The Making of the Morphed Video: Real Insights into the morphed video

When the dust settled, the video is subsequently proven fake beyond a reasonable doubt by no less than FOUR (4) highly respected forensic expert witnesses who routinely testify in USA courts, grand juries, and to the FBI in forensic video analysis.  But that didn’t stop the conspirators from milking the video for all it’s worth.

Click HERE to jump to the post where the Chief Executive Officer of SunTV Hansraj Saxena actually confesses to morphing the video and using it as part of a larger pattern of extortion and blackmail by SunTV using morphed videos.

SunTV COO Confesses to video being morphed (as if the inconsistencies in all the stories of the conspirators plus all the forensic evidence wasn’t enough to conclude the thing was fake…)

Click HERE for a more detailed post on the forensic evidence casting showing the video is altered and casting into doubt any question of the video being genuine.

But here is a summary of the key points from said reports:

1. key points being:
   1. Video images are layered on top of each other. The video has “composite layering”.
   2. Chain of Evidence
      1. 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.
   3. The video is evidently manipulated as there were 34 “deleted files” in one of the memory cards, and 24 “deleted files” in the other memory card.
   4. No audio
      1. 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?
   5. Unexplained start and stop
      1. 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.
   6. The video has an unusual aspect ratio – 704 x 496 which is further proof of alteration.
   7. Psychologically untenable
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
   8. The technology is available for anyone with a little knowledge and a mid range home computer to be able to render scenes like these.