11:06:08 From Kristen Mattson: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S575jWR01yu23et_7bNk4WyOTt0xDf1h/view?usp=sharing
11:11:49 From Kristen Mattson: https://cyberflorida.org/
11:17:02 From Kelly McDonald - TBLC: Welcome everyone!
11:18:08 From Susan : Wasn't that a shredder?
11:18:34 From Susan : I guess it's a ballot box. but who knows?
11:19:12 From Kelly McDonald - TBLC: Be sure to select Panelists and Attendees in the blue drop down
11:19:26 From Margaret : we don't know anything about what those papers are, and what those boxes are, and whether those folks are democrats, or someone else
11:19:48 From E: Party does not matter
11:19:57 From William : No.
11:20:01 From Pam : Not enough information to confirm that 
11:20:02 From Sila : It does not. Not enough information is provided
11:20:03 From Susan : No..it does not provide any evidence of anything
11:20:04 From Naomi : This video does not provide strong evidence of anything.
11:20:05 From Demaris: Nope
11:20:09 From Cindy : My husband works for the local Supervisor of Elections, and on election days it looks very similar to this!
11:20:12 From Andrea : No, not at all
11:20:15 From Susan : You'd have to be there
11:20:24 From Angela: It's difficult to make that decision based on that video 
11:20:28 From Sila : Leading labeling too that indicates a bias
11:20:51 From Cindy : They SEE it so they believe it!
11:21:00 From Margaret : you'd have to know what the normal process of processing votes is to know whether this is suspicious
11:21:05 From Susan : Forget students. What about conspiracy idiots?
11:21:07 From Naomi : Students would say yes.
11:21:08 From Pam : Someone with no frame of reference for voting procedures certainly could think tampering is going on
11:21:11 From Cindy : My husband works for the local Supervisor of Elections, and on election days it looks very similar to this!
11:21:16 From stacey: The scene where she takes the papers out from under something could be hard to make sense of
11:21:24 From Cindy : They SEE it so they believe it!
11:21:34 From Susan : Yes but they don't know what they are seeing
11:21:37 From Angela: Students would notice how guilty some of the people looked doing it behind other people's backs and looking around to see if anyone is watching.
11:21:42 From Miriam : Not having any voting experience, I could see how students would think that it could prove fraud.
11:21:49 From William : Body language is ambiguous and questionable
11:22:15 From Stephanie: It's leading - the instance of them saying "doesn't she look guilty?" TO me she looked tired
11:22:25 From Miriam : I was enjoying the music. :-)
11:22:30 From Susan : LOL
11:23:28 From Susan : wow....
11:23:59 From Cindy : Unfortunately this kind of thing happens all the time. :-(
11:25:15 From Margaret : this is especially bad on health websites - they now make the ads look exactly like the links to other parts of the website.  it's especially bad for folks with limited vision, since they put the little "sponsored content" notice in small font in light grey
11:25:19 From Cindy : Dark money happens in elections too.
11:26:01 From Rene : would a climate change website associated with a environment group have misinformation?
11:26:37 From Miriam : It is scary how easy it is to manipulate videos to show whatever you want it to show.  It is hard to know what to believe.
11:26:37 From Susan : Right..just giving them contextless rules and formulas
11:26:39 From Rene: would a climate change website associated with a environmental group have misinformation?
11:26:48 From Susan : Deep fakes
11:28:20 From Cindy : Here's a nice blog a coworker did earlier this year about misinformation.
https://www.aclib.us/CombatMisinformation
11:29:16 From Jesus  : can you comment on the distrust of the trust?---, basically a lot of people seem not to want to trust anything, it seems it is popular to accept distrust and question trust, good things on the surface, but then nothing has consensus. Any thoughts are appreciated.
11:30:24 From Jules : Not in Florida 
11:30:33 From Susan : France?
11:30:34 From Brian : Los Angeles
11:30:41 From Ashley : LA
11:30:44 From Margaret : Hollywood
11:30:53 From Miriam : Chicago?
11:31:09 From stacey: Minneapolis
11:31:21 From Lynn : snow
11:31:23 From Ashley : theater
11:31:24 From Susan : The word Pantages
11:31:25 From Stephanie: language on the construction signs
11:31:25 From Miriam : Snow, the theater
11:31:25 From S: Pantages Theater
11:31:26 From Cindy : Pantages theater
11:31:26 From Pam : Pantages theatre
11:31:28 From Brian : A movie theater
11:31:30 From Anna : English
11:31:33 From Margaret : is that snow or ash?
11:31:34 From Stephanie: license plates
11:31:34 From E: police
11:31:36 From Nemoure : police cars
11:31:40 From Susan : Police line do not cross crime tape
11:31:41 From Cindy : The police crossing line is backwards
11:31:43 From Dorothee : police line
11:31:52 From Pam : Dates Feb- Mar
11:31:56 From Jesus  : I would search what Panatages is or where
11:32:00 From E : check the license plate on car
11:32:05 From Pam : Cars and types of models
11:32:07 From Lynn : pantages theater in LA
11:32:07 From Jesus : Pantagees
11:32:13 From Sarah : Minneapolis
11:32:14 From stacey: the dates are formatted in American style
11:32:25 From Alexia : Minnesota
11:32:51 From Cathy : Theater name and police cars.
11:32:52 From Jules : Minneapolis? 
11:32:57 From Margaret : this is the google maps image of Pantages theatre - does it match the picture, or could it have been photoshopped in?
11:32:59 From Margaret : https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x80c2bf3902b82703%3A0xe8160385b2f0d6ce!3m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2FHollywood%2BPantages%2BTheatre%2F%4034.1016413%2C-118.3258264%2C3a%2C75y%2C4.82h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211seBL7H6pxw5zNk3yCbqqfDg*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x80c2bf3902b82703%3A0xe8160385b2f0d6ce%3Fsa%3DX!5sHollywood%20Pantages%20Theatre%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e2!2seBL7H6pxw5zNk3yCbqqfDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqztP98o_xAhWLQjABHQAJBmUQpx8wJ3oECHYQCA
11:33:10 From Demaris: You can look it up where the theatre is
11:33:50 From Jennifer : I used to use that website on my school visits!
11:34:24 From William : Theatre is in New York
11:35:13 From Susan : snow
11:35:31 From Suzanne : sign & street lights seem to  match Minneapolis
11:35:38 From William : There is one in Manhatten
11:35:41 From April : The only thing that worries me about lateral reading (which I think is important) is that sometimes the same piece of erroneous information can be picked up by many different outlets.
11:39:15 From Margaret : this is where I'd use tineye to see if I could find the first website that posted this image - it would likely be the news article reporting on the story
11:39:30 From Kristen Mattson: tineye.com
11:39:46 From Kelly McDonald - TBLC: https://tineye.com/
11:42:52 From Kristen Mattson: wunderground.com
11:44:07 From Cindy : Great site for folks who need to know weather for car accident cases.  Was it really raining and the roads were slick???
11:45:13 From Cindy : LOVE Snopes!
11:46:09 From Kristen Mattson: https://www.invid-project.eu/tools-and-services/invid-verification-plugin/
11:50:19 From Stephanie: already I can tell that keyframe is off because the lighting on the road sign is different from the surrounding lighting - that doesn't look right at all
11:53:20 From Rebecca : Why isn't the print on his shirt wrinkled like the rest of the shirt?
11:53:23 From Stephanie: another thing to point out: the folds in the fabric would make the text look less smooth. The image on the right MIGHT work because of the shadowing but it's not correct
11:55:30 From Kristen Mattson: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S575jWR01yu23et_7bNk4WyOTt0xDf1h/view?usp=sharing
11:55:55 From Naomi : Library not allowing me to access invid
11:56:35 From Stephanie: the dog was inserted - the trim on his fur is too perfect, too clean
11:56:41 From William : The dog is obviously added over another picture
11:57:20 From Cindy : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/trump-dog.html
11:57:23 From Miriam : The thing he is putting around the dog's neck looks like it was added.
11:57:31 From Cathy : Dog was added, award ribbon was added.
11:57:44 From Sila : A reverse image search revealed several different dates of its first arrival. I am sorting by oldest to see if I can find the original
11:57:53 From Sarah : Is it Biden’s Major?
11:58:04 From Susan : Google image search gives articles about the image
11:58:38 From Sila : Look at this photo! Looks very similar from Fox News 2017: https://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/slideshow/2017/07/31/james-mccloughan-first-person-to-receive-medal-honor-from-president-trump/_jcr_content/slideshow-par/slide_image_2/image.img.jpg/876/493/1501531351905.jpg?tl=1&ve=1
11:58:47 From Susan : In July 2017, President Donald Trump draped the Medal of Honor around the neck of Vietnam war veteran James McCloughan. On Wednesday, he posted a photo of that moment with McCloughan's image replaced by that of the hero dog. Washington Post article
11:59:07 From Lynn : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/30/trump-latest-news-tweet-dog-isis
11:59:28 From Cathy : Trump gave Medal of Honor to Mathew Williams.
11:59:38 From Jules : I was having trouble uploading so I googled trump dog medal and that was the first result 
11:59:41 From Stephanie: wooooowwwww
12:00:20 From Susan : I'd be insulted if I had been McCloughan
12:00:33 From Margaret : NY Times asked McCloughan and apparently he was fine with it
12:00:37 From Sila : Even satire can be dangerous for the misinformed..
12:01:01 From Sharon : Trump's eyes look closed on the left.
12:01:25 From William : War of the world radio program
12:01:27 From Rene: cute image of a hero dog getting a Metal of Honor by Trump
12:01:29 From Stephanie: did anyone see that USA Today last week with the "news" about the babies being born with horns? It was noted as "advertisement" but certain people could look at it badly
12:01:33 From Margaret : Like how everyone has an elderly relative who has taken an onion article literally
12:01:56 From Margaret : Even though The Onion is very famous for being a parody website
12:01:58 From Kristen Mattson: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-G_5DTXJ7sbCMOr-2tb1rHIme0JUmWpG/view?usp=sharing
12:02:12 From Heather : Can you say again how to do the heatmap tool in Invid?
12:03:25 From Heather : Thanks
12:03:31 From Cindy : Snopes brought it up very quickly. 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hannah-microwave-butterflies/
12:04:12 From Margaret : Apparently it was from a parody advertisement twitter account that is no longer active: https://twitter.com/WeFixYourAdvert
12:04:45 From Lynn : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hannah-microwave-butterflies/
12:04:51 From Margaret : straight up googling microwaving butterflies it can't be that common
12:05:06 From Lynn : googled "match Hannah microwaves..."
12:05:21 From Cindy : Yes.  Remember, I LOVE Snopes!  Used the keywords.
12:06:09 From Margaret : she giggles at "Cockfosters", which is the name of a metro station in London - this was a metro ad
12:06:47 From Miriam : I can't do any of this on my work computer but I can't wait to try it at home.  Lots of current news shared lately that I would love to know if it is true or not. 
12:07:03 From Cindy : @Miriam-  AGREED! ;-)
12:07:24 From Sila : The Hannah image has double JPEG quantization inconsistencies per the forensic tool search with INVID
12:09:04 From Susan : quantization?
12:09:28 From Cindy : @Sila, what is that in plain English? ;-)
12:09:30 From Susan : Very cool presentation
12:10:16 From Sila : @Cindy - LOL I do not know. That's Invid's language
12:10:23 From Cindy : LOL!
12:10:36 From Sila : Snopes says: "“Hannah” wasn’t really microwaving butterflies, however, nor was that trait assigned to her by Match.com’s advertising campaign. The popular image of her was the product of the (now-dormant) Twitter account WeFixYourAdverts, which posted versions of advertisements that had been tweaked through digital manipulation to make them darkly humorous." https://twitter.com/WeFixYourAdvert
12:10:44 From William : Are there any legal consequences for using images found on the web without permission for the owner.
12:10:59 From Kristen : tinyurl.com/aste20
12:11:14 From Kelly McDonald - TBLC: Woohoo! Thank you :)
12:11:15 From Margaret : woohoo free stuff
12:11:17 From Ashley : Thank you!
12:11:27 From Lea: Thank you! That is awesome! 
12:11:28 From Sila : Thanks so much!! This has been very helpful
12:11:30 From Lynn : Thank you! Very interesting!
12:11:32 From Rebecca : Are you a Tom Hanks fan? :)
12:11:36 From Heather: Thanks, this was great!
12:11:37 From kassie : thanks!!
12:11:37 From Sarah : Thank you - great tools!
12:11:39 From N: Thank you, great presentation.
12:11:43 From Stephanie: thanks, great ifno!!
12:11:44 From Rebecca : haha
12:11:45 From Stephanie: *info!
12:11:46 From E: Thanks!
12:11:47 From Jennifer : Thank you!
12:11:47 From Krystle : thanks 
12:11:47 From Lesley : Great presentation. Thank you!
12:11:53 From Miriam : This was fantastic.  
12:11:54 From Jennifer : Regarding CRAAP, I agree it's not sufficient for determining credibility, but I wouldn't cut it entirely. I still have students choosing sources for research assignments that are not current, relevant, etc. "Purpose" speaks to the climate change/fossil fuel industry bias issue, satire, etc.. CRAAP is one tool among many in the toolbox. You just need the right tool(s) for the right job.
12:11:55 From Susan : TY
12:11:56 From William : Great presentation
12:11:56 From Angela: Great presentation! Thank you
12:11:58 From Sharon : thanks
12:12:01 From Cindy : Thank you.  So interesting.  This could have even been a longer presentation.
12:12:06 From Pam : Great presentation!!! Thank you so much!
12:12:09 From Stephanie: Oh you can also use the SIFT method too!
12:12:17 From Brian : Much enjoyed this presentation!