Inspector Hound posted:

Still real

Inspector Hound posted:

My biggest problem with it, besides his face not being plainly visible, is that there are multiple videos of him struggling to hold up a glass or bottle of water with both hands and in the video he's holding whatever he's holding in one hand easily


Need full tape with unambiguous audio

Hub Dirt posted:

I'm loving dying that The Piss Tape releases quietly on a Saturday night in the midst of a Russian info dump and even goons disbelieve it. The Piss Tape was never going to be a premier event. It was never going to be Trump, holding two forms of ID, watching Russian hookers!
The Piss Tape is real, and we've seen it.

The Nastier Nate posted:

What’s the point of this thread anymore now that we’ve seen the piss tape?

Are we doomed to wander the earth proselytizing to the non believers?

El Mero Mero posted:

I don't want to go through 1000000 posts to see who first posted it. Is it more real or less real when you know who the uploader is?

Blitz7x posted:

Found it!


https://thebarchive.com/b/thread/790947174/#790947174

17:47:16
4chan Time: 1/25/19(Fri)18:47


edit:

first time posted on january 15th

https://thebarchive.com/b/search/image/eNtXfZSmT2gV0pF1SFVWCw/

The Nastier Nate posted:

I don't need the goon CSI crew to tell me what I've known in my heart all along

PISS. TAPE. REAL.

Crusader posted:

The Saucer Hovers posted:

the bar i haunt let me do the specials board and name a drink so i got away with all i could

https://imgur.com/a/8ziXAWw

cant embed because im an old man on a phone

cool av posted:

is the piss tape real?

Ron Jeremy posted:

isnt the simpler solution the room is real but the people are actors?

j/k it’s def real.

pancake rabbit posted:

in honor of shadow cspam, welcome to the Pissside Down

https://streamable.com/vxnk6

Dumb Lowtax posted:

...But now that she's written it, give it a year's time. Check the public reactions a year from now. The story entering the broader public consciousness for a long time is the more important part, because already:


She absolutely did the safe thing. It's got to be a journalist's worst nightmare to commit to some dumb story's authenticity.... only for James O'Keefe to step out or something and turn them into a laughing stock for the rest of their career.

Meanwhile the readers should be able to separate Ashley's editorialization and opinion from the facts at hand. Besides, adding those things could have even been a calculated click-bait move as the same poster said:


I'll give her article a deeper read in a bit.

But for now I'll point out the main reasons why its conclusions can't be right, no matter the specifics:

1.

Everybody who hangs out in PYF's deepfakes thread knows that deepfakes are not really magic. They can't be an answer to every suspicious video. They often have a certain look, or have factors in common; they're not well suited for all applications. ML people can tell you that at the end of the day, you're only re-stating correlated stuff from existing data. Outputs are limited, especially when it comes to novelty.

You can use deepfakes to fake Trump's voice, or his face, or his clothes, his body, or with the techniques from top research papers, even his poses. But you can not use deepfakes to fake Trump. Deepfakes do not magically understand Trump, and cannot create a situation that is inherently Trump-like. Another poster said: No one can guess Trump's behavior, yet everything he does is retroactively so Trump. Ignoring the hookers, guesturing like a spoiled child, you know those things. You couldn't make this poo poo up. A deepfake certainly couldn't. (Also seems like someone making a fake would have wanted him to at least look interested to make it more damning).

Deepfakes tend to make mistakes that a human would never make -- letting a coat button briefly pop through a chair in front of it, making a person's hair temporarily merge with the wall behind it, or being plain indecisive with small regions of the image (making those characteristic miscolored gross loops you see at https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/) or even indecision about large regions. Some of those mistakes will be localized enough to launder by re-filming through a phone, sure. But it would ultimately seem easier to *not* use deepfakes at all for this, and to use practical effects and good ole photoshop instead. A human touch.

Deepfakes would be terrible at getting a room's dimensions and proportions right, as would have been necessary to match the room in question this well. So someone at least had to rent the real Moscow Presidential Suite. Deepfake techniques usually can't just drop people into new places in videos in a realistic pose, so they also had to hire real girls and a real stand-in and bring them to that suite without the hotel getting suspicious.

Overall, it stands to reason that the entire range of "deepfake techniques" would have been totally redundant to create this, or even a liability. So if Ashey's fixates on them as a magic solution that could create any fake video, then it betrays a gross misunderstanding -- one that led her to consult with the wrong specialists and get their bad takes too. Is a "visual effects artist turned director" supposed to be someone who has their finger on the pulse of the counterfeiting world? What would that guy know about cellphone footage leaks being "exactly the kind of thing you’d do to intentionally obscure detail and sell a fake"? His position lends no credibility to that. I would never presume that my own PhD in Computer Graphics would ever give me the right to supply a newspaper with a definitive yes/no answer about this exact video's authenticity. He's just a bad source.

2.

The idea that this was comissioned is even more implausible than the tape. Think about it: Roger Stone, a guy with the media's full attention and special contacts. Someone who probably could, indeed, commision the most expensive deepfake ever from a state-level actor. Now, would that guy, a man with endless resources, depend on us idiots to get his story out? Hell no. Yet this story would not have gotten out without this thread. This thread itself might have never resumed its interest in reporting the story if I hadn't constantly bugged everyone to and collected info. Now, I know me. I know that I'm not working for anybody. I don't know if you know this, but I know that I'm a goddamn nobody and lazy as gently caress too. We're all lazy as gently caress seeing as how we sat on this for nine months without anyone putting in the sufficient effort to show the world why it's a big deal. Most of all, I know my own unreliability, and I know that Roger Stone's grand plan to shock the world with this thing could not have possibly included relying on my lazy rear end to do anything. From my perspective, that's a no-brainer. As I said, more implausible than the much simpler explanation of "it's real".

What is plausiable, perhaps the only plausible thing, is that this clip was leaked by someone who had no resources.

That matches everything. The total lack of fanfare around it. Not only did they have no media contacts to tip off, not even bots to spread the file and boost it with posts, they didn't even have the confidence to keep doing it themselves and eventually tried to scrape it back off the web into obscurity. Whoever leaked this was just another nobody like us. One who had a clearance and a cell phone and a brief lapse in their survival instincts.

ted hitler posted:

Inspector Hound posted:

Whoa whoa whoa did I already ask for a link to the beanie because I need that

WampaLord posted:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1261254338434998273?s=20

the piss tape extortion has begun

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Seek not the pee tape in the world, to know that it is real. Seek the pee tape in your heart, and know that it is real.