Expert Video Analysis Reports

Share |

The alleged scandal video showing Paramahamsa Nithyananda was sent for forensic analysis to the top audio/video forensic experts in USA.

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

  1. Edward Joe, 27+ years experience in audio and video forensic analysis court expert in USA, Registered Investigator (RI), Primeau Productions Inc.
    1. Video is not authentic and real. It is altered.
    2. Grossly edited and altered series of defamatory videos.
    3. No audio so that the video cannot be authenticated by forensic voice identification to help identifying the persons in the video.
    4. Video images layered on top of each other.
    5. Video composite layering
      1. Includes  scenes recorded at different times and blended together to appear to be real
      2. Proved by unusual light flickering on left of television of items next to it, while television is not flickering
    6. Unusual aspect ratio – 704 x 496 is further proof of alteration
    7. Ends abruptly and appears to be cut off proving it was edited or tampered with.

Willing to testify in USA or India and answer any questions regarding this forensic investigation

  1. David Notowitz, Forensic Video Expert in USA , Los Angeles Superior Court Expert Witness, National Center for Audio and Video Forensics
    1. 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.”
    1. 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?”
    1. 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.”
  1. 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

    1. FSL report technically lacking
      1. “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.”
    2. No details of analysis performed
      1. “The Report states that ENCASE software was used, but did not detail exactly what analyses were performed, nor did Report 1 compile its findings in order for the reader to understand or replicate its findings.”
    1. Does not state the exact digital format
      1. “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.”
    1. Video editing method cannot be used to determine authenticity of video
      1. “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.”
    1. Duplicate clips unexplained
      1. “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.”
    1. Deleted files unexplained
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
    1. Number of reported files on DVD inconsistent – 116 vs 341
      1. 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.
    1. Purpose of re-examination of video by DIG, CID, Bangalore is unclear
      1. “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.”
    1. FSL report talks about the video clip when there are over 70 video clips analyzed
      1. “* 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?
      2. “* 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?”
    1. Critical information of spy camera missing
      1. “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."
      2. “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?”
      3. “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.”
    1. Positive identification of persons in video incorrect
      1. “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.”
    1. 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.”
    2. Video not true
      1. “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.
      2. “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.”
  1. Bryan Neumeister, Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs
    1. Video is faked
      1. “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 persons 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.”
    2. No forensic analysis tests done
      1. “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 a person’s best guess that the client and person on the video matched.
No forensic tests were performed according to the report. It was the person's estimation the person on the screen was the client and the recording was an original.
No tests were done to look for compositing.”

    1. Critical technical data missing on camera and storage
      1. No data reported on
        1. Type of camera used - brand, model number, serial number, year of manufacture
        2. Type of Codec native to the camera
        3. 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
        4. Power supply 50 cycle or 60 cycle
        5. Technical specifications of CCD - Bit Depth, Image data gathering technique and specifications, data compression algorithm
        6. DA & AD signal converters (Digital to Analog & Analog to Digital)
        7. Trigger method of camera. Motion sensing?
        8. 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
        9. 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.
        10. 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
        11. 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.
        12. 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.
      2. No audio
      3. NTSC-PAL Time Code of combined signal
        1. Was time code imprinted on the original file?
        2. Was a clock setting imprinted on file?
        3. How was the clock set to insure accuracy?
      4. Was the Video re uploaded into the camera. ( using file directory, was a video uploaded into the on board chip at any time?
      5. Storage
        1. Files were said to be erased on the San disc cards. Was there an attempt to recover those files. If not why?
        2. 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?
        3. What was the formatting of the San Disc cards Fat 32, NTFS, Proprietary?
        4. Was the codec used for recording proprietary?
        5. What program was used to extract the video from the  camera/recorder?
        6. What program was used to change the file type if it was changed to another format?
        7. What was the Dithering set up if the files were converted?
        8. What compression was used in the conversion?
        9. What is the data rate of the converted file?
        10. What was the format recorded: a 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 etc ?
        11. Was the conversion made using a loss less codec or a compressed algorithm?
        12. 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?
    1. Positive Identification of persons in video incorrect
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. Green screen artifacts should be looked for closely in areas of differing contrast along edges of moving objects (people)
    1. Procedure of recording illegal
      1. Was the recording obtained legally?
      2. Were any laws broken during the placing of the recorder?
      3. Was there trespassing in violation of any national, state or regional laws?
      4. Were the rights of the people on the video violated in anyway according to law?
      5. Has the person or persons who allegedly recorded this been charged with any crime?
      6. Do the person or persons have any previous records of violating any laws?

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 >>