Voice-Morphing and the Passenger Calls

[pomeroo]

George Papcun, the creator of voice-morphing technology (http://www.almexperts.com/ExpertWitn...t/5156404.html), has graciously permitted me to post his first article addressing the fantasist claim that calls from the hijacked planes were faked. This issue seems to me to be of singular importance. If the calls were real, then the whole fantasist sand castle is washed away:


Dear Mr. Wieck,

Following please find an amended version of my commenary on Voice Morphing and the alleged 911 conspiracy. You may post it with attribution, cleaning up the html as needed.

Sincerely,
George Papcun, Ph.D.


Purveyors of conspiracy theories have claimed that the events of 9/11 were the result of a massive government plot and cover-up. (See, for example, (www.loosechange911.com.) According to their version of events, there were no hijackers. Instead, the World Trade Center buildings were blown up by explosives planted inside the buildings rather than, or at least in addition to, the effects of the passenger airplanes crashing into them. They claim that the government (or the CIA or someone other than Osama bin Laden and the hijackers) was behind 9/11.

However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theory purveyors have needed to claim that someone (namely, me) created the voices of the passengers in those phone calls. That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers.

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 (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm ) 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. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home. Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? In a separate essay, I will cover the technical aspects of voice morphing, which will further demonstrate the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Whether such wild-eyed theories are worth being concerned about is problematic. However, in their own words, their conspiracy theory organization “has grown from a cult following to a grassroots organism that can no longer be contained” (op cit). I have received email from a high school social studies teacher who told me that her students actually believe that I did everything the purveyors of conspiracy theories say I did. Why they would so mistrust their government and be so naïve with regard to technical issues are interesting questions, albeit matters well beyond the scope of this essay.

[T.A.M.]

I might suggest someone clean this up if Ron cannot, as it is hard to read.

TAM

well done Ron, but you missed a spot...lol

TAM

Ahh...there you go.

TAM

[Revolutionary91]

I have a question:

Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals..

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps they were talking through a rubber chicken?

[T.A.M.]

http://www.old-picture.com/american-...ail-Coffin.jpg

TAM

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals..

This is a deep philosophical question, to be sure...

Why invent the atom bomb?
Why invent the electrical chair?


... a question that goes far beyond the scope of both this thread and this forum. If you want to discuss the ethics of science and engineering, there's certainly a place to do it, but I don't think it's here.

[Revolutionary91]

My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.

[Arus808]

why not? why were bidet invented? so one can have a clean touche after doing their business?

call it a moment of "hey ,this is neat - Hey look what I can do!"

some things are created by accident btw.

[T.A.M.]

Well, for instance, it would be great for movie companies, and actors, who could licence out the rights to their voices, then they would not have to be present for voicing animations etc...

just off the top of my head.

TAM

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.

care to point out where in the response that hte 'creator' of this technology was creating it for "nefarious" reasons?

I dont see it anywhere, so no, its not relevant to the thread.

You are speculating that it was; where he made no such inclination that he did.


There was no nefarious reason behind the creation of the VCR; however, it didn't stop pirates from using it to break laws.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.

The argument that it "can" be used for nefarious purposes has absolutely nothing to do with "was" used for nefarious purposes.

Only in a bizarro-CT world can someone conflate "can" with "was".

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Well, for instance, it would be great for movie companies, and actors, who could licence out the rights to their voices, then they would not have to be present for voicing animations etc...

just off the top of my head.

TAM

heck, itd be a good technology to do ADR (or voice replacement) for movies with a lot of swearing in it, than to hire talent who "sound" like the real actor, or the actor themselves to replace those "swearing" with alternatives for airing on broadcast television.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

My point is it is being developed for a nefarious reason. Very relevant to this thread.

What is relevant to this thread is that the calls from the hijacked planes were not faked. They were made by real people who died when the planes they were on crashed. They can't visit forums like this one to tell us what they think about conspiracy theories.

[T.A.M.]

In the future maybe it will be used so that a grandson can hear the voice of his passed grandfather read him the latest version of Harry Potter or the like.

TAM

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again with the baseless conjecture. When one's only goal is to try to justify their paranoia and justify their existence by uncovering some maga diabolical plot, they might not consider uses for technology. Thus one might not consider such technology being used for things like entertainment such as saving time and cost in producing cartoons where maybe an actor isn't available. We could probably come up with 1000 great uses for such a technology. But Rev isn't thinking that way. He is thinking "How can this be used to prove my theory".

[T.A.M.]

It would eliminate the need to hire the actors to come in to record audio for video games...imagine unlimited dialogue potential in an RPG game using a famous persons voice...

I mean i am sure there are lots of uses...

TAM

[Revolutionary91]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

What is relevant to this thread is that the calls from the hijacked planes were not faked. They were made by real people who died when the planes they were on crashed. They can't visit forums like this one to tell us what they think about conspiracy theories.

Ah the old appeal to emotion, the last fallacious resort of the Jrefer.

You need to deal in evidence.

I have always wondered why the flight with the most passengers had no passenger calls from it.

[Revolutionary91]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Once again with the baseless conjecture. When one's only goal is to try to justify their paranoia and justify their existence by uncovering some maga diabolical plot, they might not consider uses for technology. Thus one might not consider such technology being used for things like entertainment such as saving time and cost in producing cartoons where maybe an actor isn't available. We could probably come up with 1000 great uses for such a technology. But Rev isn't thinking that way. He is thinking "How can this be used to prove my theory".

So this PhD scientist is slaving away to ensure we get better cartoons. Yeah right.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Ah the old appeal to emotion, the last fallacious resort of the Jrefer.

You need to deal in evidence.

Really?

Quote:

I have always wondered why the flight with the most passengers had no passenger calls from it.

Same post.

[Brainster]

Excellent work, Ron! Thank you for nailing this down.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

You need to deal in evidence.

I have always wondered why the flight with the most passengers had no passenger calls from it.

That is not "evidence". That is speculation. Where is your evidence?

You are obviously confident of your theory, so show us the evidence that gives you this confidence.

[T.A.M.]

Does Rev have any idea what the words coming out of his mouth mean...

What on gods earth are you talking about?

TAM

[fezzic]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I have a question:

Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals..

From the link in the posting, it obviously seems to have possible military application which are not always limited to breaking things and killing people. Certainly, such a technology can be misused but that is generally true of just about any technology.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Ah the old appeal to emotion, the last fallacious resort of the Jrefer.

You need to deal in evidence.

I have always wondered why the flight with the most passengers had no passenger calls from it.

You're talking about flight AA 11? Maybe it's because it's the first one to have been hijacked and the passengers didn't know what was going on?

BTW, if you want appeal to emotions, read your OP in the "Yet another patsy" thread. There are loads of them there.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Does Rev have any idea what the words coming out of his mouth mean...

What on gods earth are you talking about?

TAM

Well, that would require some controlling/moderating organ like, oh.... a brain! That's where the problem most likely is!

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Ah the old appeal to emotion, the last fallacious resort of the Jrefer.

You need to deal in evidence.

I have always wondered why the flight with the most passengers had no passenger calls from it.

Rev, are you grasping the message of this thread?

The calls made by passengers from the hijacked planes COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FAKED.

THE TECHNOLOGY TO FAKE THOSE CALLS DOES NOT EXIST TODAY, AND IT DID NOT EXIST SIX YEARS AGO.

Evidence? When conspiracy liars pretend that the calls were faked, what do you suppose their "evidence" might be? Could it be--ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

[T.A.M.]

The creator of the technology, the man who coined the phrase "voice-morphing" has said the technology could not have done what the CTers insinuate...I mean is that not enough...of course not.

TAM

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Excellent work, Ron! Thank you for nailing this down.

There are a couple of areas that have intrigued me. When Apathoid destroys the myth of remote-controlled Boeing 767s and 757s, he forces the fantasists into the no-plane camp, a place they'd prefer not to retreat to. When you show that the calls were authentic, you now have real hijackers flying real planes into real buildings.

What remains of the myths?

[A-Train]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

If the calls were real, then the whole fantasist sand castle is washed away:

No, pomeroo: if the calls are real, neither the fanatasist sand castle, nor anything else is washed away. The calls are certainly real, but that in no way validates the official story, or shows that 9/11 was not an inside job.

The phone calls show that the planes were hijacked by men of "Middle Eastern" appearance who were armed with knives and guns. That can mean either that the men were Arabs-- or that they were Middle Eastern looking men who were not Arabs but who were passing themselves off as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs for the crime of the century.

Not only do the phone calls not show that these hijackers were the Arabs we are told they were. They also do not show that these hijackers piloted the planes to their targets, or even that the hijackers were still on the planes when they crashed.

Therefore, the phone calls as a whole are consistent with a scenario in which professionally trained agents board the planes under the assumed identities of Arab patsies, then carry out the hijackings with the intent of the passengers making the calls to convey their mistaken impression that they are witnessing an Arab terrorist act. An enraged America falls for the ruse, and rushes off to wars in the Middle East.

Quote:

According to their version of events, there were no hijackers.

This quote demonstrates the technique, used so often by debunkers, of choosing which "truthers" to confront, and telling us what "truthers" believe. Who are the truthers who believe in no hijackers? David Ray Griffin doesn't. Jim Hoffman doesn't. Show me a truther who believes in no hijackers and I'll show you a disinformationalist.

[Rolfe]

I'd forgotten about this one. I'm sure Malcolm brought it up, and it was criticised for just the reasons set out here, but then he started on about something else.

Then when he came back to the phone calls, he didn't return to Dr. Papcun's capabilities, but warbled on at inordinate length about things he said 1970s karaoke machines could do (they couldn't), and things he thought that modern digital editing technology can do (it can, but he dismally failed to find the multitude of evidence for the existence of these), and even kiddies' toys.

I remembered there had been some talk of a secret military system that could do it, and I kept mentioning that this was his only hope of even beginning to make a case, but I'd forgotten these details.

Now I'm starting to wonder. Did Malcolm really forget all about this system, and start wild speculation about music editing just for something to say? Or has he really been deliberately seeing how nonsensical his claims can get before we realise he's yanking our chains?



Rolfe.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by A-Train

They also do not show that these hijackers piloted the planes to their targets, or even that the hijackers were still on the planes when they crashed.

What? They left the plane in mid flight?

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by A-Train

The phone calls show that the planes were hijacked by men of "Middle Eastern" appearance who were armed with knives and guns. That can mean either that the men were Arabs-- or that they were Middle Eastern looking men who were not Arabs but who were passing themselves off as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs for the crime of the century.

I'm sorry but do you mind if I laugh out loud at this?

You have based your claim on one passenger believing that one of the hijackers had a gun and concocted an entire fantasy about Israeli commandos hijacking the planes, and parachuting from them before they hit their targets . Ok let’s just say, I forget everything and indulge in this. Why would Israeli commandos hijack US planes and then blame Arabs?

[A-Train]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

There are a couple of areas that have intrigued me. When Apathoid destroys the myth of remote-controlled Boeing 767s and 757s....

Sorry, but I actually read Apathoid's paper. He did not destroy the idea of remote controlled Boeings. He made a pretty good argument against the possibility of a remote takeover of those planes. However, all his scenarios included the assumption that the crew of the planes would be actively working against such a takeover.

He did not deal with the possibility, such as I am proposing, that the pilots had been shot through the head by highly trained hijackers, who then would have been able to rig the cockpit for remote flight unimpeded.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by A-Train

Show me a truther who believes in no hijackers and I'll show you a disinformationalist.

1. The entire "No-planer" wing of the nut house
2. Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, Korey Rowe
3. Pilots for Truth
4. Pentacon

I am sure I could list many others, but off the top of my head, those are a few...

TAM

5. Fetzer...he believes the people alleged to be the hijackers are still alive, and he is a no-planer to boot.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by A-Train

Sorry, but I actually read Apathoid's paper. He did not destroy the idea of remote controlled Boeings. He made a pretty good argument against the possibility of a remote takeover of those planes. However, all his scenarios included the assumption that the crew of the planes would be actively working against such a takeover.

He did not deal with the possibility, such as I am proposing, that the pilots had been shot through the head by highly trained hijackers, who then would have been able to rig the cockpit for remote flight unimpeded.

You are really the guy who wrote the "mission impossible" movies, aren't you?

Wait, no, you...you are Macgyver...right?

TAM

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What? They left the plane in mid flight?

Correct me if I'm missing something, but isn't this the whole problem with any sort of MIHOP scenario? Anything that really has the planes piloted into the towers, but not by genuinely committed suicide terrorists?

The reason Malcolm has his remote controlled military bad boys from OFFUTT and the others have their disguised missiles and their holograms, is that otherwise we have to postulate agents of the NWO who are prepared to commit suicide in furtherance of this charade.

Suicide missions (genuine, as opposed to just very very dangerous with only the slimmest chance of survival) aren't something western people have any history of carrying out. And that the NWO could get agents prepared to do this is very unlikely.

So we have the no-plane theories. Or so I see it.

Which tell us that it was impossible to make these calls. So that proves they were faked to make the scenario more realistic.

But if the calls were real, who flew the planes into the buildings?

Is the mistake I'm making here, one of imagining that the CTers might have constructed a coherent or at least internally consistent theory by now?

Rolfe.

[T.A.M.]

I think the sekrit agents used Klingon technology(TM) to beam aboard the planes, take out the pilots, uplink with the bird of prey(TM), beam back out, and then the planes were guided to their targets..

See, I told you it was the Klingons.

TAM

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by A-Train

Sorry, but I actually read Apathoid's paper. He did not destroy the idea of remote controlled Boeings. He made a pretty good argument against the possibility of a remote takeover of those planes. However, all his scenarios included the assumption that the crew of the planes would be actively working against such a takeover.

He did not deal with the possibility, such as I am proposing, that the pilots had been shot through the head by highly trained hijackers, who then would have been able to rig the cockpit for remote flight unimpeded.

I don't believe that you read Apathoid's paper. My assumption is far more flattering to you than crediting you with reading it but failing to comprehend a word. The possibility you are proposing is not a possibility.
"Suicide patsies"--now there's an imaginative concept! Where can one find such types (not that I have any personal uses in mind, of course)?

[T.A.M.]

No, see Ron, is A-Trains fabrication, the hijackers, trained Navy Seals, take over the plane, rig it to remote pilot, and then escape out of the plane, parachuting to safety...He read it can be done in some guys book.

TAM

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

So this PhD scientist is slaving away to ensure we get better cartoons. Yeah right.

No, why would he want to make millions of dollars. Clearly there could only ever be one reason someone would invent something if they had a PhD. TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!! Bwahahaa!