Supposed footage of Dylan klebold prom

Bill okcham recently shared a user video of a few seconds about supposed very rare footage of Dylan Klebold in the promo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



In my humble opinion (I do not want to assume anything) I see it a bit false as if it were a deepfake ... although I do not want to draw conclusions but it looks like one of the photos already filtered, but as if it had been edited so that it had movement. I don't like to jump to conclusions but the movements are quite unnatural. Anyway, what is your opinion?

Bill deleted the tweet so yeah he was correct this looks terribly fake.

Bill Ockham spreading a lot of misinformation.

margaflor wrote:

Bill okcham recently shared a user video of a few seconds about supposed very rare footage of Dylan Klebold in the promo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



In my humble opinion (I do not want to assume anything) I see it a bit false as if it were a deepfake ... although I do not want to draw conclusions but it looks like one of the photos already filtered, but as if it had been edited so that it had movement.  I don't like to jump to conclusions but the movements are quite unnatural.  Anyway, what is your opinion?

damn, already deleted... i'm interested now, even tho it could be fake heh

Did anyone manage to save it by any chance?

Carnalz wrote:

Did anyone manage to save it by any chance?

I have a screenshot from the video made by my friend but unfortunatly we don't have the video
i could send the screenshot if you want

Yes please!

Carnalz wrote:

Yes please!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Here it is

If this video was sent to him by someone else then I do remember another time that Bill posted a video sent in to him claiming to be part of the Basement Tapes when in reality it was just the aftermath of the murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart. Bill should be careful about whether he posts stuff that others send him because a lot of it could be fake footage.

I don't feel like he's a trustworthy person. A lot of fakes

smoosee123456 wrote:

Carnalz wrote:

Yes please!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Here it is

To me, it just looks like the prom image with a timestamp on it to be honest, if you look at his eye you can see the camera flash.

Still what Bill said was a video is way better than this which is the best quality I could find.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Going on a tangent here
The photo was probably not shot on a disposable camera, those fixed focus, speed and aperture basically you have no control over the images, hit or miss basically.  An okay photographer wouldn't bring one for an important event like prom night. But that doesn't necessarily mean they might have done so.
They might have borrowed a SLR off a family member or used most likely had a point and shoot camera.
We could ask the person who took it.

I agree with Kinkeloukaitis, Bill isn't not trustworthy.

Koltin wrote:

Still what Bill said was a video is way better than this which is the best quality I could find.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Going on a tangent here
The photo was probably not shot on a disposable camera, those fixed focus, speed and aperture basically you have no control over the images, hit or miss basically.  An okay photographer wouldn't bring one for an important event like prom night. But that doesn't necessarily mean they might have done so.
They might have borrowed a SLR off a family member or used most likely had a point and shoot camera.
We could ask the person who took it.

I agree with Kinkeloukaitis, Bill isn't not trustworthy.

I agree with what you say. I do not know if it is a recording or something taken with a poor quality camera, but regarding bill you could tell that it was a deepfake, as well as that time someone leaked a supposed video of the basement tapes that was basically a car window with a very moving recording and stray bullet in the background. Shortly after it was found that it was a montage. I think he should be more careful with the "leaked footage" that is send to him.

margaflor wrote:

I agree with what you say.  I do not know if it is a recording or something taken with a poor quality camera, but regarding bill you could tell that it was a deepfake, as well as that time someone leaked a supposed video of the basement tapes that was basically a car window with  a very moving recording and stray bullet in the background.  Shortly after it was found that it was a montage. I think he should be more careful with the "leaked footage" that is send to him.

Cameras back in the 90s werent bad unlike what most people think.
IIRC the max resolution 35mm average negatives can have is around 80 megapixels (10320 x 7752) that's in theory, it depends on what scanner and you have other factors ie settings you used, dust etc.
An average digital camera does around 12 megapixels. Before 2007 most amateur/professional photographer still used film, but digital at that time was pretty bad but it is way better now and can take more that 24-36 photos.

Koltin wrote:

margaflor wrote:

I agree with what you say.  I do not know if it is a recording or something taken with a poor quality camera, but regarding bill you could tell that it was a deepfake, as well as that time someone leaked a supposed video of the basement tapes that was basically a car window with  a very moving recording and stray bullet in the background.  Shortly after it was found that it was a montage. I think he should be more careful with the "leaked footage" that is send to him.

Cameras back in the 90s werent bad unlike what most people think.
IIRC the max resolution 35mm average negatives can have is around 80 megapixels (10320 x 7752) that's in theory, it depends on what scanner and you have other factors ie settings you used,  dust etc.
An average digital camera does around 12 megapixels. Before 2007 most amateur/professional photographer still used film, but digital at that time was pretty bad but it is way better now and can take more that 24-36 photos.

Oooh .. I don't know much about cameras .. although I have seen recordings, from the 90s with a very good quality, so I do not doubt it. Thanks for explaining

Koltin wrote:

margaflor wrote:

I agree with what you say.  I do not know if it is a recording or something taken with a poor quality camera, but regarding bill you could tell that it was a deepfake, as well as that time someone leaked a supposed video of the basement tapes that was basically a car window with  a very moving recording and stray bullet in the background.  Shortly after it was found that it was a montage. I think he should be more careful with the "leaked footage" that is send to him.

Cameras back in the 90s werent bad unlike what most people think.
IIRC the max resolution 35mm average negatives can have is around 80 megapixels (10320 x 7752) that's in theory, it depends on what scanner and you have other factors ie settings you used,  dust etc.
An average digital camera does around 12 megapixels. Before 2007 most amateur/professional photographer still used film, but digital at that time was pretty bad but it is way better now and can take more that 24-36 photos.

Oooh .. I don't know much about cameras .. although I have seen recordings, from the 90s with a very good quality, so I do not doubt it. Thanks for explaining