![]() This can be the result of the television that recorded this incident receiving signals from two towers at once until one overpowers the other. ![]() Enjoy:Īs a broadcast engineer I can offer an opinion.įirst the cross fading. It would also have made the FBI's investigation far more difficult, since the hack wouldn't have required a vehicle close to the Hancock building.Īnyway, here's the 2007 post from the Electrical Audio forums. This does lead credence to the idea that the media and government deliberatly oversold the broadcast hack ("requires $500,000 of equipment") in an attempt to discourage copycats. The writer offers an explanation of how the transmission was sent that I haven't heard before, one that is far easier than the "official" story given by authorities. I found an interesting commentary from an engineer in 2007 regarding the Max Headroom Incident, and didn't know where else to put it, so I'm sharing it here. Now sign here."Īgain, personal speculation, but that idea matches the facts at the moment. ![]() It would make sense, however, if the FCC simply told them, " We're confiscating your gear, and unless you want to see the inside of a PMITA federal prison, you will never, ever do this again, nor will you talk about what you did, or how you did it. ![]() It would be a can of worms they wouldn't have the resources to keep under control. Between the fact that J and K were not a threat, and may have been viewed sympathetically due to J's condition, the fact that the FCC would want to keep the lid on this new vulnerability, and the fact that they would, in prosecuting, run the risk of creating copycats, and at worst, potentially opening up an entirely new front for hackers in would basically do far more harm than good to prosecute them. They probably realized that prosecuting them would have been problematic, to say the least. It's complete and absolute conjecture on my part, but, my gut feeling is that the FCC probably found J and K at the time. )Īfter the publication of the article in Vice/Motherboard, the author of the article (Chris) and the curator of The a Museum of Classic Chicago Television (Rick) and I have continued to stay in touch.every so often, someone comes forward claiming to know something, or comes up with an interesting idea or explanation, and we chew on it privately. I even remember doing a little bit of this myself in the early 90's. Even in the early days of cell phones in the late 80's and early 90's, calls were unencrypted, and could be heard/spoofed by anyone with a scanner and the knowledge of where to look. That being said, the FCC didn't really learn their lesson, in that broadcast communications remained just as vulnerable for years afterward. I'd imagine it's a dead issue to them, anyway.since television went digital a few years ago, hacks like this one are now essentially impossible to do.or at least so impractical that it ceases to be a target. :)ĮDIT #2: As mentioned above, J and K have been ruled out as suspects. I enjoy a good mystery as much as anyone, particularly if it's one I might actually know something about and can help with. My brother is wearing the other one.but it's dirty.heh.ĮDIT: Thank you for the many kudos. Oh, I just made a giant masterpiece for all the Greatest World Newspaper nerds! Oooooow, my piles! (<- It's definitely piles, here. (unintelligible)/(How now, brown cow, or just ow-ow-ow-ow?) It lets me go! Yeah! (<- This is a new find as well.) Yeah, I think i'm better than Chuck Swirsky! (I'm actually talking to an audio engineer friend of mine, to see what can be done about canceling the ring modulation.I consider this guy a damn genius, so, if he can't do anything with it, it probably can't be done, period.) The identified bands were then EQ zeroed: 300-430 Hz, 689-817 Hz, 1205-1269 Hz, 1485-1550 Hz, 1571-1657 Hz, and 1894-2044 Hz.Īfter normalization, and selective noise filtration based upon a sample taken from the end of the recording, the results are much clearer, but still ring-modulated. The original audio was stripped from the YouTube video, and put through some extensive processing in SDR# and WavePad.įirst, the audio was viewed via temporal FFT to isolate which frequencies were more often voice, and which frequencies could be more or less counted on to be carrier tone / noise. Part of me feels slightly that I do, but i'm far from certain about it. While I succeeded in making the audio a little clearer, I still can't tell if the voice underneath is one I recognize. Link to an hour long interview I did for a podcast about a year ago: This post will be left here for those who are interested in reading about the background of the case. READER NOTE: The two brothers who were initially the subject of the original AMA, "J & K", have been officially cleared as suspects.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |