About Berg Photos--Is this for real?

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 naked 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.

Found this at www.prisonplanet.tv...

Here is the Yahoo post: news.messages.yahoo.com...

Anyone know if this is for real? Do you know how you would go about checking for this? If you do not have the original files how would these "finger prints" be detectable?
If people really think that the US or CIA has done this, why would they let Kodak inspect the photos. You would have thought they would have been destroyed or misplaced long before they got anywhere near Kodak's people.

What do you think?

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Kata]

I don't think it was the CIA or US, I think it was some freaky messed up people. It could be US sympathizers, could be a lot of possiblities.

The sources are questionable. It's like citing ATS as the original source with no backup:

Digital Watermarks Prove Berg and Abuse Cameras Were the Same?

Alex Jones' Prison Planet | May 25 2004

"There are several postings on message boards suggesting that the digital watermarks on the Berg and Abu Ghraib videos are exactly the same."

"The following is from a Yahoo message board..."

"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."


Well, there is an acid test tonight... but I bet you won't see it on Fox.

Ofttimes there is less rotten in Denmark than there is in the US.

Himm, guess we'll just have wait and see if it shows on the news.

I'm sure they could find more reliable sources then a message board? no?

who claims to have the original videotapes ?

the wear & tear on each videotape can differ from brand to brand.

all what al jazeera have given away is a copy of the videotape they received.

also what format was the orignal ?
VHS
NTSC
HI 8
8MM



besides the surface on the videotape have passed different devices from contruction via recording to play.
everytime a videotape passes the heads it is slightly damaged so the more you do the more damage will occur.




[Edited on 25-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

I sincerely doubt this info will be publicized if its real. The last thing the U.S. military wants is for the facade of terrorism to be lifted on them.

It's just too implausible to believe that:

1) The originals of the videos were available for such an analysis...

2) Such an analysis could be done w/o the originals...

3) Copies of originals would provide the correct signature. In fact, I'm guessing that the 'similar signature' these guys are seeing is a result of the fact that the copies they have were made with the same machine and they're really seeing their own recording signature and not that of the original cameras.

This is the original message on yahoo, dated May 21:
Yahoo watermark message
I don't know if it's real.

I did some searching on watermarking and Kodak does have a system for films that can detect which theater a film was copied from.
They don't need the original, even if it was filmed off of the screen with a camcorder, they can still tell where it came from:

Kodak Invisible watermarking:
With this technology, every screening of every digitally projected movie could have its own unique code. This code, which is buried in the pixels, is invisible to the audience but is copied into the pirated version. These �watermarks� provide the �fingerprints� for tracing where and when the movie was stolen.

...the watermark can survive the actual process of capturing a projected movie with a camcorder. Moreover, the amplitude of the Kodak watermark is such that it is invisible to the viewer in the theater, thus maintaining the image quality that is such an important part of the movie-going experience. In the ShoWest demo, 16 bits of information were embedded in each frame of the movie, and it took less than 15 frames (0.5 sec) of captured video to extract the 16 bits with 100% reliability. Often, the watermark was successfully extracted using fewer than 15 frames, sometimes only one or two frames.

It sounds like they are still developing it though.
I don't know if there is something similar in camcorders.

Folks: Get a damned grip (no pun intended). Here's the scoop:

(1) Video cameras catch analog data, turn the analog data into digital data, and then turn the digital data into digital 1's and 0's stored on tape. [optics - ccd sensor - tape].

(2) The tape has encoding patterns that can easily help identify which BRAND, MODEL and subsequently the make of the camera.

(3) The tape was converted into DIGITAL MEDIA through another D - A - D process.

(4) In conversion to DIGITAL MEDIA, the ANALOG/DIGITAL patterns that identify the magnetic media (tape) are ELIMINATED.

(5) Since the thing everyone has access to is the DIGITAL MEDIA, no one possibly has any electronic evidence that can link this together. Period.

(6) Further, I think we're mixing up a specific with a generality. To wit, "the video cameras were the same" says that:

Option A: The video cameras were the same make and model?
Option B: The video cameras were the SAME VIDEO CAMERA (serial #)?

And further, Option B - even if we had the ORIGINAL TAPE, wouldn't show us that fact unless we ALSO had access to the VIDEO CAMERA itself. Much like a GUN BARREL is to a BULLET the TAPE is to the HEAD MECHANISM in the recording unit.

Bottom line: People will believe anything.

Im loving this story about the digital watermarks... technology has thrown a nice little twist into the mix... hopefully the Bush Facist regime will get taken out