US based forensic agencies which are🔗

The US forensic experts in total give 60 points. The FSL India report gives only 2 points of opinions. The US forensic experts reports are 30 times bigger on a fact-to-fact basis.

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, Qualified Forensic Expert

Video: Audio & Video Forensic Expert Witness - Primeau Forensics

https://vimeo.com/178492530

Edward John Primeau CCI, CFC

1703 Star Batt Drive Rochester Hills, MI 48309

248.853.4091 800.647.4281 248.659.1696

Direct Toll Free Fax

[email protected]

ED PRIMEAU, CCI, CFC AUDIO & VIDEO FORENSIC EXPERT

Transcript of Video by Mr. Edward John Primeau

(video: https://youtu.be/8lTsoaJWILw)

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 investigator. 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? That’s when this specific clip that I examined was created. We won’t 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 received 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 representation 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.

See Edward John Primeau’s complete C.V.

2. David Notowitz - Multi-faceted video and audio forensic evidence expert. National Center for Audio and Video Forensics (NCAVF), USA

thousands of cases & testified in State and Federal Courts

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. (http://www.forensicscenter.com)

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

3. 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.

Expert Video Analysis Reports

The alleged video falsely portraying His Divine Holiness 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.

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

2. 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 (Forensics Sciences Laboratory) Delhi

1. 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.”

2. 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.”

3. 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.”

4. 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.”

5. 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.”

6. Deleted files unexplained

1. 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."

2. FSL report talks about the video clip when there are over 70 video clips analyzed

1. Critical information of spy camera missing

2. 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.”

3. Psychologically untenable

3. 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 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.”

2. 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.”

4. 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.

1. Procedure of recording illegal

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 assassinate and attack 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 the Hindu Extremist Militant Forces 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.

QUALIFICATIONS. Yonovitz & Joe, L.L.P., a registered partnership based in Dallas, Texas, is a team of forensic audio/video analysts, experts and consultants. We have been forensic audio/video experts for over fifty-eight combined years. Our diverse legal, forensic, academic, research and clinical experience includes scientifically objective, verifiable and generally accepted analyses of audio and video evidence including, but not limited to, the forensic authenticity analyses of audio or video evidence, voice/speaker identification or elimination via aural-acoustic-spectrography, digital enhancement of audio or video recordings, transcription development and verification, etc. We have been retained in thousands of cases involving thousands of recordings throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, Australia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, and have testified in state and Federal courts in civil, criminal and administrative matters throughout the U.S., as well as overseas. Representative clients include Steptoe & Johnson (Wash., D.C.), 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), Haynes & Boone (Houston), Thompson & Knight (Dallas), Vinson & Elkins (Dallas), Jenkens & Gilchrist (Dallas), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Coastamare Shipping Comp., Motorola Corp., Vivint, Inc., BankOne, BlueCross BlueShield, Shell Oil Co., United Parcel Service, Inc., Shell Texaco & Saudi Refineries, Inc., Reliant Energy, 7-Eleven, Inc., Evercom Systems, Inc., Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) Judicial Department, 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, City of San Angelo, City of Galveston, Plano (TX) and Akron (OH) Police Depts., Dallas, Maricopa (Phoenix), Tulsa (OK), Harris (Hou.), Fulton (GA) and Summit (OH) County DA's Offices, Washington D.C., Houston, Little Rock, South Dakota, DuPage County (IL), Green County (PA), New Mexico, New Hampshire and New Jersey Public Defender's Offices, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center, Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, the Associated Press (AP), ABC, BBC, FOX-TV, etc. High profile cases include the Branch Davidian case; consultations include TMZ, CSI:Miami and People Magazine and recent speaking engagements include the 2002, 15th Annual Criminal Litigation Seminar, the 2003 annual convention of the American Speech & Hearing Association, the 2004 26th World Congress of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, the 2005 annual conference of the Center for International Legal Studies, the 2005 3rd Annual Forensics Seminar, the 2006 4th Annual Forensics Seminar, the 2007 annual meeting of the North Carolina Bar Association, the 2007 5th Annual Forensics Seminar.

YONOVITZ & JOE, L.L.P. - Forensic Audio/Video Analysts and Experts Preliminary Forensic Video Report for Life Bliss Fdn. - Page 14 of 16

Expert Witness Association, the 2009 7th Annual Forensics Seminar, the 2010 8th Annual Forensics Seminar, the 2010 2nd Pan American/Iberian Meeting on Acoustics (Cancún), the 2011 9th Annual Forensics Seminar and the 2011 annual meeting of the American Speech & Hearing Association.

The undersigned is managing partner of Yonovitz & Joe, L.L.P. I have 4 degrees, including 2 science degrees (B.S., M.A.) and 2 law degrees (J.D., LL.M.). The following are a result of my expertise and experience in the area of forensic audio/video: Board Certified Forensic Audio/Video Examiner; Diplomat, American Board of Forensic Examiners; Diplomat, American Board of Law Enforcement Experts; Licensed Instructor, Texas Board of Private Investigators; Member, Evidence Code Committee of the Oklahoma Bar Association; Former Board Member, Forensic Expert Witness Association; Board of Legal Advisors, American Guild of Court Videographers; Charter Member, Legal Advisory Board, American College of Forensic Examiner Institute; Member, The Commission on Forensic Education; Fellow, American Guild of Court Videographers; and Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners. I am also a Certified Mediator, licensed to practice law in Texas and Oklahoma, a Registered Patent Attorney with the United States Patent & Trademark Office, a Registered Patent Agent with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, a Member of the College of the State Bar of Texas, Adjunct Faculty (Grad. Law Classes) at the University of Phoenix and a Member of the Summit County Board of Health. My 24-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 presentations, authoring peer-reviewed publications and being interviewed or consulted with throughout the news and entertainment industries domestically and foreign.

This is a preliminary report and subject to change upon receipt of additional information or evidence.

Respectfully submitted, YONOVITZ & JOE, L.L.P. Forensic Audio/Video Analysts, Experts & Consultants

Herbert Joe, M.A., J.D., LL.M., B.C.F.E., D.A.B.F.E., D.A.B.L.E.E., F.A.C.F.E Managing Partner, Yonovitz & Joe, L.L.P. Board Certified Forensic Audio/Video Examiner Registered Patent Attorney, USPTO, CIPO Adjunct Faculty (Grad. Law), University of Phoenix Licensed Instructor, Texas Board of Private Investigators

Original reports from the International Forensic Experts

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 Edward Video Analysis Report

Report 2 – part 1 Click here to view the report Joe Report Part - 1

Report 2 – part 2 Click here to view the report Joe Report Part - 2

Report 2 – part 3 Click here to view the report Joe Report Part - 3

Report 2 – part 4 Click here to view the report Joe Report Part - 4

His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda speaks about the FAKE VIDEO

( Video Transcript in English )

(https://www.facebook.com/justificationpropaganda/videos/242265206585923/)

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 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.

POISONOUS DEFAMATION

BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

2010-03-02