Berg Killed by Americans - SMOKING GUN !!!

[bushgottago]

Found this on a blog:

OK - we may have the smoking gun in the Berg video that proves the Nick Berg was killed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison. In addition to all the other evidence that I posted on my blog, I have been seeing some messages that if proved to be so answeres the question as to who really killed Berg.

There has been a semi-secret government initiative to add digital signatures to various digital consumer products. Photocopiers and digital cameras store an encrypted signature to identify the unit that made the video. This digitial signature is totally inique to each device and is more unique than a fingerprint.

Today new pictures were released of prison torture at Abu Ghraib prison. But not just still pictures. Today video was released showing prisoners being tortured by Americans. Aparently Kodak film experts are Kodak Park in Rochester New York have compared the digital signatures of the turture video and the beheading video and have determined that one of the cameras used in the Nick Berg beheading is THE SAME CAMERA that took the prison torture video.

If this turns out to be true then there is NO DOUBT that Berg was killed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison.

I urge all of you to press to find out if this story is actually true, and if so - HOLY SHIT !!!

[QC]

1. Link? n/t

[displacedtexan]

69. Here's a link to secret camera signature info

Evidently, this technology is becoming pretty common.


When Pictures Cannot Lie
by Robert Regis Hyle

Every picture tells a story. Or does it? Doctored photographs of an accident scene or a wrecked vehicle have fooled more than one claims adjuster. Digital photography is playing an increasingly important role in the claims process, but the software that makes it easy to take the red out of Aunt Shirley

[LittleApple81]

71. link? n/t

[ramblin_dave]

74. Here's a link to the 'When Pitctures Cannot Lie'

article:

http://www.technologydecisions.com/backissue/0101/1_30_01_2.asp

[exploited]

135. That's very interesting BUT... /sarcasm

The Berg video was realesed in a compressed format. The original digital footprint produced by the camera may contain id info but that data was put through another layer of software. The 1's and 0's that made up the digital data of the original have been massively rearranged; most of it has been junked when it was compressed.

Video compression software does not make proprietry distinctions. If Kodak/whoever inlcudes extra identifying data it doesn't mean it will remain in a compressed format. The idea of compression is to minimise file size by removing superfluous data. A "fingerprint" will not exist. The most that can be expected to remain will be a smudge here and half a loop there which will become the proverbial needle in a haystack when mixed up with the rest of the data.

Bogus theory IMO but hey, if anyone has access to the original (non compressed) file, then by all means, run with it. /more sarcasm ;)

[tom_paine]

2. Got a link?

[Doug Decker]

3. Do you have a link to the blog?

Thanks, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[kentuck]

4. Surely you have a link ?

:shrug:

[bushgottago]

5. Here's one link - looking for original

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&action=m&board=37138445&tid=apprisonerabusephotos&sid=37138445&mid=12296

[HuskerDem]

102. A link to a Yahoo message board post? That's the foundation of this

bunk? Lord. :crazy:

[supernova]

6. OMG!

:wow: :wow:

That means that the first group of Americans who picked him up NEVER released him as they claimed.

But why would we want to kill him?

[rucky]

23. Moussaui connection n/t

[9215]

25. We thinks alike.

[9215]

24. His involvement with Moussaoui?

Could be one reason Berg was wanted dead.

[WillyT]

39. To Get The Iraqi Prison Abuse Story Off The Front Page ???

And allow our visceral reaction to his killing cloud our judgment, and allow us to accept the prison torture as justified???

:shrug:

[sophie996]

46. But why would we want to kill him?

to get the kind of pious comments we've gotten, about what savages the "terrorists" are, and to deflect attention from the chain of command that allowed prison abuse.

i swear, i think our spooks read john le carre and robert ludlum as if they were writing handbooks. see esp. le carre's "absolute friends."

[eridani]

91. Maybe we didn't kill him

If he was turned loose in Baghdad, that's pretty lawless these days. If he turned up dead, they could have then decided to stage a beheading of his corpse for propaganda purposes.

[DoYouEverWonder]

54. It doesn't mean they didn't release him

I'm sure they did. The family was making too much noise. So they let him out for a few days. Let him call home and to tell people he was fine, and then they grabbed him again.

Then it was time to make sure he didn't go back to the US and tell people what he might have known about Iraq and Abu Ghraib? Of course, not wanting to miss an opportunity to inflame passions, instead of just killing him off, they decided to make a spectacle of it. Thus they were able to kill two birds with one stone, as they say.

[Eloriel]

97. Or recaptured him -- But wait

Wasn't he originally detained in Mosul? And isn't Abu Ghraib near Baghdad? Need some geography expertise here.

There were at least 3 eye witnesses PLUS his parents who heard from him by phone that he'd been released, who all said he was free in the April 9-10 period. I think the 10th is the last his parents heard from him. Two of the eyewitnesses were people at the same hotel (a reporter, I think, and maybe another businessman -- was it Al Taee, or was he in addition to the others?) One of the eye witnesses was the porter who carried his bags to the taxi.

[libhill]

106. Because -

his parents had the audacity to be openly anti- Bush. Geez- do you folks think we`re living in a free country,or something?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

7. yes, i am interested in more information, link please. nt.

[Caution]

8. one word for you.

BULLSHIT. This is such an unbelievable crock of whacked out conspiracy bullshit as to be beyond belief. I'm not denying the possibility that there is something fishy about the berg video, though i havent seen one whit of evidence to support that claim, but the claim that the "digital signatures" of the video was compared is totally absurd and it is crap like this that makes the real conspiracies out there harder to swallow for people.

[bushgottago]

16. If the digital signatures match ...

Then this is 100% sure that Berg was killed by Americans!!

Unless - the terrorists broke into the prison and stole the same video camera that the gaurds used to torture prisoners.

[bryant69]

18. If you believe everything else I tell you

than this prooves that Nick Berg was assassinated.

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LoZoccolo]

43. If. If. If. If.

If they find the rest of the video where they take the hoods off and they're American soldiers plus they find Berg alive somewhere and he admits to being a part of the whole thing plus all the people in the video confess to it blah blah blah blah.

This whole thread is stupid. Let it sink. It's all fabricated so far.

[eridani]

92. No evidence presented that they do

Just an assertion. If you have an actual statement from someone at Kodak, or stills showing matching signatures, POST THEM, DAMMMIT! Don't keep screwing with our heads!

[libhill]

111. Hey now

don`t go giving the government any bright ideas -

[LiberalFighter]

138. They have secret tunnels all over Iraq...

That is how gw* figures SH hid all the WMD.

[rucky]

19. digital watermarking...

http://www.digimarc.com/watermarking/default.asp

What is Digital Watermarking?
Digimarc's digital watermarking technologies allow users to embed in audio, images, video and printed documents a digital code that is imperceptible during normal use but readable by computers and software. The science of creating these imperceptible codes is known as digital watermarking. Digimarc is a leading owner of intellectual property relating to digital watermarks and a pioneer in the commercial application of this technology. Our technologies are supported by a broad patent portfolio covering a wide range of methods and applications.

[Alerter_]

50. This is disinformation designed to discredit critics

Remember how much of this came out right after 911? It's the perfect way to send the opposition on a wild goose chase.

This is just silly:

one as Prison abuse was used. Word is spreading around Kodak Park here in Rochester NY. And will break on national News tonite that Kodak film experts have analyzed the Nick Berg video and some of the Abu Grhaib Prison videos comparing them for certain encrypted recording signatures.
Each Video camera leaves a certain signature mark, much like a fingerprint or striation markings on bullets in gun barrels. Same goes for CD-ROM Burners, they leave a trace or type of Cookies on the finished product.
These are tested by computer and not visible by the nekkid eye. Experts here after lunch have concluded that one of the 2 video cameras used in the Nick Berg "beheading" was also used to film US troop abuses of Iraqi detainees.
THIS is BAD news for BushCorp., Military, and CIA. .

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&action=m&board=37138445&tid=apprisonerabusephotos&sid=37138445&mid=12296

[Nlighten1]

65. Are there any technical resources to validate this claim?

I am not a video expert but I am very familiar with the likes of tape backup media so I don't necessarily discount this theory. I just want to learn more about it.

[Alerter_]

70. there is no proof, just a random anonymous internet post

Digital watermarking is real - so where is the proof? Nothing close to proof or a reasonable suspicion, just someone taking a current buzzword/idea and sticking it in a current events story. Just a rumor.

If anyone wants to document the watermarks, make their data and finding public, I'll examine the evidence and suggest others do as well.

I'm not wasting any time waiting for it.

[LoZoccolo]

75. Any watermarks, if they were there, would almost definately not survive...

...the compression process used to encode it into the Windows Media format in which it appeared on the website.

[Must_B_Free]

87. I'll prove this is a lie right now

digital watermark is used in still images.

There is no digital watermark built into video cameras. We don;t know if they were digital or analugue in either case.

The only ID there would be would be the ID an in the rendered video (like in the properties of a MS Word doc) but the video from Abu Giraib was not digitized. So how can they compare.

There were never two of the same source to compare.

This is purely a fabrication.

[Nlighten1]

94. He said "digital signature"

this may not be the same as a digital watermark. I am looking for technical documentation not hyperbole.

[w4rma]

108. And you know that the folks trying to cover up things know this too.

"...it is crap like this that makes the real conspiracies out there harder to swallow for people."

I've seen no source for this information, yet. I'm going to consider it a red herring.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

114. What are YOU so upset about?

n/t

[bryant69]

9. If this is true--but of course it would be easier

with a link to determine that--than it's the end of America. At least for a while.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Speck Tater]

10. Uh, FILM expert???

Digital cameras don't use film. Sounds phoney to me.

[graham67]

14. My mini-DV camcorder

uses film (DVM60 casette). Are those videos supposed to be done with a digital camera or a camcorder? I dunno. But I don't believe this story at all.

[Qutzupalotl]

60. That's tape, not film.

Digital signals vs. analog image frames.

[info being]

28. Of course they do. You don't know what you're talking about.

[ClintonTyree]

36. Eastman Kodak................

has more patents in digital technology than any other company on earth. I know, I worked there for 29 years in R&D. Film or digital, if there's something being hidden, Kodak can find it.

[LoZoccolo]

64. Assuming there are as many tinfoil hats at Kodak...

...as there are here.

[Touchdown]

110. Picking nits...AT&T has more patents.

I'll give Kodak digital imaging, but general digital technology, goes to Bell Labs...which is now owned by Lucent...but it's all the same Ma Bell.

[FreakinDJ]

119. Now this is an informed source

......I know, I worked there for 29 years in R&D. Film or digital, if there's something being hidden, Kodak can find it.......

Just another thought...Kodak also helpped develope the FTP codes for the internet..

[Susang]

11. Hmmm....

Why am I less than convinced of the veracity of this report? Could it be my inherently suspicious nature? }(

[lanparty]

12. What signature.

Does this mean the same BRAND of camera ... or the SAME INDIVIDUAL CAMERA.

[bushgottago]

22. Same INDIVIDUAL camera

It IDs the CAMERA not the BRAND.

[Frangible]

13. I doubt this is true...

While it is possible to embed a digital signature as additional file info, or as a watermark, the quality on this was so unbelievably bad no watermark could've survived, and I'd question if any additional file info would've suvived the encoding/editing/reencoding process.

[ThoughtCriminal]

15. Also doubting

Even if each camera did have unique didgtal signature, it seems to me that you would not be able to extract that information from analog broadcasts of the tape. I think you would need the original tape or an exact duplicate.

[mumon]

96. Actually, maybe it could...

the watermarks would be designed to be resistant to compression, precisely to enable someone to trace counterfeit/knock-off recordings.

[Panquin]

17. Americans killed Berg

This isn't just incredible; this is holy-goddamned-shit incredible. But wouldn't it be amateur hour gone mad if this was the case? How could they be THAT stupid? I mean, that's not just stupid...that's not even suicidally stupid...I don't know what that is, but it'd be a colossal blunder, the hottest potato of them all.

I truly, in my heart, believe that Berg was killed by Americans. White skin in videos? Yes. American accent? Yes. Total convenience re: Abu Graib and the "cleansing of the palate," attempting to erase that stink? Yes.

Ah, but the fools, they didn't realize that Berg's father (and family) would come down so hard on the Bushies. They didn't realize that they had a real, true, antiwar family here (ironically, except for Nick himself), and one that's not going to toe the patriotic line. So the story's got no legs; it's still all Abu Graib all the time. Fascinatingly terrifying, terrifyingly fascinating.

Bushgottago, this has to be really muckraked. We need some kind of lead. Are you u to it? Will you be our Seymour Hersh?

[Rosco T.]

20. Not stupidity.... arrogance...

.. SHOULD this be even remotely accurate, then it's ARROGRANCE. "They'll never pin this on us.. they can't prove it".

I'll wait an see.. but it's interesting.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Sure, it's credible. It's just that this thread isn't.

[cal04]

26. Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts

American businessman Nicholas Berg's body was found on May 8 near a Baghdad overpass; a video of his supposed decapitation death by knife appeared on an alleged al-Qaeda-linked website (www.al-ansar.biz) on May 11. But according to what both a leading surgical authority and a noted forensic death expert separately told Asia Times Online, the video depicting the decapitation appears to have been staged.

"I certainly would need to be convinced it was authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it."

Questions of when the video's footage was taken, and the time elapsed between the shooting of the video's segments, were raised by both experts, reflecting a portion of the broader and ongoing video controversy. Nordby, speaking to Asia Times Online from Washington state, noted: "We don't know how much time wasn't filmed," adding that "there's no way of knowing whether ... footage is contemporaneous with the footage that follows".

While the circumstances surrounding both the video and Nick Berg's last days have been the source of substantive speculation, both Simpson and Nordby perceived it as highly probable that Berg had died some time prior to his decapitation. A factor in this was an apparent lack of the "massive" arterial bleeding such an act initiates.

"I would have thought that all the people in the vicinity would have been covered in blood, in a matter of seconds ... if it was genuine," said Simpson. Notably, the act's perpetrators appeared far from so. And separately Nordby observed: "I think that by the time they're ... on his head, he's already dead."

Providing another basis for their findings, in the course of such an assault, an individual's autonomic nervous system would react, typically doing so strongly, with the body shaking and jerking accordingly. And while Nordby noted that "they rotated and moved the head", shifting vertebrae that should have initiated such actions, Simpson said he "certainly didn't perceive any movements at all" in response to such efforts.

During the period when Berg's captors filmed the decapitation sequence, circumstances indicate that he had already been dead "a quite uncertain length of time, but more than ... however long the beheading took", Simpson stated. Both Simpson and Nordby also noted the difficulty in providing analysis based on the video, the inherent limitations presented by this. But both also felt that Berg had seemed drugged.
Speaking off the record, intelligence community sources have previously said they believe it "very likely" that al-Zarqawi is indeed long dead. Such a fact makes al-Zarqawi's alleged killing of Berg difficult to reconcile, and there has been broad speculation that blaming al-Zarqawi is an administration ploy. Further anomalies surrounding Berg's death have fueled added speculation.

According to e-mails sent from a US consular officer in Baghdad, Beth Payne, to the Berg family, Nick Berg was being held in Iraq "by the US military in Mosul". A May 13 AP report notes that a US State Department spokesperson subsequently said this was untrue, an error, and that Berg was being held by Iraqi authorities. But another May 13 AP report quoted "police chief Major-General Mohammed Khair al-Barhawi" as claiming that reports of Iraqi police having held Berg were "baseless".


rest of the article
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html

[Susang]

27. Why aren't these experts ever from Harvard?

Or Stanford? Just wondering..... }(

[bpilgrim]

40. maybe no one's asking?

maybe they are scared?

have any of americas big universities come out behind an engineering theory to the collapse of wtc7 :shrug:

just wondering, too ;->

peace

[Susang]

44. I believe there was already a book written about it

Though I cannot recall the title. I'm sure that someone will refresh my memory momentarily. ;-)

[bpilgrim]

56. oh

see what i mean, pretty quiet, eh...

peace

[graham67]

29. Cyril Wecht...

was on local TV this morning and said that he's convinced the video is legit.

[Minstrel Boy]

30. I'm doubtful, because it's Kodak

From the Yahoo link:

"Word is spreading around Kodak Park here in Rochester NY. And will break on national News tonite that Kodak film experts have analyzed the Nick Berg video and some of the Abu Grhaib Prison videos..."

Why would Kodak experts be analyzing the videos? On their own initiative? If they found a "smoking gun," I seriously doubt they would be racing to the media. Kodak may seem benign, but it has Pentagon contracts and is a part of the military/industrial infrastucture. It's name was redacted from the list of US companies which had done business with Saddam. (Hell, Kodak even traded with the Nazis: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Kodaks_NaziConnections.html)

If Kodak experts discovered something disturbing in its implications for the Bush Administration, I expect there would be phone calls to the Pentagon and hushed conversations we'd never hear.

[KoKo]

52. Kodak is desperate for it's life. It's losing to every "digital" camera

maker. They are losing on their "photo paper." Is there another angle, to this Minstrel? Could they need a big "Sound Byte Expose" for dating their prints? Would this help them.

Otherwise, I would agree with you...only post this from a "stock market" perspective.

And..are the people running Kodak today the same as those working with Nazi's? Is it comparable to Bush and his long lineage working for Fascism? I haven't done a Google to know. Just being "devil's advocate" here to you....

[Minstrel Boy]

57. Interesting. But I think they'd stand more to lose by exposing

a Pentagon scandal the likes of which would blow most Americans' minds.

[troublemaker]

31. Why doesn't this utterly worthless thread

get snuffed? The poster is just repeating someone else's lies because of hyper-credulity. The Yahoo message board link promises that this will break on the evening news tonight. We shall see, won't we?

Isn't it amazing how earthshaking discoveries are found on "a blog"?

I have seen on "a blog" that John Kerry eats babies but I didn't consider it a SMOKING GUN!!!!!!

[Q]

35. Isn't freedom of speech more important...

...than your call to 'snuff' this thread?

- What the hell is wrong with some of you? Can't people express their opinions and feelings without being jumped on like they're the enemy? The real enemy lied this nation into war and is now trying to cover up atrocities done in our name and while carrying our flag.

- People have every right to speculate and discuss their concerns about what's being done in their name. This is the most secretive US government in history. They brought it on themselves.

- As to the video...there is ever more evidence that the five men behind Berg weren't as our secretive government described them.

- Don't be afraid to ask questions. Tell those who call you 'nuts' to go piss up a rope.

[WillyT]

42. Right On Q, Right Fucking On !!!

:kick:

[LoZoccolo]

45. Bahahahaha.

Can't people express their opinions and feelings without being jumped on like they're the enemy?

No, when they pass of unsubstantiated bullshit with a blog as a source, no.

As to the video...there is ever more evidence that the five men behind Berg weren't as our secretive government described them.

...but you don't even mention it here.

Don't be afraid to ask questions. Tell those who call you 'nuts' to go piss up a rope.

So you admit that this thread has gone from "presenting a smoking gun" to "asking questions".

[WillyT]

48. That's Part Of Mexico, Right ???

Gotta love when Dems stifle discussion. Makes me feel all warm and rePublican inside.

:wtf:

[LoZoccolo]

51. Bahahahaha.

Gotta love when Dems pass unsubstantiated bullshit off as fact. Makes me feel all warm and rePublican inside.

Vince Foster ya da dee da dada da da dee da da.

[LoZoccolo]

55. On stifling discussion.

Spamming an important forum with rumor, thus causing important, substantiated threads to sink, is stifling discussion.

[WillyT]

62. I See Your Point, But In A More Enlightened Period On DU...

a person with 47 posts might have been gently given a hint or two about linking an article, citing blogs, and declaring fact in a subject line. Unfortunately, that may have been DU's Golden Age!

MANY of us have serious doubts about the Berg video, and are willing to accept any new info for our own culling for legitimacy. Ridiculing a thread, or poster, also keeps a thread on the front page, and keeps you from what you consider important.

Better to ignore, or close the thread if it bothers you so.

Peace!

:shrug:

[TomNickell]

86. The problem is....

Willy,
The problem is that leaving nonsense unanswered permits it to appear legitimate. But, as you say, ridiculing it only prolongs the thread.

The Conspiracy Hobbyists are operating outside the bounds of normal rational discussion. They have the same effect as a Scientific Creationist at an Evolution conference. Just create confusion and block serious discussion.

Such threads should be, gently, moved over to Tinfoil Alley.

[WillyT]

101. Ok, But Why??? The Tried And True, "What Will Others Think?" Fear ???

Agreeing with those that find DU wonderful for discussion, action, distraction, and yes... humor, I do not give a rat's ass what others think when they visit here.

We are a community of about 45,000 registered folk here. And I have it on good authority, that at any one moment, there may be as many as 2,000 people climbing the banyan vines here.

But it's an internet site. We could not pull a barge down the Erie Canal if we tried. But, we do have genius here. We've all seen it. We've promoted the BBV investigation when others poo-pooed it. Pitt and Ritter got on TV and the Best Sellers list while folks were tellin them that they were crazy. And we all, because of the 'no-holds-barred' free-flow of ideas, actually kick ass.

I say we keep it that way!!!

:shrug:

[TomNickell]

113. Even a free-wheeling discussion has to have some standards......

Yes, by all means anything that can be rationally discussed should be.

My beef is with the Conspiracists cultists and conspiracy hobbyists whose opinions are immune to fact or logic.

2+2= 4.

The Conspiracists constantly claim that twice two is five and that those of us who do not see that are fools. Or Republicans.

Essentially, the Conspiracists are babbling nonsense endlessly and their noise drowns out sensible discussion.

[WillyT]

127. Why Again ??? - Maybe It's The Word 'Underground'...

You know, we get to discuss ANYTHING in a manner that let's us find proofs to our theorems?

I know that I didn't sign up for either a totally whacked, nor a totally official, democratic site.

I signed up to be with concerned citizens who'd like to work for a better country than we have now. And since I, and you, have not figured out how that is to occur yet, I'm open to all info, so I can take what I need to make it make sense!

Doers that make sense, LOL???

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

144. No it doesn't.

Posting spurious information wastes peoples' time. Here I see "SMOKING GUN" in the title and come to find out it's a rumor on a blog.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

93. I can't control the whole internet.

But I can try.

:hi: :nuke:

[Nlighten1]

59. Never mind that Q...

we have to protect the sensible minds of these "moderate" people.


Laff

[LoZoccolo]

63. I think I know, I mean, ah yes but it's all wrong...

...that is I think I disagree.

[SammyWinstonJack]

99. Glad someone said this!

:bounce:

[troublemaker]

103. Free speech?

These boards are owned and regulated and I have nothing to do with that. It's just a reality. Since they are regulated, what possible standards would put this particular post on the okay side?

Posts are yanked on these boards for all sorts of hyper-sensitive reasons, and posters bitterly complain about some pretty silly things. And posters often accuse each other of being Republican spies.

Yet a post that is facially false and (at its point of origin) most likely malicious seems to breeze through that net of censure.

Let's say there was a post headed "Howard Dean had been arrested for shoplifting. SMOKING GUN!!!!" And let's suppose that the content of that post was "I read somewhere that a guy heard a guy say something." That post would probably be pulled, right?

Yet when the crime in question is five Americans (presumably in government employ and under government direction) sawing off some American's head, well that's different. That's just open discussion of the issues.

I understand and applaud the job that's done here because there's a refreshing absence of overt Republican gibberish. It's not a politically neutral site nor should it be. But sawing off a guy's head isn't shoplifting. I'm not saying Berg conspiracy stuff should be banned, only that fake news is different from controversial opinion. This post isn't a DUer making a controversial argument of his own. It's a DUer credulously passing along someone's evil little joke. The referenced post is a conscious and malicious hoax, not an alternative news item in the Grey zone.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

121. Thank you - my sentiments exactly.

n/t

[WilliamPitt]

32. Smoking gun?

Not yet.

[Susang]

33. I think it's on later

I hear FX shows the repeats after the X-Files. }(

[Q]

38. Would you know a smoking gun if you saw it?

- There won't BE a smoking gun unless we allow theories to be explored. Hell...there are people who still believe a 'magic bullet' was involved in the assassination of Kennedy.

- No one should feel compelled to jump on every bandwagon or believe every theory. But something is amiss on that video. Study the audio at the end...which sounds suspiciously like American voices.

- And yes...every digital/video camera has its own unique 'signal' or signature.

- And remember...this is a government that tortures 'detainees' to death. Does anyone really think they're ABOVE doing something like this? If so...then you haven't been paying attention.

[WilliamPitt]

49. Yes.

"There won't BE a smoking gun unless we allow theories to be explored."

A theory being explored is not a smoking gun, i.e. absolute proof. A theory being explored is a theory being explored.

That was my point.

[WillyT]

66. Yeah, But Tell That To LZ !!!

Sheesh...

Hey Will

[LoZoccolo]

72. I agree with WilliamPitt.

There isn't anything in my message that would suggest I don't. You would find great reward from his take on this matter.

[WillyT]

134. I Would Find Great Reward ???

Thank you Dali Llama, LOL !!!

:silly:

[sangh0]

68. A theory being explored is a theory being explored?

You are obviously a censor!

[WilliamPitt]

77. *This* is an example of a smoking gun

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=572704&mesg_id=572704

Now I must silence you.

:)

[KoKo]

83. Yes...that's evidence of "smoking gun." But not relevant to this post???

Methinks?

[WilliamPitt]

88. I'll draw you a crayon map

1. Original post has the words SMOKING GUN!!! in the title.

2. I disagreed that the data presented was a 'smoking gun' for anything.

3. I posted this to show an example of a smoking gun.

RIF.

I'll be sure to say hi again after you finish making the rounds and replying to every other post I've made. Your 2-2 in the last half-hour. Two posts, both totally irrelevant. Kudos!

[Q]

131. True enough...but a there won't be a smoking gun...

...until enough people recognize it as a smoking gun. One of the smoking guns in the Kennedy assassination was the silly theory that one bullet (magically) caused so much damage. What's the smoking gun in the Berg case? If I've seen one I can't prove it. But a gun doesn't smoke until more than a few people can SEE the smoke and point it out to others.

[WilliamPitt]

142. Making excuses, imho

I disavow nothing you have said; you're right. But the use of 'Smoking Gun' is kinda particular. It means a specific thing, a data point beyond refutation. This particular data point doesn't rise to that level, imho.

It goes without saying that using SMOKING GUN!!! is definitely off the point. But we do agree.

[H2O Man]

67. Respectfully:

this thread can not be compared to examining the actual events that occured in Dallas on 11-22-1963. Or discussions of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy, or Martin Luther King. It can, however, be compared to some of the truly lame discussions that resulted from either (1) disinformation being injected to confuse and discredit serious discussions; or (2) sincere people who were not rooted in reality, and were thus unable to take part in a serious discussion of the said events.

[LibertyorDeath]

34. Kick cause you never know

[TO Kid]

37. Reminds me of one of the Y2K scares

Back in the late 90s some wingnuts were claiming that there was a "universal" code that makes computers stop. Same principle at work here- there are no "digital signatures" to analyze. The most one could expect to get from analyzing the images would be make and model. Also, was it actually a digital video? The priciest analogue camcorders out there (Hi8, VHS-C) are still priced lower than the cheapest digital video cameras and still sell command some market share. Also, if those were digital images and there really was a "signature", do you think the CIA wouldn't be able to doctor the tape? Hell, the software that came free with my DVD burner could transform the video, it's easier to mess with a digital source than analogue.

Note to mods: I think this thread belongs in the Tinfoil (AKA 9/11) forum.

[H2O Man]

41. If you play the Rolling Stones'

Satanic Majesties album backwards, in either the beginning (or end, if you start there) it's really clear: Paul McCartney was killed .... ooops! wrong conspiracy. Uh, John says, "I iced Berg" .... wait, wrong group. But it couldn't possibly have been the radical Islamic fellows seen on film. It simply HAS to be Americans! Because the world is simpler when I believe that the big "they" (Americans) control EVERYTHING BAD! It even says so when you play Tommy Roe's greatest rocker, Dizzy," backwards.

[qanda]

47. Puhleaze, Spare Me!

This is about as bogus a story as I have ever heard. The video camera that was used during the abuse at Abu Ghraib was probably long gone by the time Nick Berg's beheading took place.

Please people do not buy into this foolishness. Where are the links and the proof of this most serious claim. I think somebody is trying to make us look like fools!

[rinsd]

53. Does anyone smell Herring? (nt)

[sffreeways]

58. Why

Doesn't this surprise me at all ? Oh...I remember...nevermind

[w13rd0]

61. Digital signatures....no....

...but it would be interesting to see the videotaped "self-identification" of US detainees. That's where they are sat in a chair, wearing their prison jumpsuits, and asked that they identify themselves. There are hours and hours of this alone available in the Iraqi "detention facility" archives.

Compare some of this footage to "Part 1" of the Berg video (the portion in which he's alone in frame identifying himself).

[bushgottago]

73. Comparing Voices

Maybe they should compare the voice of the killer with the PRISON GUARDS to see if they match.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. Where can I dl the video of Bush crushing the puppy's head with a rock?

[LoZoccolo]

78. SMOKING GUN of the crushing puppy's head with a rock video.

Someone posted this in a message board, referencing a video where Bush* crushes a puppy's head with a rock!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1642371#1642854

If this is true, then this is some SERIOUS SHIT MAN!

Before you doubt this ask yourself, why are you afraid of believing this or why would you believe the lies of BushCo.

[MessiahRp]

79. .......

:o

[gmaki]

80. The image is compressed

There is no "digital signature" or watermark that would survive that kind of compression. At least none that I have seen or can even imagine.

I run a DVD department by the way so the issue is sort of in my area of "expertise".

[TomNickell]

82. Exactly.

But we are headed for 200 posts.

-Why- can this stuff not be moved to TinFoil Alley (eg 9/11)?

[Dirk39]

84. The technique is there...

but it's not used in consumer cameras.


"Philips' Watermarking technology is also unique in its robustness against all common video-processing operations normally found in studios and in transmission paths, including:

* analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion
* PAL/NTSC coding and decoding
* noise reduction
* MPEG compression/decompression
* 50/60-Hz conversion
* shifting, cropping, scaling, rotating, flipping and shearing
* Survives conversion into highly compresses formats like DivX and WMV"
http://www.research.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FArticleSummary.asp?lNodeId=984&channel=984&channelId=N984A2913

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Nlighten1]

104. Finally...

someone with some real technical information and NOT just a bunch of hyperbole.

Good Job!

[Q]

117. Good points...

...but the signal/signature is found by digital editing software. A consumer digital video camera doesn't have an intentional 'watermark' or signature...although this type of technology will soon be standard. The 'signature' some of us are referring to is one generated by a specific alignment of the recording heads...unique to every camera. Further...every camera records a certain amount of 'noise' particular to that camera. That noise would be the same on everything that camera records. As I mentioned in another post...one could use the analogy of rifling marks on a bullet shot by a certain gun.

- Is there a way to verify this story? Probably not. Does it matter in the larger scheme of things? It does if we care about the truth. I have no way of testing out this theory because there is no access to the other recordings of the camera in question. So it's one of the (many) theories that will have to be put on hold or discounted completely for lack of supporting evidence.

- It might be nice if those who discover these types of theories don't start threads with 'smoking gun' in the title. On the other hand...posters should give these people a break as they attempt to find the 'key' to unlock the truth about the murder of Berg.

[Dirk39]

81. The technology

http://www.research.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FArticleSummary.asp?lNodeId=984&channel=984&channelId=N984A2913

If you read this paper about what has to be done to watermark a video, I hardly doubt that a consumer camera today fingerprints the videos in a way that survives the quality loss and a low quality copy as the Berg-Video.
There was another study done, a few years ago, about the possibilities to identify consumer cameras. It wasn't possible with a Sony then and the cheaper cameras could only be identified by their shortcomings.
http://geradts.com/html/Documents/cameras.htm

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Dookus]

89. ah, but don't you see?

even when thoroughly debunked, this will be added to the "list of anomalies" that aren't anomalies. The mere number of such anomalies that aren't anomalies will be used as evidence that the Bush administration, in an attempt to take the focus off Iraq, murdered a US citizen in Iraq.

[Dirk39]

90. You're right,

but I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
I am simply 99,99% sure that the single camera can't be identified under this circumstances. It would be even nearly impossible to determine the type of camera that was used.
Dirk

[Pachamama]

95. Anybody got a good link to the full Berg Video? I can't seem to find one.

...I have a friend who wants to view it and she can't find it either...I thought I bookmarked one, but can't find it now..

[funkybutt]

98. it's bullshit

#! "kodak film experts"..it's not film, it's digital...so wouldn't it be Kodak digital imaging experts

#2 the prison camera being the same one...is quite a coincidence

[seabeyond]

100. just a comment

the camera doesnt have to be a soldiers. the contractors were the ones that ordered pictures. could be their camera

i am not into this conspiracy or not. just listening to all the stuff

[troublemaker]

105. Hey everybody, I missed the evening news.

How did they cover this? Was it the lead story?

[FreakinDJ]

109. Not News yet........but kinda makes you wonder

All this file stuff....I mean the whole internet, was developed by companies like Xzerox, Kodac, and IMB under contract by DOD

So could there by a digital sig ....? Kinda makes you wonder

Every thing I have seen on the Berg Video SMELLs and SMELLs BAD. Some thing is difinitly wrong given all the conflicting statements by the State Dept, and the appearent smear by the FBI's timely release of the 911 connection.

Then there is all the CIS stuff. digital enhancement and sound recognition.............maybe there is a link

[thebigidea]

107. plenty of things are fishy with the Berg case, but this is utter bullshit

film? digital watermarks? on consumer cameras that have been WMVed?

what a crock of absolute shit.

Then again, I'm cranky because my camera is broken and I can't tape any more news skits.

(but still! you can't fucking ID consumer camcorders. Absolute lie.)

[Q]

112. Hate to diagree with one of my favorite 'videographers'...

...but you CAN discern if video is shot from the SAME camera. There's an unmistakeable signature generated...not unlike the rifling on a bullet shot from a particular gun.

- It's not a 'crock' of shit. Ask any 'professional' digital video expert. I'm certainly not going to trash anyone who doesn't believe this....but to dismiss it out of hand is...well...a crock of shit.

[thebigidea]

116. ok, how do you see this "unmistakable signal"

show me. with a vectorscope or the like.

Though my political work is sloppy and nobudget, video/film is my life.

How about I make a series of clips using different cameras, and you try and tell me which camera did which clip?

could you tell the difference using the masters? how about a copy on VHS?

what about the differences once the clips are degraded, blocky WMV ala Berg?

Betcha I can fool you. Or have you already fooled yourself?

Though technology to create a digital watermark exists, it most certainly isn't used on the vast array of consumer camcorders cranked out by dozens of manufacturers over the past decade.... this is phantom tech, like a tv spy movie claiming you can zoom in and make out details like writing on a newspaper or something.

Video quibble aside, thanks for the complement!

Of course, all avenues should be pursued when examing the Berg case... it stinks like crazy! But this particular avenue leads to a big "nuh uh."

[Q]

124. "Betcha I can fool you. Or have you already fooled yourself"

- I'm fooled all the time. My opinion is based on 20 years as a medical photographer/videographer and production manager for an independent TV station. The technology I'm talking about is available in the 'high-end' digital video editors such as Avid and Final Cut. It's used to guarantee continuity in video shot on different tapes and with different cameras. It can also be used to identify video shot from the same camera and put in in 'sync'. And once again...we're not talking about techology 'in camera'....it's software based.

- On edit: it's true that these distinctive 'signatures' can be weakened when copied/compressed into a different format. WMV is one of the worst. But distinguishing marks can still be found unique to a certain camera. (Explained in another thread.)

- Will I take your bet that you can 'fool' me? Probably not. It would take many hours away from my work...and unless you're willing to pay me...I'd rather pay my mortgage than prove a point on DU.

- I suggest that we dismiss NOTHING...but take note of it and put it on a list to later verify or dismiss based on new evidence. It's like the apparent AUDIO at the end of the tape. Some have been able to filter out enough of the background noise to get a better idea of what's being said and by whom. But it can't be considered valid unless and until there's supporting evidence of some kind. And even if we FOUND a smoking gun...who out there would believe us in this atmosphere of doubt and suspicion?

[thebigidea]

128. Sure, I've got access to Avid and Final Cut. What "high end" tech?

What tool/filter/etc are you talking about, specifically.

"My opinion is based on 20 years as a medical photographer/videographer and production manager for an independent TV station."

I've got about 15 years doing film/video on every sort of format/budget from features to commercials to industrials to silly political comedy on the web at present.

But resume penis size don't enter into it.

"And once again...we're not talking about techology 'in camera'....it's software based."

Ok, what menu is it under. Be specific. I've either got the software here or at work.

What filter or plugin do you use (and which version of Avid) to pluck out the fingerprint of a video?

And how would that apply to a WMV compressed video?

[Q]

137. Didn't intend...

...to compare penis' or video expertise. But rather than carry on this 'comparison' until the cows come home...here's a link that can explain ONE of the methods to determine signal/signature. http://www.leader.co.jp/english/technic/tech_d1.html

- But you've already hit upon the method that is most likely to determine if a set of videos come from the same camera. And once again we get back to the analogy of a bullet from a particular gun. As you know...each gun produces a unique 'signature' on bullet when it's fired trough a barrel. Law enforcement routinely uses this method to determine which bullets come from which gun. It's an identification process.

- Now consider the video shot in a camera as a bullet. No matter how many videos you shoot with that camera they will ALL have a signature unique to THAT camera. The signature might degrade or change over time...but enough will remain for indentification purposes. Some of these artitifacts may indeed be masked or obsured when compressed with a shitty format such as WMV...but no matter how many generations of copying or compression...certain identifying factors CAN remain.

- If you want to test this out yourself....take two video segments shot from the same camera. Study the first video for anything that looks like a flaw or a glitch. It might be a 'flutter' in the bottom or sides of the frame. You can analyize this visually and with a video wave form. Now compare what you find in the first segment with the second. You'll (more than likely) see the same artifacts/distortions/flaws in the second video for obvious reasons.

- But unless we have videos in question for comparison...we're just pissing in the wind here and chatting about video technology. It HAS been great chatting with another video 'freak' though.

[FreakinDJ]

118. I'm with you on this one Q

The fat lady has not sung on this story yet and yes I think there may be some thing to this story.

Not ready to run out and shout it from the roof tops but by the amount of arguement it generates I would say it strikes a nerve some where

[thebigidea]

120. well, my nerve is struck because Karl Rove obviously pays me to distract

I just wish he'd stop bouncing all his checks, its become a real problem lately.

[Dookus]

122. What strikes a nerve

is proclaiming an anonymous post on a Yahoo message board regarding speculative technology is aired as a "smoking gun".

[FreakinDJ]

130. Agreed ...the source is questionable......not the technology

if you read my earlier post you would notice I am not ready to shout it from the roof tops yet

but from the report it definitely is possible

Any way I take nothing as Gospel until I follow the story for a while

[EV1Ltimm]

115. oh thank god, i'm not the only person to call bullshit. nt

[kerry-is-my-prez]

123. Thanks for reporting this bushgottago. We'll find out soon enough

if there's anything to it. Don't pay attention to all of the naysayers here. I don't understand why we shouldn't hear about this.

[FreakinDJ]

125. Better then a Watermark...It is a Digital Finger Print

We have tested the errors in 12 different cameras of the brand Trust. There were in each camera at least 5 pixels that had pixel defects, and each CCD had pixel defects on another place. For each camera we could distinguish the next numbers of pixels defects: 8, 10, 12, 6, 13, 5, 7, 12, 9, 11, 8, 15 and 25. We counted these pixel defects by comparing five images acquired by the same camera and finding the pixel defects that were reproducible in these images.

As i read it each camera well have some flaws in the pixels. These flaws and there arraingment in the frame are unique.

Sounds like a Digital finger Print to me folks

[Q]

126. This is essentially what we're talking about...

...Every camera has a unique 'fingerprint' based on many factors and the use/history of that particular camera. It might be a range of missing/distorted pixels. It could be a flaw in the lens or recording heads. Digital video editing software can pick up and quantify these 'distortions'.

- Nonetheless...there's no way to prove this without more material to study...or unless someone steps forward to 'confess'. And what are the odds of that happening?

[thebigidea]

129. possibly, if you had high quality footage. but from a WMV?

from a shitty, slurred, super compressed, artifact-ridden WMV?

or the original MPEGs from the digital cam?

[FreakinDJ]

132. not enough to convict

unless all of it is compared to the original camera is what I read as far as pixel flaws, but then there were the noise patterns.

Perhaps examining both in synchronous would be a very telling tale

[Q]

133. One of my older digital cameras...

...records a 'streak' at the bottom of the frame. If it were film it would look like a long, continous stratch. I can still shoot video with it though because the streak is 'out of frame' when cropped to a standard (US) video format...such as 640 x 480. In other words...things are recorded that don't show up or aren't obvious in the final product. Another camera might have a flaw in the lens or recording head where several pixels appear dead (black)...but can't be seen in the formated resolution. Changing the resolution and compression can sometimes allow these to be seen as unique to one camera.

- Sometimes 'artifacts' are exactly what you're looking for....as mentioned above. Apparently randon artifacts...upon further study...can be seen as similiar in nature and would be too much of a coincidence if they're duplicated more than once from video to video. It's no longer random if the same pattern appears in another video shot from the same camera.

- Will these unique characteristics show up after being slopped over to windoze format? Chances are they will and this is what video analysis is all about. But it takes time and lots of expensive equipment and software. Hey...the CIA has this type of technology...maybe they'll do it for us?

[exploited]

136. Absolutely

Most of the digital data gets junked during compression and Kodak/other_camera_manufacturers don't have proprietry rights over compression software to be able to control what stays and what goes.

This is a bogus theory but hey, if anyone has the original (non compressed) file, by all means, go ahead, run with it.

[FreakinDJ]

139. How does dead pixels get junked during compression

either they work or they don't

[Q]

140. They don't get 'junked'...

...just disguised by compression and resolution. The resolution of the Berg video is apparently different than what was originally shot by the killers or their 'helpers'. Both a higher and lower resolution can disguise 'dead' pixels or other unique characteristics. But remember...you're looking for a 'pattern' here...and more often than not...resolution itself is not enough to hide those patterns if they're studied in detail with an eye towards finding the similarities.

- But once again...unless we have access to the videos in question...this is simply an exercise in futility. It's just one more theory to discuss until the next one comes along.

[exploited]

143. Data DOES get junked in compression

That's the idea! A large file is reduced to a smaller file (about 10% of the original) by reducing the number of bits (1's & 0's) that are used to build the file. They are lost (lossy compression)not 'disguised'.

A large file is compressed by reducing the resolution and by removing the actual data (1's & 0's) for parts of the image that don't need to be explicitly updated to maintain the illusion of motion.

Pixels only exist in your monitor and they are manipulated by the data (1's & 0's) they recieve. It typically takes 8 bits of data to tell one pixel what to display. If a pixel doesn't need to update it can appear 'dead' meaning it doesn't need another set of bits to tell it what to do. These can be junked. All it needs is a reference to the previous set of bits.

Reducing the resolution alone would most likely disguise any "visible pattern". That's not how it would be analyzed though. A digital signiture is specific arrangement of bits not an arrangement of pixels. As I said before, compression software is not propietry so it would have no obligation to maintain a signiture in its intact state. If it's not intact, it's not a digital sig.

[Kazak]

141. Even if it is complete bullshit...

Has anybody even looked at the two films to see if they *could* have been shot by the same camera? I imagine it would be fairly easy to tell by quality of video and probably other attributes, what about the time signatures...do they match, in style? I could totally see them using the same cameras for both acts.

[Dookus]

145. well that's exactly the topic being discussed

First, whether it is in fact possible to determine two pieces of video were shot using the same camera.

However... what has not been determined is:

1) Was the Berg video shot on digital or videotape?
2) Does anybody have the original? I think the answer is no.
3) Does anybody have the original video files from Abu Ghraib? I think the answer is no. In fact, as far as I know, no video from Abu Ghraib has been released, despite what the blogger wrote.
4) Does such video "fingerprinting" survive the conversion to low-resolution WMV? It appears the answer would be no.


This whole thread is endlessly amusing. Some anonymous blogger stated something pretty outrageous, and everybody runs with it. People have already decided the US killed Berg, and will take ANY factoid, no matter how preposterous, to back up that claim.

BTW... anybody see the photo of the dead Iraqi that was released this week? He was pudgy! It must be a trick!