice morphing is a very extreme implementation for the goal with voice deception. The vocabulary does not help us along either as voice changer software happily use references to “morphing” despite this technology in voice technology actually means artificial voice imitation, not electronic voice disguise.

    I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated.
    Dr George Papcun PhD

    It seems rather straightforward to assume the discussion about the use of voice disguise in Alt Media has been very consciously constructed around the faulty concept of “voice morphing” thus astutely circumventing a proper reflection on voice deception.

    This must of course be a coincidence, because if it is not – it would mean that many Truthers work hard to avoid reasonable discussion about Voice Disguise… Sometimes it is not as much what is said about “voice morphing” that illustrates the importance of voice deception in the Alt Media, but rather how much that is left out of the discussion.

    The above video about the skills of a trained voice impressionist clearly goes to show that technology is not in any way needed in order for trained individuals to impersonate multiple characters to an incredibly consistent result. If the voice of James Gandolfini came to our attention in another setting like on the radio as a guest – we would all be hard-pressed to detect such well rehearsed voice impressions to be fake.


    Celebrities Impersonating Other Celebrities
    Graham Norton Show – 18 Jan 2017 – 08:21 (mm:ss)
    •Voice training is a basic skill for actors and musicians – and probably Intelligence field operators as well, especially if they are destined for conspiracy theory radio and podcasting


    It is easy to understand how the advent of conspiracy culture over the airways from its origin would lead the intelligence community to closely investigate, use and encourage mastery of everything voice related. And clearly, as any aspiring intelligence operative undergoes training, voice training and orator skills clearly would be fundamental for any covert Truther training course.

    *Dr George Papcun also analyzed Michael Jackson songs posthumously for Vera Serova’s 2014 lawsuit proving forgery (article)

    #856643

    xileffilex
    Participant

    the [LRF] discussion you (Xileffilex) reference is new to me and quite lenghty as well (63 pages).

    I only meant you to scan p 55, noting the stirring of the waters by Ozzy Bin Oswald

    …what your opinion of Psyopticon really is, and where you (Xileffilex) stand on the use of Voice Disguise in general, and in the particular case of Psyopticon ?

    Why did Psyopticon’s ejaculation of the phrase “Hey Guys!” sound so different? I have no idea.Is the suggestion that he started talking with a voice morpher and suddenly realised it was still on? It’s neither here nor there, and not particularly interesting to imagine what Psyopticon was doing immediately before calling in to Ab and I am not going to waste more of my time in discussing it further.
    What is the scope for voice morphing for the intel or shepherding community? Obviously the parallel is with sock puppet accounts being used to flood discussion boards and forums, not forgetting twitter and facebook pages, with steering or downright contrary content.

    I think voice morphing would be more useful while engaging in phone-in programmes to national radio stations, where the informed insider. perhaps with a well known voice, perhaps in cahoots with the controlled broadcaster, is allowed to swing a discussion, using an unverifiable name. The beauty of that is that one cannot click a the sock puppet name and see what else they have been up to. But in a minority sport such as Fakeologist chats? Who cares if a hundred Paulo Waulos call in and some clown sets us running around in circles trying to put names to the voices? Don’t fall for it.

    So, in comparison with paid shills in the written word, who are a more insidious feature of the truther or rather lie detecting “community”, I’d say that voice morphing is only a minor problem to distract me. And that is my last comment here on this thread.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.