Finally, after two years of religious prosecution on His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda, truth came into the light. According to Four highly credible forensic video experts witnesses from USA, whose opinions are highly valued, stated the video is false and there is no possibility of it being true. The Paid Media in India had manipulated the Indian Forensic lab to execute religious persecution on His Divine Holiness and broadcasted the morphed video for months to malign his social image.
India West, the largest weekly newspaper in US which provides news from India, Pakistan and the Asian Indian American community in California and the United States, published the analysis report citing US forensic lab experts as the -Video being ‘Morphed’ wherein Paramahamsa Nithyananda was falsely portrayed with a woman. The Paid Media manipulated the Indian Forensic lab to execute religious persecution on His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda and broadcasted the morphed video for months to malign his social image.
US based forensic agencies which are employed by FBI, gave 60 points to show that the video is fake.
Introduction to the US based Forensic experts who analysed the Morphed Video.
Four eminent forensic agencies which are often employed by the FBI investigated the morphed video.
- Edward John Primeau
- A member of AES, ACFEI, and IAI. A Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI) and a Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC), as well as a member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence with the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
- A member of AES, ACFEI, and IAI. A Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI) and a Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC), as well as a member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence with the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
- Authored the book “That’s Not My Voice! A Practical Understanding of the Art and Science of Modern Voice Identification
- (Transcript of Video – English)
Hi my name is Ed Primo I’m an audio and video forensic expert in Rochester Hills Michigan. I’ve been practicing audio and video forensics for 28 years. I’m a member of the American College of Forensic Examiners International and I’m a registered invetigator. I’ve testified in court on numerous occasions for both audio and video forensics and I’m making this video today as a statement to my report that I created after my investigation into the video of Swami Nithyananda. First, I’d like to explain video is not always real. Video is a very powerful medium. In the old days you used to say you can’t always believe what you read. In this particular case, you can’t always believe what you see. When I’m brought in to examine a piece of video evidence prior to testifying in court, I have access to the complete original video as it was recorded, the equipment that was used to make the video as well as the audio portion of the video so that I can determine whether or not the video is real and true. The video that I was provided by Life Bliss Foundation has several anomalies that I’d like to point out.
Can you tell me the date the video was created?
As far as I can tell this specific file that I examined was created in December of 2009 and I know that because I accessed the properties in the file.
Does that tell us that it was actually created in December of 2009? Thats when this specific clip that I examined was created. We wont know when the video was actually created or any more details that we need to know to authenticate this video until we have access to examine the original file. First of all, its only a portion of a complete video which is very obvious the way that the video ends. Secondly, we have no way of knowing what type of chain of custody the video I had from the time it was created to the time we recieved this copy, we don’t even know if this is a copy of a copy or if its a copy of an original. Chain of custody is very important on a video if its going to be used as any kind of represtation of the facts as they occured because having a chain of custody helps contribute to the genuineness and the authenticity if the video.
So, did you see any signs of alteration or tampering in the video that you examined? There was a few things that raised a red flag. First of all, there’s some flickering that occurs to the left of the TV set which is more than likely caused by light and if the light was indeed causing flickering, then I’m wondering it raises a question why is the television not flickering.
What other things concern you about the video?
The fact that there’s no audio, it would have been very easy to record an audio track along with the video and had that been the case I’d be able to conduct a voice identification so that we could be exact as to was there one person in the shot and then another person was overlaid, were there two people in the shot to begin with, do we hear two voices, can we hear the television sound, none of that is available because there’s no audio track, the lack of audio in the video is a huge concern from a forensic perspective because it would have been very easy to record an audio track with that video and I could have conducted a voice identification so we would know if the characters in the video are indeed all together or if they were assembled. I think one of the reasons why the audio track was left off of this video is because the characters in the video were not all together at the same time, an audio would have revealed that.
I also did some research on the Internet and looked at some other videos that are very similar in nature to this one and there is all sorts of audio tracks compiled on top of it – music, graphics, pictures, texts and that also contributes to the lack of authenticity on the video because while it was outside the chain of custody, anybody who owns editing software could have very easily done tampering to this video to create events that did not occur which is what I believe is a concern here and the only way to determine if that is true or not is to have access to and be able to examine the original, the equipment that created the original as well as the original digital file.
- David Notowitz
- Mr. David Notowitz is the founder of NCAVF, based in Los Angeles. NCAVF : National Center for Audio and Video Forensics, a full-service audio and video forensics company based in Los Angeles and providing all levels of consulting and media preparation for evidence used in mediations, arbitration, hearings, and court — from 3D recreations of crime scenes to video production, and from forensic video enhancement to testifying in court as an expert witness.
- He is an Emmy award winning producer and multi-faceted video and audio forensic evidence expert.
- His specialties include news, documentaries, and commercial video production. In 1986 he started Notowitz Productions. He has produced and edited corporate productions for clients such as Fox Broadcasting Company, Yahoo!, GM, The Learning Channel, Rhino Entertainment, Miller Beer, IBM, Disney, Fandango, Frigidaire, Pepperdine University, University of California, City of Santa Monica, and UBS Investment Bank.His company produced award winning films and documentaries, including Voices Of The Shoah: Remembrances Of The Holocaust for Warner Bros., and the Emmy-nominated Carpati, which was named by the San Diego Union Tribune as one of the top ten films of 1997. He was also the editor of the nationally acclaimed 1992 documentary The Last Klezmer.
David Notowitz’s Voices of the Shoah is an audio documentary of the Holocaust compiled from over 180 interviews with survivors and witnesses now residing in the U.S. and the U.K. Elliot Gould’s narration links the alternately terrifying and inspiring stories of Holocaust survivors, American soldiers, and military rabbis, which Notowitz spent a decade collecting. A moving and dignified work, this first ever audio documentary of the Holocaust makes history as well as preserving it. All the proceeds from Voices of the Shoah benefit the mission of The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles.
- Mr. Notowitz has worked as a forensic video expert witness on cases investigated by police officers, detectives, private investigators, insurance investigators, public defenders, and criminal defense attorneys with cases across the country. Prominent court work includes his involvement as a video expert with the nationally covered Ivory Webb case.
- In late 2013 and early 2014, Mr. Notowitz was the sole audio and video forensic expert on the team defending Fullerton police officers Jay Cicinelli and Manuel Ramos in the death of homeless man Kelly Thomas. After a six week trial ending January 2014, the jury returned a not guilty verdict for both officers, after 6 hours of deliberation. He worked the civil case for the same defendants and Joe Wolfe, a third officer named in the civil case, until the case settled in November 2015.
- Mr. Notowitz’ most recent high profile criminal case was the March – April 2017 trial People v Downey, Phelps, and Foster, in which three police officers were charged in the pursuit and arrest of a suspect after a two hour, high speed car chase that ended with the suspect stealing a horse and riding it into the high desert. The arrest was captured in high definition by a news helicopter flying overhead.
- Mr. David Notowitz is the founder of NCAVF, based in Los Angeles. NCAVF : National Center for Audio and Video Forensics, a full-service audio and video forensics company based in Los Angeles and providing all levels of consulting and media preparation for evidence used in mediations, arbitration, hearings, and court — from 3D recreations of crime scenes to video production, and from forensic video enhancement to testifying in court as an expert witness.
- YONOVITZ & JOE, LLP.
- Yonovitz & Joe has been retained in thousands of cases involving thousands of recordings and testified in state and Federal courts in civil and criminal matters in various countries such as:
- The U.S.
- Canada
- Mexico
- The United Kingdom
- Australia
- Singapore
- India
- Sri Lanka
- The United Arab Emirates
- REPRESENTATIVE LAW FIRMS
- Steptoe & Johnson (Washington, DC) Shearman & Sterling (NYC)
- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (NYC) Mesereau & Yu (Los Angeles)
- Armstrong Teasdale (Kansas City)
- Ford & Harrison (Memphis)
- Rawle & Henderson (Philadelphia) McAfee & Taft (OKC)
- Bracewell & Patterson (Houston)
- Akin Gump (San Antonio)
- Jones Day (Dallas)
- Hayes & Boone (Houston)
- Vinson & Elkins (Dallas)
- Jenkens & Gilchrist (Dallas)
- GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
- Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (United Arab Emirates)
- U.S. Attorney’s Office (NM)
- Mississippi Attorney General’s Office Harris County (Houston) Attorney’s Office Harris County Sheriff’s Office City of Austin (TX)
- City of San Angelo (TX)
- City of Galveston (TX)
- Plano (TX) Police Department Akron (OH) Police Department District Attorney’s Offices —
- Dallas (TX),
- Maricopa (Phoenix),
- Tulsa (OK),
- Harris (Houston),
- Fulton (GA),
- Summit (OH)
- REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATIONS
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- United Parcel Services, Inc.
- Motorola Corp.
- Georgia-Pacific, LLC Coastamare, Inc.
- Vivint, Inc.
- BankOne
- BlueCross BlueShield Shell Oil Co.
- Shell Texaco & Saudi Refineries, Inc. Reliant Energy 7-11, Inc.
- Evercom Systems, Inc.
- REPRESENTATIVE MEDIA
- Associated Press (AP)
- Dr. Phil TMZ
- CSI: Miami
- People Magazine
- Washington Bureau / newsday.com
- ABC-TV
- BBC-TV
- FOX-TV
- PUBLIC DEFENDERS
- Public Defender’s Offices – Houston, Little Rock (AR), Washington, DC, South Dakota, North Dakota DuPage County (IL), Tucson (NM) Green County (PA), New Mexico, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
- Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy
- Louisiana Capital Assistance Center
- Oklahoma Indigent Defense System
- PROFESSOR AL YONOVITZ
Senior Partner Prof. Al YONOVITZ, Ph.D. His 40 years of teaching and research include appointments at the Speech and Hearing Institute, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, and the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston; Baylor College of Medicine; Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Houston; Conley Speech and Hearing Center, University of Maine; Menzies School of Health Research; consultant to the Veterans Administration Hospital, Houston; Director of the Electronic Prosthesis Laboratory, Mansfield Training School; Research Champion, School of Health Sciences, Charles Darwin University; Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, University of Houston; Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Auditory Branch, Groton, CT; former member of the certification and standards committee of the International Association of Identification (IAI). - ATTORNEY HERBERT JOE
Managing Partner Herbert Joe, M.A., J.D., LL.M., B.C.F.E., C.F.C., D.A.B.F.E., D.A.B.L.E.E., F.A.C.F.E. Attorney Joe has 4 degrees, including 2 science degrees (B.S., M.A.) and 2 law degrees (J.D., LL.M.). His 26-year involvement in the area of forensic audio/video includes expert testimony in state and Federal courts in civil and criminal cases throughout the U.S., as well as overseas, giving regional, national and international (CLE) presentations, conducting research and authoring peer-reviewed publications and being interviewed or consulted with by various news and entertainment entities domestically and overseas.
Attorney Joe’s qualifications include:
• Board Certified Forensic Audio/Video Examiner
• Certified Forensic Consultant
• Diplomat, American Board of Forensic Examiners
• Diplomat, American Board of Law Enforcement Experts
• Licensed Instructor, Texas Board of Private Investigators
• Member, Evidence Code Committee, Oklahoma Bar Association
• Member, Law-Related Education Committee, Oklahoma Bar Association
• Board Member (former), Forensic Expert Witness Association
• Board of Legal Advisors, American Guild of Court Videographers
• Charter Member, Legal Advisory Board, American College of Forensic Examiner International
• Member, The Commission on Forensic Education
• Fellow, American Guild of Court Videographers
• Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners
• Certified Mediator
• Member, State Bars of Texas and Oklahoma
• Registered Patent Attorney, United States Patent & Trademark Office
• Registered Patent Agent, Canadian Intellectual Property Office
• Member, College of the State Bar of Texas
• Member, Summit County (UT) Board of Health
• Graduate Faculty (Law), University of Phoenix
- Yonovitz & Joe has been retained in thousands of cases involving thousands of recordings and testified in state and Federal courts in civil and criminal matters in various countries such as:
- Bryan Neumeister
- Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs.
- In a career spanning 37 years across 23 countries, Bryan has racked up an incredible 39 Emmy Awards and 70+ awards for his video work. As if that weren’t enough, these days he is also a court certified video & photographic forensic expert. Clarifying videos in criminal, civil, military and aviation cases so that jurors can see and hear evidence better.
- Throughout the 1980’s he was a full time helicopter photographer for the station. He logged over 14,000 hours of aerial photography, videography and cinematography from the chopper door.
- In 1990, he went back to his teenage passion – music. That turned out to be a good move and he wrote many commercials and credited album material with bands such as Blue Oyster Cult.
- In a career spanning 37 years across 23 countries, Bryan has racked up an incredible 39 Emmy Awards from the National Association of Television Arts and Sciences for Technical Excellence, and 70+ awards for his video work, along with many other industry awards primarily in the documentary field.
A few of the total, 39 Emmy Awards kept that he won on top of the server rack in his office in Phoenix.
- A few things which make him very distinct from other forensic experts is, his ability to use 3D Sonograph and Spectrograph printouts, which allow him to spot and visually explain the “altering of tapes.”
- Mr. Neumeister has worked on over 200 Forensic Cases since 2010. His non-military court cases include: RICO, Murder, Murder for Hire, Fraud, Robbery, Armed Robbery, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Arson, Kidnapping, Bank Robbery, DUI, DWI, Civil Cases…etc. He is certified in Military, Federal, State, Civil, and Aviation court.
- Large Cases include
- US Government vs. Charles Keating – Retained as Video Expert
- State of Arizona vs. Jodi Arias – Retained as Audio and Photography Expert
- US Grand Jury: The Hope Steffy Case – Video Expert
- US Government vs. Charles Keating III – Retained as Video Expert
- US Federal Government vs. State of AZ. – King Case as Video Expert
- Currently: Encrypted Department of Justice Case
- Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs.
Expert Video Analysis Reports
Four such top-class experts who are expert witnesses in USA as well as other countries worldwide, with multiple years of experience, have given their detailed analysis of the video.
Their summary findings are:
Video Expert Analysis Reports from USA
- Edward Joe, 27+ years experience in audio and video forensic analysis court expert in USA, Registered Investigator (RI), Primeau Productions Inc.
- Video is not authentic and real. It is altered.
- Grossly edited and altered series of defamatory videos.
- No audio so that the video cannot be authenticated by forensic voice identification to help identifying the persons in the video.
- Video images layered on top of each other.
- Video composite layering
- Includes scenes recorded at different times and blended together to appear to be real
- Proved by unusual light flickering on left of television of items next to it, while television is not flickering
- Unusual aspect ratio – 704 x 496 is further proof of alteration
- Ends abruptly and appears to be cut off proving it was edited or tampered.
Willing to testify in USA or India and answer any questions regarding this forensic investigation
- David Notowitz, Forensic Video Expert in USA , Los Angeles Superior Court Expert Witness, National Center for Audio and Video Forensics
- Chain of Evidence
- “Video was allegedly taken December 23-25, 2009 and it emerged to the public March 2, 2010. What happened to the video during that time? We donʼt know. The chain in this case was broken — not only little but extremely — because we donʼt have a trustworthy guardian of the video for over two months. During that time all kinds of digital manipulation may have been applied.”
- No audio
- “It is strange that if a small recording device was purportedly placed in the room to capture private moments, why wasn’t audio recorded? All devices have the function of recording audio too. Why not this device?”
- Unexplained start and stop
- “Regarding those who might say that motion activated and stopped the recording, this does not seem to be so. Because during fairly still screen activity the recording starts, and during obvious motion the camera recording stops.”
- Joe Yonowitz, 58+ years experience in audio/video analysis in USA, Canada, Mexico, UK, Sri Lanka, Australia, Singapore, UAE; testified in state and Federal courts in civil, criminal and administrative matters throughout the USA as well as overseas
Comments on the reports by FSL (Forenscis Sciences Laboratory) Delhi
- FSL report technically lacking
- “This Report is substantively lacking, even though it states that there were 34 “deleted files” in one of the memory cards, and 24 “deleted files” in the other memory card.”
- No details of analysis performed
- “The Report states that ENCASE software was used, but did not detail exactly what analyses were performed, nor did Report 1 compile its findings for the reader to understand or replicate its findings.”
- Does not state the exact digital format
- “The Report states that the above video clips or shots were in “digital video format” and no “alterations” were concluded based on Non-Linear Video Editing & Storage System & Video Analyst System. It is remarkable that the Report 1 does not state the exact “digital video format.” The characteristics of various digital video formats, e.g., GVI, AVI, DivX, QuickTime, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, etc. differ and may affect the forensic authenticity analyses of a given video.”
- Video editing method cannot be used to determine authenticity of video
- “As for the Non-Linear Video Editing & Storage System, it is not clear because it was not specified how a video editing method was employed to determine the authenticity of any of the clips.”
- Duplicate clips unexplained
- “The report is deficiently unclear in that there is no explanation of which of these 116 video clips were also in the 283 clips within Exhs. 1A and 1B. Nor does Report 1 discuss the significance of the duplicated clips, or the clips that were not duplicated.”
- Deleted files unexplained
- Also, Report 1 states that there are “Retrieved video recordings of deleted files from memory cards along with the video recordings in the memory cards marked Exhibit-1A and Exhibit-1B,” which are apparently provided in the DVD marked “Copy of Exhibit-1A & Exhibit 1B.” And yet another way that Report 1 is deficient is that it does not expand or explain the forensic or legal significance of such findings.
- Report 1 does not explain the content, much less their forensic significance, of the clips or shots? Nor the content of retrieved files? Nor the relationship of the clips to deleted files? Nor the significance of video clips and deleted files? Etc.
- Number of reported files on DVD inconsistent – 116 vs 341
- Another remarkable finding is that Report 1 is explicit in stating that it “contains 116 video clips” (Report, p.1), but also states in another paragraph on page 2 of the same report that the (same) DVD has all of the video recordings, along with the retrieved files on that DVD. In other words, the DVD either has 116 video clips in it, or 341 video clips (the sum of all the clips and retrieved files from both memory card), but not both, as the report states.Such inconsistency is very substantial.
- Purpose of re-examination of video by DIG, CID, Bangalore is unclear
- “In re “Examination Report” (3 pages), No. FSL 2010/P-3243/PHY-152/10 (hereinafter referred to as “Report 2”), dated “12/11/10.” The analyses by the Forensic Science Laboratory Delhi were per the request by Deputy Inspector General of the Police of C.I.D. Bangalore. It is not obvious what the purpose or objective of the forensic examination of the same evidence is months later.”
- FSL report talks about the video clip when there are over 70 video clips analyzed
- “* same SN as earlier Report but references “male person in the video recording” (emphasis added) and yet there are supposedly 70 video clips. or shots + 24 deleted clips – “the” recording vis-a-vis 70-94 clips?
- “* same SN as earlier Report but references “male person in the video recording” (emphasis added) and yet there are supposedly 213 video clips or shots + 34 deleted clips – “the” recording vis-a-vis 213-247 clips?”
- Critical information of spy camera missing
- “It is very remarkable that the Examiner in both Reports give the serial numbers to the memory cards, but not the model or serial number of the “Sony spy camera.” The only “forensic” conclusion about the “spy camera” was that it was in “working condition.”
- “Exhibit 5 also claims an “adapter” and a “connecting cable.” It is very remarkable that a forensic report does not elaborate on these 2 items. Is the adapter, for example, a microphone, or voltage converter or regulator? What was the adapter used for? What was the connecting cable used for? How did either effect the original recording? Why was the total lack of any audio not addressed?”
- “It is very remarkable that the Examiner in both Reports states that the video recording in the memory chips was that it “can be recorded” by the spy camera. The significance of this opinion was not provided in the Report 2. Likewise, the legal or forensic significance of the “opinion” that the memory cards “can be inserted in the memory slot of spy camera” is unknown.”
- Positive identification of person in video incorrect
- “Arguably the most remarkable “opinion” from the Examiner in Report 2 is that from an “image of person” having an unqualified “resemblance” to another can lead to the conclusion that that person and a particular another person “are of the same person.” From “resemblance” to a positive identification based on the information in Report 2 is forensically, scientifically and even logically untenable.”
- Psychologically untenable
- “If it is true that the woman is allegedly performing oral sex on the male, it is psychologically not possible for the male to be completely unaffected but in the video there is no change even in his breathing, facial expressions or body movements.”
- “If one covers up the female in the video from view, then no viewer of that video can logically determine with any certainty the exact second or moment that the alleged sexual activity at the end of the video starts or ends.”
- Video not true
- “It is of the expert opinion of the undersigned that such Report may not be admissible in any U.S. court of law, or may not survive a Daubert reliability challenge.
- “Expert opinion of the undersigned that there is no forensically tenable basis to authenticate the silent video at issue, i.e., there is no forensically tenable basis to make a scientifically valid determination that the video at issue is a true and accurate reproduction of the original recording.”
- Bryan Neumeister, Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs
- Video is fake
- “There are questions as to whether the video could have been faked. The simple answer is. Yes, quite simply. With today’s roto-scoping faces on stunt person in the motion picture industry commonplace, the technology is available for anyone with a little knowledge and a mid-range home computer to be able to render scenes like these.”
- No forensic analysis tests done
- “A “Forensic Report” was however filed with the client.
The report has no actual scientific data on it whatsoever. It is an inventory sheet of what was received and the assumption that the client and person on the video matched.
No tests were done to look for compositing.”
- Critical technical data missing on camera and storage
- No data reported on
- Type of camera used – brand, model number, serial number, year of manufacture
- Type of Codec native to the camera
- Frames per second 24p, 29.97, 30fps, 59.97. 60fps etc. and drop frame, CCD 1080, 740, 486, 320 etc; Upper field, lower field, progressive; Interlace method: Interpolated, Field blend, none
- Power supply 50 cycle or 60 cycle
- Technical specifications of CCD – Bit Depth, Image data gathering technique and specifications, data compression algorithm
- DA & AD signal converters (Digital to Analog & Analog to Digital)
- Trigger method of camera. Motion sensing?
- Lux level of camera with lens used; Black level of camera on appropriate color card (PAL-NTSC) set up at c; RGB output of chip to recorder using appropriate color card (PAL-NTSC) set up at 6300K, 3200K, 5400K 4300K; Pin Hole test of camera wide open Capped to test for chip pixel damage; Microscopic analysis of CCD using microscope with camera attachment to; look for chip irregularities; Microscopic analysis of lens to search for scratches that could lead to chromatic aberrations detectible on video scopes
- Use of set up card and chip chart recorded for Waveform, Vectorscope, RGB Parade and Luminance of camera at 6300K, 3200K, 5400K 4300K. Waveform should reach 100% but not clip.
- Camera Knee set up; Noise visible by scope of black levels on chart when chart white panel reaches 100% – Same test at 50% and 20%; Clip setting of whites; Black level setting of camera; Color temperature (s) of lights in video, shadows and color temperature of shadows
- Lens: angle of lens. (Millimeters) (lowest lens F stop… 1.4, 1.8 etc); Shutter of lens (how many leaves if applicable); Bokeh (lens depth of filed being consistent with MM of lens used; Number of elements in lens.
- The television in the background has a different refresh rate than the camera. Crystal sync or Clear Scan could be used to determine the difference of the camera vs the known refresh rate of the TV model. Thus helping to verify if the stated camera was indeed the one used.
- No audio
- NTSC-PAL Time Code of combined signal
- Was time code imprinted on the original file?
- Was a clock setting imprinted on file?
- How was the clock set to insure accuracy?
- Was the Video reuploaded into the camera. ( using file directory, was a video uploaded into the on board chip at any time?
- Storage
- Files were said to be erased on the San disc cards. Was there an attempt to recover those files. If not why?
- It is not said if the San disc files were internal or external. Assuming they are external, what was contained on the original internal card or frame buffer?
- What was the formatting of the San Disc cards Fat 32, NTFS, Proprietary?
- Was the codec used for recording proprietary?
- What program was used to extract the video from the camera/recorder?
- What program was used to change the file type if it was changed to another format?
- What was the Dithering set up if the files were converted?
- What compression was used in the conversion?
- What is the data rate of the converted file?
- What was the format recorded: a 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 etc ?
- Was the conversion made using a loss less codec or a compressed algorithm?
- A relatively simple computer program ENCASE was used to review the disc. It was not stated what program(s) was used to analyze the video. It just says nonlinear video application. What instruments were used to analyze the signal?
- Positive Identification of persons in video incorrect
- No scientific data is presented as to how recognition of the subject(s)in the video was made. It takes at least 50 pixels between pupils of the eyes for credible facial recognition software to work. Just guessing by doing a photo overlay is not usually admissible in a US court of law because the variation of lens (millimeter), distance from the subject to the camera, lighting and shadow differences, color temperature differences. Aperture and speed of shutter variations. The exception is if there are more than 50 pixels between the pupils as a rule of thumb. Matching of low resolution pictures is merely guesswork and conjecture. There are over 82 nodal points on the skull /face that should be matched to present clear evidence.
- As facial mapping , roto-scoping and tracker planing are so easy to do an a computer. Pixels should be analyzed to look for irregular color shifting and pixel blending as well as pixels consistently shifting in areas of chromatic aberration or lens flairs.
- Green screen artifacts should be looked for closely in areas of differing contrast along edges of moving objects (people)
- Procedure of recording illegal
- Was the recording obtained legally?
- Were any laws broken during the placing of the recorder?
- Was there trespassing in violation of any national, state or regional laws?
- Were the rights of the people on the video violated in anyway according to law?
- Has the person or persons who allegedly recorded this been charged with any crime?
- Do the person or persons have any previous records of violating any laws?
There are no less than four reports from the most respected forensic experts and professional experts who routinely testify before US courts, grand juries, FBI, and other highly sensitive matters.
What about the flimsy last minute report from the FSL (Forensic Science Lab) in India which basically has a couple lines that just say “based on our investigation the video is authentic…” The highly detailed testimony with at least 60 technical points from USA based forensic experts is highly suggestive that the FSL report is baseless, provides zero technical points or supporting arguments, and just gives a statement which could be further used to slander Paramahamsa Nithyananda in the media. (No coincidence the “report” got leaked to the news stations…” Most likely it was produced under the same political pressure from superiors to fabricate evidence and crusade against His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda-
Let’s look at just one of the four reports which were submitted to Court.
Original reports
Please find the detailed reports herewith:
Click on the links below to read the reports by international forensic experts
Report 1 – click here to read
Report 2 – click here to read
Report 3 – click here to read
Report 4 – click here to read
Click on the links below to view the video reports by international forensic experts
Report 1 Click here to view the report
Report 2 – part 1 Click here to view the report
Report 2 – part 2 Click here to view the report
Report 2 – part 3 Click here to view the report
Report 2 – part 4 Click here to view the report
( Video Transcript in English )
How the technology used for morphing
Written part first in video-not spoken
Anchor: A very important question. The CD. How did you take it?
Lenin: I will tell you later how I took the cd the case is going on in the court. Full and full, how it was kept. The camera, a very high technology was brought.An automatic when was operated.
wearing Saffron Robes and doing sexual torture wrong things, we are seeing him as god, not even as an ordinary Guru, as God. Hereafter,in order that no man or woman be cheated.
That is the only reason this video was shot. I am telling very clearly, definitely, I did not do this in spite Hinduism or any spiritualist. He has abused many people
( Video Transcript in English )
Question: Swamiji you made a very big statement saying that the CD which was released was morphed but it was tested from the very reputed agency FSL in Hyderabad in Hyderabad, they say that CD is genuine
Swamiji: Can I can I answer two things, first chain of custody the no FSL lan can speak the authenticity of any video without having the clear understanding about the chain of custody when it was shot where it was kept see
You Can answer,yes
I would like to say a few things about the video. First of all many of you might be relying upon a CFSL report and we saying that if CFSL laboratory is confirming that this is authentic, this means authentic but unfortunately the CFSL laboratory should never have even touched this video because the video has a date on it.
That date happens to be 25th of December 2009 and the CFSL received the video some time in May and the Chennai police receive the video on 4th of March 2010. Between 25th December 2009 and 4th March 2010,nobody knows the whereabouts of this video and for any video to be called evidence there is something known as a chain of custody. A laboratory should be in the position to pinpoint where this video was between 25th of December 2009 and the 4th of March 2010. The laboratory simply has no such information because nobody in the world knows where this video was doing what in that period.
CFSL should have never touched this but having actually touched the video having actually given a certain report many things actually come into doubt. First and foremost what is the basis for CFSL to say that this is genuine because this is digital video you are dealing with digital video to speak of .Number one this is not analogue, number two-the authenticity of a distilled video is always open to doubt and question. It is only approximate and nobody can be certain, not even CFSL is certain and it would be inappropriate for anybody outside of CFSL to say that yes this is true. And also lawyers and forensic scientist in the United States are now going through this video they don’t have the entire video with them, they have actually the clippings of the video and they are startled actually to find out that in India that thing like this is believed by the masses and they are saying that they will give an affidavit very shortly to say that video is only morphed.They are saying that the quantum of light actually generated by the video is the exact quantum that is necessary to morph the video and to create a reasonable doubt to the naked eye.So there are several inconsistencies that they have pointed out and unfortunately I cannot give you the exact inconsistency. But I will give you a reference,there is a timestamp in the video that time stamp says 8 o’clock in the morning but the video has an alarm clock,alarm clock says 11 o’clock in the morning.Now when video timestamp becomes 8 o’clock, if I go from 8 o’clock to 8:15 what do you think the alarm clock in the video should be displaying? 11:15 but unfortunately it does not display 11:15, it displays 3:30. Number 2, there is a network that is being shown, there is a television that is playing inside the video,there is a particular network actually that is playing on the television and the forensic scientist in the United States are now saying that they have ascertained that, that particular network never telecast that particular program on that day. But what they are all baffled with is that is the choice of the day 25th of December 2009 maybe we all miss the significance of that day because this is an arbitrary date, for a person who would morph actually any one of the 365 days in the year would be valid why on earth that they choose 25th of December 2009 or for that matter 25th of December. The lawyers, forensic scientists in the US are actually baffled they just don’t understand, why 25th of December– all the dates in the world. Because they believe 25th of December is a sacred day for them. That’s the birthday of Lord Jesus the Christ and there are furthermore inconsistencies. The video specifically, the charge sheet lists out the maker and manufacturer of the video. And the scientists in the United States they have been able to find out the speed at which the video shoots,it is something like 30 frames per second. And they say for a speed like this there is a table fan that is captured inside the video and they basically have calculated the speed of the blade within the table fan and they are saying when the video shoots at 30 frames per second and when a still is taken out of that video, the Blade should appear in a certain way but the blade is appearing in the exact,opposite way and these are the things that will be given later in the form of an affidavit for all those who would want to believe that the video is genuine. The video is not genuine and the video represents an extraordinary digital manipulation. Because it is, if we want to believe yes they took 2 months, one might want to wonder, what was the video doing in those two months, In those 2 months and there are 7-8 other inconsistencies unfortunately I am not been authorised to divulge those inconsistencies at this point of time.But I just wish to tell you this, Hollywood would be delighted because it is believed that the people in the US are saying the video represents finest Hollywood work and all Hollywood labs would be delighted once basically they realise that people believe this is true, this is real that is all. Thankyou.