I'm not sure I get what you mean from the timestamped section. It looks like either simple to make footage or real footage where they've dubbed over.

I think there are possibly only two actors, and only one for the vast majority of it. I think all the footage is just real clips, which is why it looks realistic.

edit - I jumped to a random section and it has Fallon talking about Russia making a situation more dangerous, but it's a real clip as there's coverage back in 2015 of him saying these things: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-10-08/fallon-russia-is-m...

I assumed it was stock footage. That sort of thing is pretty common even in major Hollywood films.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out.

Some things I consider quite glaringly fake / unrealistic.

The maps that show the progress of the invasion in the Eastern Europe: the area taken by the advancing Russian army is shown with just a bit too much precision. This is supposed to be real time broadcast, and everything is happening under just an hour. I doubt the BBC graphics staff would have enough information to produce such maps (certain areas neatly colored in red); the military command might supply such information, but later in the day, not immediately, and in any case, they would probably be too busy and there is such a thing as a fog of war. At best, you'd have a list of towns where there have been reports of fighting by the local media and confirmation by the authorities that invasion is happening.

Also, live video feed of fighter jets and bombers leaving RAF bases? I find it unlikely that BBC could obtain such a thing, and then decide to broadcast it.

Likewise, the NATO stock footage (especially the press conference) is out of place at places. Nobody is going to talk with mild words such as "sabre-rattling" if there's major fighting going on.

Actually, the whole thing going down in just one hour. While I can believe that things can escalate very quickly if tactical nuclear weapons are used (maybe even in a matter of minutes), I can't help but think that it's too short timeframe for the conventional fighting to even begin. (My guess is that the people who created this didn't have resources to create similarly realistic 48 hour long broadcast).

I agree with the creepiness of the video, but I don't really see anything odd or mysterious about the fact that someone made the videos. They update them regularly to change the names of world leaders, but each new revision shares the vast majority of footage.

The channel creator also leaves other comments. Four weeks ago:

> We can only begin planning when the new South Korean President is elected, and we're now also going to wait to see what the British general election will reveal. It's hard to commit to a specific time when world events (which need to be reflected accurately and currently in the video), change so quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA9r2NNlWMitk1hhR7yj8SA/dis...

The use of "we" suggests an organization, supported by the fact that there are at least four actors: The news anchor, the female reporter, the male call-in actor, and Putin's translator.

These actors are all very good. The video has dozens of tiny details, like the constant scrolling text at the bottom.

I was wondering what kind of organization would make a video like this and not claim credit for it.

If the creator were an individual, this video would serve as an excellent portfolio piece. If they were a company, it could serve as a recruitment tool or as an example of why clients should do business with you. Either way, remaining anonymous is odd.

To make nine revisions in less than a year requires a fair amount of dedication, and setting up a fake pen name (Ben Marking) just to publish the videos is at least interesting.

Maybe Ben is a real person and it's just four friends doing this as art. But it'd be quite unusual: no LinkedIn, no social media presence, no blog, nothing whatsoever except the YouTube channel. This suggests that if it's an organization, the Ben Marking pseudonym is an experimental playground for them. If it's an individual, it suggests they are remarkably privacy-oriented.

The way the comments are phrased indicates that they've done this type of thing before or have industry experience. "Please use this video with due consideration. While you are welcome to copy and use this video, in doing so you accept full and absolute responsibility for any and all consequences as a result thereof."

So an online Ben Marking persona popped into existence, uploaded nine variations of a brilliant video with four actors, and for no apparent reason. Why?

I don't really know why I'm so curious about this, but I find all of it fascinating. I wish we knew more.

EDIT: There are actually five actors. The fifth shows up at https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2031

Possibly six, depending whether this is stock footage or Putin's translator: https://youtu.be/2VZ3LGfSMhA?t=2401

Perhaps I'm just less intensely impressed with the quality of the pieces. I think they're great and very effective, but it doesn't strike me as something beyond the reach of a skilled amateur videographer. I agree that the lack of a social media presence is odd, and more importantly is a major missed opportunity.

>If they were a company, it could serve as a recruitment tool or as an example of why clients should do business with you.

Call me picky, but the tone of the news anchor reporting nuclear explosions is so perky as to be cringe-inducing. They also use sun-lit storm clouds as stand-ins for nuclear explosions.

> If they were a company, it could serve as a recruitment tool or as an example of why clients should do business with you. Either way, remaining anonymous is odd.

You're assuming that someone, or some group, with the ability to pull this off needs this as a portfolio piece.

I don't imagine this is their first rodeo, and I would assume whomever it is already has a solid resume. Why blacken it with something so dark?

Sure it could be a state sponsor, or, much more likely, its just someone having some fun.

Thank you for posting this. Would not have found it otherwise.

Reminds us we still live in the age of thermonuclear weapons. As long as that's true, our choices as citizens of nuclear-armed nations are more serious than anyone can imagine. Easy to forget.

Somebody read Gibson's Pattern Recognition and got a little carried away...

Huh, my first thought also. "The footage" was a fascinating idea, but I didn't much think anyone would try to make a work that powerful and not claim it.

Blue Ant lives.

Out top of my head: It could be used as the payload for some serious cyber attacks. Imagining the mass panic it would cause, if it was to be played on every TV across the country for real.

This kind of attacks are hard to pull off and one'll have to nail it on the first try. It would be sad for the hackers, if they failed because of a poorly made fake news video.

Practice makes perfect.

Just watched it. Indeed, is enough to hack the TV systems in an very busy airport like Frankfurt or Paris.

Yeah that video gives me the chills. I am hoping we never have to see something like that in the future, but a cynical part of me feels like it is inevitable.