Berg Video - SMOKING GUN?

[RBHam]

From marc.perkel.com


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 watermarks 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 !!!
http://marc.perkel.com/

[usregimechange]

1. I don't believe it. I will wait for the facts... nt

[malatesta1137]

2. I totally believe it.

I also believe that it was directly ordered by Cheney to manipulate Americans/media.

[QC]

3. There's a real big thread on this.

Lots of discussion there that you might find interesting. Stuff like digital watermarks and all that.

[dumpster_baby]

61. where is this thread? -eom

[NMDemDist2]

4. he cites nothing where he got that, no links

nothing

[Speck Tater]

5. But the real news is

that the camera in question uses technology not available here on Earth, proving that the camera belonged to space aliens who implanted mind control chips in the heads of the guards and forced them to do the alien's bidding.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Yes the technology does exist already

http://webreference.com/multimedia/watermarks.html

Digital watermarking software applications are making their way into the Internet arena. These programs/plug-ins embed information about the author into video, audio or graphics files. This information, when decoded with the appropriate software, can reveal things such as the author's address, terms of use, copyright date, etc. Watermarks are unremovable and unalterable. The information does not degrade with file duplication and does not perceptively disrupt the original data file. For more information regarding digital watermarks, see the articles section.


http://poseidon.csd.auth.gr/signatures/


WATERMARKS DEVELOPED IN OUR LAB
Our Watermarks can be used to sign digital still images, (color or gray scale), digital video , and digital audio signals. They are characterized by the following technical characteristics:

* They are generated by pseudorandom number generators, chaotic and mixing systems.
* They are embedded into the spatial domain of images or audio signals by producing invisible modifications and without increasing the original size.
* They are detected by using Statistical Hypothesis Testing, which provides the probability of a false alarm error. Thus the detection is trustworthy and can be used to prove copyright ownership.
* They are robust under filtering, noise and JPEG (MPEG) compression.

[Dookus]

20. Yes

digital watermarking exists. But it doesn't come automatically in every commercially-available handheld camcorder.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

93. unlikely

The technology referenced here would be something that would need to be intentionally applied to a piece of digital video. Somehow methinks the terrarists or CIA mafia Castro hit-men didn't do this.

[BigDaddyLove]

44. I knew it.................

I just knew it.

:bounce:

[Momof1]

6. Bullsh*t

A lot more proof needed than that.

[punpirate]

7. Are there names of people at Kodak saying this?

I'd look at Perkel's site, but it's tiresome wading through all the posts from naysayers to get to any real info.

This is something that requires considerable substantiation, and I'm curious about the phrase "digital watermarks." All I remember being said of what's on the video are time/date stamps. I'm wondering if there's something distinctive about the image that verifies the individual camera, and can't think of any. Maybe brand of camera, but not individual camera.

Make no mistake, I think there's a lot of very odd stuff in the video, but I'm very curious about the means by which Kodak techs can determine a specific camera from the image or other markers on the image.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

95. Difficult to get even that close...

>Maybe brand of camera, but not individual camera.

In most cases you can't even drill down that far, because a lot of the encoder/decoder hardware is sourced from the same vendors by different brands.

[freeforall]

8. I believe it!

Hope this gets out if true.

Would like to have a reference though.

[HFishbine]

87. Huh?

You "believe" it and hope it gets out "if" true?

[daveropeswing]

92. Kinda like Christianity, isnt it?

"You "believe" it and hope it gets out "if" true?"


mq/wp

[Fixated]

9. uh....

Here's something in that post:

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.


More unique than a fingerprint? What the hell does that mean? Everyone has their own fingerprint....how can you get more unique than that?

[w13rd0]

15. No, actually...

...everyone doesn't have their own fingerprint. When one combines all their fingerprints, then one increases the odds that there are no present day "dopplegangers", but certain ways of contructing GUID strings, which could be encoded in images (just do a lookup on FBI investigations of al Queada passing messages in encoded images on innocuous websites) and extracted by someone with knowledge of the data location, and a "public key", that would, mathematically, be far more statistically unique than a single fingerprint.

I don't actually buy this story for other reasons, but the technology to do image watermarking and data embedding does most certainly exist, I've used it. It's actually developed to the degree that one could take a cropped portion of the image and extract the same watermark, much like a snip of a hologram still carries the complete image. Cross-reference image watermarking, image copyrighting, terrorism, FBI & investigation.

The same technology also exists in the backends of MS operating systems, though they say it is disabled, such that certain document types can be "traced". For reference, look up digital watermarking, virii, FBI & investigation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

96. Unsourced.

>There has been a semi-secret government initiative to add digital
>signatures to various digital consumer products.

I have no idea about the validity of this, but it's safe that the gov't has a semi-secret program to do any given Nefarious Thing X

>Photocopiers and digital cameras store an encrypted signature to
>identify the unit that made the video.

Currently, no. They do not.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. "f this story is actually true"

Yup. That is an important question. So far there is no substantiation of the un-sourced claim. It would also deserve a "HOLY SHIT!!!" if it were proved that the lizard people from the center of the Earth had emerged in order to frame a bunch of innocent fundie fanatics through the strategic distribution of patio furniture in Iraq.

[ima_sinnic]

11. an apparent Kodak worker posted it on a yahoo message board

NEWS- Berg & Abu VidCamera is SAME
by: mfc1212 (M/Rochester NY) 05/21/04 03:15 pm
Msg: 12296 of 18681
24 recommendations

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

what needs to happen is that this posting is spread by e-mail and internet postings to the point that the media can no longer ignore it. The poster says the story will "break on national News tonite," i.e., Saturday night, but as far as I know that has not happened--yet. It is not unreasonable to speculate that, if true, whoever is in charge of it at Kodak might hesitate (in the present climate of lies, violence & retribution) to come forth with the truth.

[RBHam]

13. Another card in the house of lies...

about to be yanked away...

i knew it was a psy-op as soon as I heard of it on the radio...

4 rules to live by, upon considering the veracity of a news event and attempting to pierce the veil of the Empire's official lies and disinformation...

1. Qui bono? Who benefits politically?

2 Follow the money...(well, sice 3.2 TRILLION dollars is MISSING from the Pentagon's books due to BLACK operations....)...

2. There is such a thing as too many coincidences...

4. Finally, you are being lied to. Days after 9-11, Rumsfeld called a press conference to announce the creation of an office of disinformation. He planned, literally, to lie to the American people to further the aims of the War Of Terror and, of course, for their ultimate own good. After the predicted firestorm of criticism was launched from the press and organizations concerned with the powers of the state, Rummy announced he had disbanded the office. THAT WAS THE FIRST OFFICIAL LIE.

[Dookus]

14. well

who benefits? Good question.

Not the Bush administration, that's for sure. Nobody has explained HOW they benefit from this other than to anger Americans. Well, they could anger Americans without murdering one film in Iraq. In fact, if they're trying to distract from the mess in Iraq, murdering an American in Iraq on tape is a piss-poor idea. I could think of a thousand things that would be a better distraction for people willing to murder for political gain.

Too many coincidences? How many? This is my pet peeve - 100 "anomalies" get thrown out, 98 are debunked, yet people still say there are "too many coincidences". This is the same logic used to "prove" that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster. It's sloppy thinking. An argument consisting of 10 falsehoods is no more powerful than an argument consisting of 1 falsehood.

[ima_sinnic]

16. Dookus, it will be so gratifying to prove you wrong

--who benefits? who benefitted from the murder of a tourist in the movie "Missing," which is based on true fact? (did you ever see it, with Jack Lemmon?)--a tourist in Chile who "knew too much" had to be offed, he was staying at the same hotel as the CIA and inadvertently caught on to their role in the assassination of Allende and in the coup that installed Pinochet, he was taking pictures and notes--and when his father went down to Chile to investigate, he turned up dead along a roadside too--and the U.S. denied they had talked to him either.

It also benefits the U.S. to get the citizens inflamed and angry at "al Qaeda" (which I'm starting to feel has about as much credence as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny) again, near an election and while BushCo is at the rim of the mighty bathtub-drain whirlpool.

[Dookus]

19. What am I wrong about?

I haven't said what happened. I'm just saying the "evidence" provided by those who are convinced it's a US set-up is very weak. I never asserted it was al-Zarqarwi, or even Al-Qaeda who committed the murder. But I've seen no evidence that's even remotely convincing that says it was the US.

As to getting Americans angry at Al-Qaeda, I think they are currently angry. If the administration wanted to inflame that, they could do it in a hundred better ways. How about an Al-Qaeda attack against Americans here in America? Or the Phillippines. Or any country OTHER than Iraq? Or.... how about planting WMD's in Iraq?

The fact is, though, that according to the polls, this murder didn't do a damned thing to re-inforce support for this war - in fact, it probably did the opposite. Killing American civilians in Iraq does nothing to convince Americans that the war is a good idea, and nobody as comic-book evil as you seem to think the CIA is would think it would.

Further, there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence that the CIA is in much of a mood to assist the Bush administration.

Your opening line shows the problem with your argument: you'll be gratified to prove me wrong. Not to find the truth. Not to use facts and reason to determine what happened - just to prove somebody wrong.

[HFishbine]

86. When you prove Dookus wrong

Will you be using "true fact" or just fact?

[Dookus]

88. lol...

so far, there's been no "fact", much less "true fact" on this issue.

Yura_sinnic, but Ima_skeptic. Show me some evidence.

[MGKrebs]

25. Falsehoods aside, there is legitimacy in "connecting the dots".

I would expect that very many criminal investigations consist of looking at a set of seemingly innocent events and connecting them to form a sinister picture.

For example:
A guy deposits $10,000 in cash into his bank account. No problem.
The guy had just gotten back from a trip to Colombia. Nothng wrong with a little vacation in Colombia.
But given the timing, and the known circumstances regarding Colombia, the DEA will probably want to look more closely at this guy.

Al Capone runs a modestly profitable business.
Al Capone conspicuously spends a lot of money.
Two innocent events that led to his conviction of tax evasion...because someone connected the dots.

[Torgo4]

50. CIA? Nope...CIA Will Rat Out BushCO/CheneyInc.

The CIA already produced proof that they wanted nothing to do with torture of prisoners as early as a year ago.

If the Berg video was done at the prison or by US folks, it was probably done by locals (MPs, MI (lotsa linguist in MI MOS), Contracted Civs with Arabic speakers) and done very quickly and hastily, since the prison "scandal" was NOT going away!

Bush/Cheney going down.

"The Revenge of Joe Wilson & Valerie Plame!"

[PATRICK]

27. Kodak would hesitate

to war against the hand that feeds and punishes. If a worker leaked it and it is true I would trust their expertise implicitly. They have evaluated and exposed a lot of fraud with forensic certainty.

odd how no such expertise at all has ever surfaced in the media concerning all the other videos of Osama. We are all glommed on CIA reports and evaluations. You would think everyone else was watching in awe from the nineteenth century.

It does add up if true to a lot of other details. And all their statements and stories from top to bottom sound like lies so I wouldn't be surprised.

Outside of Al Qaeda the most with things to gain are in order the American forces involved in the scandals or the Iraqi allies involved in the same. Occam's Razor about to take its own heads?

[Dookus]

12. of course

because if the administration wanted to deflect attention from the mess in Iraq, the first thing they'd do would be to behead an American in Iraq. :eyes:

There's already a long thread on this topic showing how ridiculous the claims are.

Who has the original video? Was it on tape or digital? Do these fingerprints survive compression? Do these fingerprints even exist?

I love how people chime in with "I believe it" in the absence of ANY evidence that a) the writer IS at Kodak b) that this technology exists, c) that this technology, if it does exist, can be applied to compressed videos on the web.

[ima_sinnic]

17. another posting by the alleged Kodak worker:

when asked why the story hadn't been reported to the media:

Re: NEWS- Berg & Abu VidCamera is SAME
by: mfc1212 (M/Rochester NY) 05/21/04 03:28 pm
Msg: 12618 of 18681
2 recommendations

It's because this was being done at the Kodak Hawkeye Plant over on St. Paul and Driving Park where it's the top secret Govt contract stuff and they make lens for cameras and satelittes for NASA and Military.
Seems like this was possibly part of the Congressional Investigation. Word is there are alot of guys there with the Sunglasses and Dark Blue Suits and same barber crew cuts..lol
But word spreads fast from Hawkeye over to Kodak Park with Kodak Intranet.

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&action=m&board=37138445&tid=apprisonerabusephotos&sid=37138445&mid=12618&thr=12296&cur=12296&dir=d

---------------

hey, yes, it might be some crackpot--but then again, maybe not.

on edit: link

[Dookus]

21. Yes, he may be a crackpot, and maybe not...

but that doesn't make both possibities equally likely.

An anonymous post on a Yahoo message board doesn't convince me of anything.

I'm sure I could find something on some yahoo board, somewhere, that says George Bush is a great President. Doesn't make it true.

[PATRICK]

28. As a local this rings true

The details about them underestimating techies at Kodak rings even more true. A false story would be more cloak and dagger and exaggerated.

It could be misinterpreted in the rumor mill, but the spin will certainly shy away from this conclusion in any event. Damage control- if necessary.

[stickdog]

62. You mean like the way that news services and the CIA both said

"I believe it" was Zarqawi?

[Dookus]

66. Huh?

That has nothing to do with my questions -

Was the original shot on videotape or digital?

Who has the original tape or file?

Were the Abu Ghraib videos shot on videotape or digital?

Who has teh original tapes or files? I haven't even seen copies released.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

97. can survive compression, but point is moot anyway

> Do these fingerprints survive compression?

It is possible to encode digital video with a watermark that can survive compression. However, there is a lower threshold where the poor encoding makes the watermark unreadable. All of this is moot however, as one must *intentionally* insert the watermark into the video.

[truthseeker1]

101. Ok, so what if they wanted to get caught?

What if the CIA wanted to do a shoddy job and inserted the watermark to make sure it looked like a U.S. job? The CIA is exacting it's revenge on the Bush administration. I was beginning to wonder how long it was gonna take. First, Berg; now, the Iran-Chalabi scandal....probably more to come.

[TomNickell]

22. It's compressed video off a web site!

The Berg video is a file off a web site. Any 'digital watermarks' (if such things existed) would be destroyed by the compression.

Use your heads, guys.

[KoKo]

23. That's what I thought. Unless you had the original video how could you

see the same "watermark" or identifying mark? I believe the Berg story is very fishy. But, I don't think I believe the supposed Kodak employee, although this person maybe be passing along "water cooler talk" from Kodak where some folks might really be speculating about getting hold of the original film.

Maybe someone will press for the original film and really check it out if there's enough pressure from stories floating around on the internet, though. :shrug:

[Q]

24. DU is probably the wrong place to discuss such things...

...because there are far too many people willing to give the Bushies the benefit of doubt. On the other hand...there are too many willing to jump to conclusions.

- A quote from the supposed Kodak person: "Each Video camera leaves a certain signature mark, much like a fingerprint or striation markings on bullets in gun barrels."

- First of all...this is not a 'watermark'. Secondly...what this person is posting is true. The poster seems to be simply quoting someone else...heard second-hand or as a rumor. Someone could be pulling his leg or he may have overheard a serious conversation. At any rate...those who dismiss this out of hand don't seem to understand the claims being make about 'signatures'.

- Another thing...compression CAN degrade the original 'signatures' or artifacts unique to a particular camera...but enough can remain to make an identification. Of course it's always best to work with the originals. But one could do some preliminary work with a copy of the 'torture video' presumably from the same camera.

- One thing I did notice about the video used to shoot the Berg scenario was that the tape looked as if it had been used before...as hints of older images can be seen on the outer edges of the frame...outside the standard viewing area. This simply means that when a tape is used again the previous image is not entirely erased.

- Keep asking questions...but don't call something a 'smoking gun' until you actually see the smoke.

- On edit: for those saying they're 'waiting for the facts'...they might have a long wait. Why? Because things like this are done in secret and everything in their power will be done to coverup the evidence or call those asking questions 'conspiracy nuts'. Now that the media is state-controlled...it looks like their job is made even easier that investigative journalism is almost dead.

[malatesta1137]

26. Q, you write:

"DU is probably the wrong place to discuss such things..." because there are far too many people willing to give the Bushies the benefit of doubt. On the other hand...there are too many willing to jump to conclusions.

That's called freedom of speech. And why would DU be wrong for ANY kind of discussion?

No offense, but I'd rather read someone who has actually an opinion than you. Your post was so convoluted and on the fence, it made my head spin.

[ima_sinnic]

29. I think Q means that

... if you post anything hinting that the execution was staged or might implicate BushCo, there are some here who will ridicule it as "crackpot conspiracy garbage." And on the other hand, avidly hating BushCo can color somebody's judgment and give the person motivation to really truly believe something that a more objective person might take with a grain of salt.

I don't need "opinion"--in fact, that's what I DON'T want. I found Q's post helpful because it was objective and we need more of that. I think Q might be saying that the most useful discussion of the video technology would be by people who have no agenda, pro or con regarding BushCo, but who have expertise in analyzing videos and technical stuff like that, rather than on a political discussion board.

[malatesta1137]

32. "I don't need "opinion"--in fact, that's what I DON'T want."

What are we all doing here then? You don't need 'opinion' but you gave us a few just in your last post.

No on here claims expertise, and no one here should expect it. This is a discussion board and that's what we do, we discuss events. What Q is advocating is censorship.

[ima_sinnic]

39. Q is not "advocating censorship"

--and let me rephrase my own post: I would prefer some real facts. Of course opinions are welcome if not inevitable and of course I give them all the time.

Nobody is trying to censor anybody.

[Q]

30. Have you looked at the other threads on this subject?

- Those asking questions are made to look like nutcases. That's what I meant when I said this is probably the wrong place. Those who disagree can't simply say they disagree...they have to ridicule others for their questions about Berg.

- I understand that it's called 'freedom of speech'...because I said the exact same thing myself in another thread related to this issue.

- Part and parcel of free speech is being able to read anyone you want. I'm 'on the fence' on this issue because there is no supporting evidence to back up the various claims made about the Berg video. In other words...in order to verify the claims made about the same camera shooting both the prison torture and the 'beheading'...one would have to have at least a copy of both to even begin any kind of 'investigation'. As far as I know...the videos coming out of Iraq are all being held by Rummy's Pentagon and no one in the public has access.

- Look at the other thread on this subject. There are plenty of 'opinions' there.

[malatesta1137]

33. It's part of freedom of speech

to label conspiracy theorists 'nutcases'. I've been called a nutcase before and my life went on.

Now you are on the fence because of lack of evidence, can you explain to me the orange jump suite, the golden ring, the overweight fat white 'terrorists', the white chair, the lack of blood, the fact that Berg was in American custody, etc etc. What other evidence do you need? Film credits saying 'Produced at the CIA Studios in Iraq'?

[Q]

34. Sure that's part of 'free speech'...

...but you're missing the point. Those TRYING to find the facts among the bullshit don't have a means to participate in a flow of conversation that leads to the next level. Why in the fuck are you preaching to me about free speech when I've been one of the leading proponents in trying to find the truth about the Berg murder?

- I've already stated my opinion on the matter. I've posted that it's quite possible to determine if two videos were shot from the same camera. The problem remains that no one can seem to find a copy of the 'torture video' to make a comparison. There are snippets of the video in question on the web...CBS seems to have a copy...but they present it as part of a news segment and only show a couple seconds with text superimposed. This renders it useless for inspection.

- If you want to 'help' then find a longer version of the torture video and give us a link.

[malatesta1137]

35. the Berg controversy

is not only about the camera that shot the video. Two totally different cameras could have been used for the Berg killing and the torture tapes and Americans could STILL be behind both.

you ask 'Why in the fuck are you preaching to me about free speech when I've been one of the leading proponents in trying to find the truth about the Berg murder?'

Leading proponents? and you say DU is not the place to discuss the camera issue? Sorry, DU is the place to discuss ANYTHING, even if we are not experts on 'watermarks', and members should not patronize others.

[Q]

36. But THIS thread is about...

...the camera. The premise is that the same camera shot both the prison torture AND the 'beheading'. And indeed it does appear that two cameras were used for the Berg video.

- I agree that 'anything' within the rules can be discussed on DU...but that wasn't my point. The point is that the subject has been so debased on DU that disruptors tear apart every thread before any kind of continuity is achieved. Discuss away...I certainly won't stop you. But may I also point out that you've spent more time bitching about my comment than discussing the subject of the thread?

[ima_sinnic]

40. I must agree

that the poster seems more concerned with your comment, which he/she appears to like distorting repeatedly, than with any real discussion of the mystery. Also that you are apparently wrong-headed to reserve judgment about who the executioners are.

[Q]

42. Well...I have my 'suspicions'...

...but they've already been stated in other threads. The problem is that this is the most corrupt US government in history...so it's difficult to keep up with the lies and scandals.

- Like most other Americans...I have a hard time believing that our government might be involved in the execution of an American. But when I see torture pictures and video snippets...it's clear that SOME are capable of such things. When you put THAT together with the inconsistencies in the video...it's looking more and more like Berg was NEVER released from custody and was 'interrogated to death'...with the body being beheaded to cover the original crime.

- The small segment of the video torture on CBS raised the hair on the back of my neck. The ambience seems so similiar to that of the Berg video that one could imagine the same people that tortured the Iraqi 'detainees' as capable of far worse things...such as disguising themselves and participating in a 'staged' beheading.

[ima_sinnic]

47. it seems all too clear that the "official" story is a lie

--but as to who exactly the executioners really are, I don't know. Inside Abu Ghraib prison is believable to me, but literally U.S. military??

The pieces of the puzzle are fascinating and, yes, chilling. I only hope, if the Kodak worker allegations are true, that the truth cannot be successfully covered up.

[malatesta1137]

55. you bet I'm concerned with

someone who thinks 'a discussion doesn't belong on DU'.

my first post addressed the issue, it was only after I read Q's opinion that I thought a response (off topic) was in order.

[malatesta1137]

54. you didn't address the issue at hand at all

you addressed the posters and tried to silence them with your 'this discussion not belong on Du'. Regardless of how you try to spin it now, it's inexcusable, sorry.

and my first post FYI was indeed about the issue.

[nolabels]

38. Anything does get posted here and I am stupid, so?

There are many smart people that come here and that have passed through,so? When this place mostly gets it wrong I will stop coming here, till then maybe you might try to figure out what this has to do with it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=576366

[Dookus]

53. there has been thread after thread about these...

orange jump suit? It appears NOT to be a standard-issue orange jumpsuit. The sheen appears to be a satiny material. The sleeves are long and wide. The color looks different. It appears to be a pajama-type set, not a prison jumpsuit.

White chair? Pictures have been shown here of white molded plastic chairs in Iraq outside of Abu Ghraib.

Lack of blood? There *IS* blood in the pic. It doesn't spurt out like some anime production, but there is a pool of blood. Maybe Berg was dead when they beheaded him. Maybe they severed the spinal cord with the knife first, thus stopping his heart. Maybe blood doesn't actually spurt out like in cartoons or Tarentino films. Videos of other beheadings (in Pakistan and Chechnya) also failed to show this spurting that every beheading expert here on DU seems to think must occur.

Pudgy white terrorists? Pics have been shown here of overweight Arabs and white-skinned Arabs.

Gold colored rings? Pics have been shown of Osama bin Laden and various Ayatollahs wearing gold-colored jewelry.

That's what I mean above - every single one of these is shown NOT to be meaningful, yet the litany of (debunked) "anomalies" is used, per se, as evidence that something is wrong.

People say "As soon as I heard about it, I knew the US was behind it." When Vince Foster was found dead, a lot of people just KNEW Hillary had killed him. Then they spent the next few years fitting every fact, no matter how thoroughly debunked, into their theory.

It's sloppy thinking when either side does it.

[stickdog]

63. The orange jumpsuit was standard issue. It's been confirmed by an

independent source:

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9579881%255E661,00.html

Mr Conroy said Baghdad security circles knew of the beheading of US civilian Nick Berg days before it was posted on an extremist website.

"There was the decapitated expatriate on the bridge," Mr Conroy said.

"He was dressed in orange overalls which are worn by prisoners and this may suggest it was done in retaliation for the prison abuse."

[Dookus]

67. That's not confirmation

It's a statement by a guy working at a security firm.

Furthermore, his statement doesn't indicate it's US-issued prison jumpsuit. He simply said it's something "worn by prisoners". Perhaps it's a traditional Iraqi prison uniform?

I'm not saying one way or the other. But I *DO* know it doesn't look the same as the prison suits worn by American-held prisoners shown in other photos. The material seems different and the sleeves are very different.

[stickdog]

69. Bullshit. Some are short sleeved and some are long sleeved.

The only thing keeping you from believing that it's a standard US issue orange jumpsuit is your wish to believe it isn't.

[Dookus]

70. No...

you have no idea what I wish to believe. I wish only to arrive at the truth.

I'm not discussing the length of the sleeves - I'm discussing the WIDTH of the sleeves, as well as the difference in fabric.

Furthermore, your accusations of "bullshit" aside, how does the quote you provided "verify" that it was a US-issued prison jumpsuit?

[stickdog]

Spare me your "tortured" interpretations.

"He was dressed in orange overalls which are worn by prisoners and this may suggest it was done in retaliation for the prison abuse."


What does "he was dressed in orange overalls which are worn by prisoners" mean to you?

To me, it means that Berg was dressed in orange coveralls which are worn by prisoners.

[Dookus]

74. Why the hell are you so nasty all the time?

Let's just discuss it - why must you always have so much attitude?

I've said that the quote does NOT say it's a US-issued prison suit. It could well by a prison suit used regularly in Iraq, but NOT by American forces. It could be something else. Who knows?

All you've provided is a quote from one person working for a security company - that's not proof of anything.


I'm not torturing anything - I'm pointing out that the sleeves and material shown on Berg's suit do NOT match the suits worn by other American prisoners.

[stickdog]

80. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Did the big, bad logical argument scare the wittle baby?

[Dookus]

82. Logical argument?

You've provided none whatsoever. And your reply to this proves my point that you're incapable of providing an argument without being nasty, abusive, insulting, and sarcastic.

Now... prove that the prison suit is a US-issued prison suit. A label would prove it. A photograph showing THE SAME suit worn by American-held prisoners would suffice.

And I repeat - why the hell are you so nasty?

[Selwynn]

89. Funny... I said the same thing when MIHOP was on the front page every day

...in fact I said some of the exact same things, nearly verbatim. I don't remember you taking it too well though...

[Nederland]

105. Wrong about Signatures

Another thing...compression CAN degrade the original 'signatures' or artifacts unique to a particular camera...but enough can remain to make an identification. Of course it's always best to work with the originals. But one could do some preliminary work with a copy of the 'torture video' presumably from the same camera.

The piece refers to "encrypted recording signatures". If this is truly what is involved (and I have no idea if it really is...) then it is not true that "enough can remain to make an identification". With any type of digital signature, encryption, or digital hash if even a single bit of data is changed the whole thing becomes useless. That's just the way cryptography works.

[KC]

51. Unless

'they' had the orig video to begin with, because 'they'
were the ones who video taped it.

KC

[doni_georgia]

31. Digital watermarking does exist

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is290-1/f96/watermark.html

http://www.ece.sunysb.edu/~cvl/ese558/sp2002/Written%20reports/Mequanint%20Moges/digi.htm

[HFishbine]

85. DING! Exaclty!

Why would "Kodak film experts" be examining a computer file?

Idiots.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

98. Not necessarily.

You can design digital watermarking to design compression. However, as I've stated elsewhere in this thread, you need to *intentionally* apply the watermarking to that video, and there's a lower video qualith threshhold where it becomes useless. That, plus it isn't exactly as if you can go to download.com and get watermarking technology like this.

[Q]

37. Question:

...Does anyone have a link to the newly released 'prison torture' video? Logic dictates that this theory can't go any further until we find at least a copy. The short segment shown at CBS isn't enough to examine.

[FreakinDJ]

49. When you find a copy let me know OK Q

We are going to compare the 2 videos here too. I am not going to buy into the line "it is compressed video" until I can see for myself.

Besides, compression does not erase flawed pixels

[Q]

52. Haven't found anything as of yet...

...but networks like CBS seem to have it.

- I agree that compression wouldn't disguise ALL of the pertinent data.

[RapidCreek]

57. It sure as shit doesn't...

RC

[Fear]

103. Correction, compression DOES a lot to pixels!

[Nederland]

106. Flawed Pixels?

What the hell are they? I'm a programmer who has worked with digital imaging and cryptography for 14 years, and its clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Compression changes everything in the data stream, it doesn't pick and chose what data to touch and what data to ignore.

[cerulean_ink]

41. wow.

if this is really true, the election is as good as ours. there's no positive way to spin that; first prison torture and now fake murder videos to rouse public anger. wow, they're in for it this time.

[newyawker99]

45. Hi cerulean_ink!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LesTalkMoreDo]

43. If Marc Perkel says so then it must be true

Can we look forward to Perkel on next Sundays news shows? Would that not be frosting on the burnt cake that is now amerika?

[newyawker99]

46. Hi LesTalkMoreDo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[FreakinDJ]

48. This story is gaining legs

If this turns out to be true then this can very well be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Hub caps are falling off the Bushco car on this one.

[Dookus]

56. Legs?

Can you name ONE media outlet that's reported this?

[preciousdove]

65. The Internet is driving mainstream media investigations not the other way

Hey. I posted on Monday asking about the IRR being abolished and all IRR were going to be involuntarily called up to Iraq unless they reenlisted. It was not until the following Friday that it was discussed by any newsource goggle monitors. The following week the whole outrageous stunt hit the fan and the whole mess was reported as a mistake. It took until tonight, Sunday for the local news Twin Cities MN to pick it up and I know that people called them to ask what they had heard back when they were notified that first Monday. This whole mess was almost two weeks old and already dead.

Just because the mainstream news doesn't have it yet does not mean it is false and yes people do know things that are not in the news yet. I know that one of the big stores headquartered here has already sold off two chains. I know because they use a product my brother has and they contacted him about the transfer to the new company or companies. It will not be announced until next week.

[Used and Abused]

58. These net rumors have not been addressed on any major news

outlets. If someone believes this video is a fraud then its time to emerge from the net forums and bang down the doors of every major media outlet. In other words, Marc should either put up or shutup.

[John_H]

59. LOL! Oh, the humanity. How'd they get the original video to check?

You tinfoilers ought to stick to talking patio furniture, it makes you look smarter.

[Dookus]

60. that's the big question nobody answers

I haven't even gotten an answer as to whether the Berg video was filmed digitally or on tape.

And regarding the Abu Ghraib videos... well I haven't even seen any. Where are people finding them? Are they on tape, or digital?

[LittleApple81]

64. Here is one video from the Abu Graib prison. I could not watch it, but

there you have it if you want to watch it yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/052104-1vv.htm

[Dookus]

68. thank you

that's the first I saw of it.

Does anybody know if it was shot on tape or digitally?

[avenueb]

71. no way

theres no way digital cameras have a watermark which you can differentiate one camera to the next. i could be wrong, but i dont think so.

[stickdog]

73. There's no way that you know what you are talking about.

i could be wrong, but i dont think so.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

99. You're not wrong.

>i could be wrong, but i dont think so.

You are not wrong. I work in this industry, and have been involved in pretty much the whole process of designing, shipping, and analysing returned(defective) pieces of video encoding/decoding equipment. There's no room in the process for someone to clandestinely insert such technology, and I'm quite sure it doesn't exist.

[HornBuckler]

72. I'm Not An Expert Just A Hobbyist

It Looks Like Tape - But I Believe It's Impossible To Tell From The Source On The Washington Post. If It Was In Fact Shot On Tape, Converting It To Digital Media So It Can Be Streamed Would Reduce The "Tape-Like" Qualities. Unless You Have The Source Material, I'd Say It's Impossible To Differentiate.

Edited - To Say Why I Think It's Tape - When You Film In Digital Blakcs Often Look Gray And When You Move The Camera You'll Get "Pallette Smears' Which Don't Seam To Appear In This Tape (But I Digress, The Quality And Size Is So Poor It's Hard To Tell)

[Q]

75. Tape is used for digital video...

...so I don't understand why you're trying to differentiate.

[HornBuckler]

76. Tape Is Used For Analog Recording too

So I Don't Know What You Mean.

Edited - Infact, Most Recording Done On Tape Is Analog, However There Are Ways Of Doing Digital Recording On Analog Tape, But It's Not Very Popular.

[Q]

77. Digital video is always shot on tape...

...your last post seemed to suggest that it was tape or 'something else'. There is nothing else. Digital video is shot on tape in a digital as opposed to analog format. The video in question was of course shot on tape. How it was edited is another question.

[HornBuckler]

79. Not To Be Technical But That's Not Entirely True

"Digital video is always shot on tape..."

It Can be Shot Directly To Digital Media(Like A Hard Drive, Or DVD Burning Device Directly) And Ofcourse It Could Have Been Filmed With Actual "Film"

Although That's Unlikely.

[Dookus]

83. really?

So I guess my DVD-video camera has a secret tape somewhere inside it. And my digital camera that takes short video clips and writes to a memory-card has a hidden tape somewhere.

But that's beside the point... I've conceded that the real distinction should be between digital vs. analog, not digital vs. tape.

Now that that's out of the way....

Are the videos from the Berg beheading and the videos from Abu Ghraib shot on digital or analog <insert medium here>

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

100. Nobody has yet even bothered to determine...

...whether the source video is PAL or NTSC, which should be relatively easy, even to an amateur. The fact that even this simple task hasn't been done simply points to more carelessness and irrationality on the part of the screaming consipracy wonks.

Edit: PAL or NTSC or that stupid fucking format that only the French and a few weird third world contries use, which I can't for the life of me remember the name of right now. Or something else entirely. They're all relatively easily identifiable.

[Dookus]

78. correct

I suppose I should've distinguished between digital and analog vs. digital and tape.

[TomNickell]

81. WOW!!!! 80 posts and counting!

And all about complete nonsense.

Everybody has to have a hobby, I guess.

Let's try again....

IT WAS COMPRESSED VIDEO OFF A WEB SITE. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY 'DIGITAL WATERMARKS' LEFT, EVEN IF CAMERAS HAD SUCH THINGS.

Besides that, the whole bit is based on unnamed 'Kodak film experts'.

But, maybe Bush did it down on his ranch. Had the fellow flown there and cut off his head while Condi filmed it.

[Dookus]

84. heheh...

Tom... you are, of course, correct. That's not to say that there is nothing fishy about the video... only that none of the "evidence" presented so far is meaningful.

I understand the desire to take every single question, anomaly or weirdness and fit into a preconceived theory. I saw the republicans do it to the Clintons for 8 years.

Bad logic, bad argumentation, bad science are endemic to BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

It results from the readiness to accept any possible "fact", no matter how unlikely, that reinforces your pre-conceived conclusion, and reject any data, no matter how provable, that contradicts it. Such thinking occurs among people on both extremes.

[nolabels]

90. Hey I can read #'s too what does mine say

http://napsterization.org/stories/archives/cat_digital_media.html
(snip)
April 09, 2004
unmediated: tracking the tools that decentralize the media

Last night Ryan Shaw, also at SIMS pointed me to his new group blog: unmediated. Interesting stuff. Like the current top post on Participatory Panopticons, talking about 1 mpix camera phones and how all this photo/photo/video stuff changes us and we change it, and asks a few interesting questions about the surveillance, transparancy and whether society will use these tools for good.

I am about to start testing a new game prototype developed by other SIMS people with a few friends who have Treo 600's or similar stuff, that will use our camera phone web access tools to play a photo challenge game. We take pictures, post them to the web from the phone, challenge the others to match it in a short period, and then they post. Lots of txt messaging etc. But I think it will be really fun. I can't wait. And who knows, maybe that will shift again the surveillance thing. In fact, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that anyone on the internet could see something I just took a picture of, that they might recognize it (locationally) upon my posting it to a website, than someone seeing my location on their phone, without my knowing, via dodgeball=YASN+phone. At least I'm putting the info up, and can walk away from the photo site. It doesn't mean everyone will know where I am, but instead where I was. Even if where I was with the photo happened just a few minutes before. I'd rather someone I know call me on my phone, and give me the choice of revealing where I am. The phone/photo game seems much more fun and unlikely to cause that same discomfort I feel with dodgeball. But I'll play and report. Have to wait and see.

Anyway, Ryan says he hopes they keep growing into a more cohesive topic blog covering the unmediated. I think it's a great topic blog and look forward to more stuff from the group.
Posted by Mary Hodder at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
(snip)
On Edit: missing link

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

91. Okay...

I started writing this for another thread on the same topic, but here it goes... (original poster ref'd a watermark system for use in cinemas)

>We have simultaneously developed watermarking technology that will
>enable the industry to pinpoint the time and place camcorder copies
>were made off of cinema screens.

Actually, this is an entirely different technology. What's being discussed here is a watermark in the video signal displayed *on the screen in the cinema* which will then be visible in clandestine recordings from the cinema, regardless of what camcorder is used.

i.e. Some dude walks into a showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 with a busted-up 80s VHS camcorder and proceeds to videotape the movie. He then sells copies of this to friends, who give copies to friends, etc. One happens to make its way into the hands of law enforcement or the MPAA. They review it, and based on the watermark in the cinema projection (recorded onto the VHS tape) they can figure out from which theater/showing the copy was obtained. They can then take this information and beat up on movie theaters to improve their security, etc.

This isn't to say that a technology that imprints a globally unique watermark ID onto video from camcorders isn't possible. Surely it is. However, it isn't being used currently in the industry. There are a number of issues (privacy/legality concerns being foremost) that preclude this from happening any time soon. The conspiracy theorists would have you believe differently, but they are wrong.

With currently available technology, careful analysis of a video signal may be able to yeild useful information about the make/model of camera used to record said video, but even that would be very, very difficult to begin with, as so many of these cameras use essentially the same video encoding/decoding hardware.

I think the likelihood of anyone being able to do even *that* with the Berg video is very low, due to the fact that it's been poorly encoded from a source that is god-only-knows how many generations old.

In the highly, highly unlikely even that someone were to correlate the Berg video and the Abu Ghraib video (which hasn't been released publically, so what is Kodak doing with it anyway?) then all that would mean is that *maybe* the same make/model vidcam was used (probably a military model)

And all you could conclude from that is that whoever shot the video did so using a US Military camera. Gee, I wonder how many of *those* babies have been stolen in Iraq? I mean, it's not like they're valuable or anything.

:)

So, regardless of what you chose to believe on the various theories, I think this is pretty much a red herring. From a technical standing, this is pretty suspect. It also doesn't make any sense because it's assuming that Kodak somehow has access to the Abu Ghraib video when the theorists claim that the Gov't is trying to cover it up.

I dunno, does this make sense?

[phrenzy]

94. Rude Conspiracy Nuts

Look, I'm not saying everything on that tape is what it seems, but if you read this thread it goes something like this:

Facts presented explaining every 'anomaly' found in Berg video.

Followed by

Nasty personal attack with NO facts other than the ones previously debunked to back up their argument.

Bush and his administration gained NOTHING from the Berg video. NOTHING. Nearly every idiotic point brought up to show that the video is 'fake' has been thoroughly explained, yet conspiracy theorists choose to ignore it and attack anybody who presents the facts that explain them.

It's like trying to tell them there is no Santa Claus - they just don't want to believe it. Don't ruin their fantasy of an X-Files world.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

102. is why bush* announced yesterday "he wants Abu ghraib torn down"?

"destroyed"? .......i believe :tinfoilhat: that Berg was beheaded in Abu Ghraib when i saw the video ...it was discussed here on many threads.

[TexasSissy]

104. Oh, please. That's just silly.