Media analysis results
An analyst reviewed this: Fake.
Direct upload · 461018386_1291325148521422_2349027047530905483_n.mp4
Disclaimer: truemedia.georgetown.edu uses state-of-the-art academic AI methods. However, errors can occur.
- File
- .mp4 · 3.8MB
- Scope
- Audio track only — the video's visual content was not analyzed and did not affect this verdict.
- Source
- http://truemedia-fileuploads.org/kl6jPYby9qYY-lPur2IaTeVHxQg.mp4/461018386_1291325148521422_2349027047530905483_n.mp4
- Analyzed
- Fri, Sep 27, 2024 · 58s
- Detector agreement
- None completed
| Detector | Model | Result |
|---|
Disclaimer: truemedia.georgetown.edu uses state-of-the-art academic AI methods. However, errors can occur.
Verdict tiers
| Little Evidence | Low possibility of manipulation |
| Conflicting Evidence | Moderate possibility of manipulation |
| Substantial Evidence | High possibility of manipulation |
Manipulation possibility scale
This analysis: Low manipulation possibility. This reports how strongly the detectors flagged this media — it is not a probability that the media is manipulated. The verdict itself is determined by TrueMedia's vote-based aggregation of detector results.
Methodology
Each detector listed on page 1 independently analyzes the media for signs of AI generation or manipulation. TrueMedia aggregates the detector results into the overall verdict using a vote-based scheme in which trusted detectors carry extra weight; the manipulation possibility shown is a calibrated summary of the detector scores, reported as a strength rather than a probability. In this analysis, 0 of 0 completed detectors agreed with the final verdict.
Cite this analysis
@misc{truemedia2026,
title = {TrueMedia: Open-Source Media Manipulation Detection},
author = {{Georgetown University}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://truemedia.georgetown.edu}},
note = {Analysis kl6jPYby9qYY-lPur2IaTeVHxQg.mp4}
}For use in academic and journalistic work.

