It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Same chair, same camera. Americans killed berg.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
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.

Yesterday new pictures were released of prison torture at Abu Ghraib prison. But not just still pictures. Yesterday 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 # !!!





posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
This is so Far all false. No one at Kodak has said anything remotely like that, Do some research before you post, do a google search and see what you get alot of Crap sites saying it. This is as Bunk as it gets IMHO



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Can you post any links to any sources to back up this claim? Without some kind of credible source you might as well post that Berg was actually an alien and what appeared to be a decapitation was indeed harmless to him. I for one believe the Berg deal was dirty but I wouldnt make a post like that without being able to provided at least some kind of link.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   


No one at Kodak has said anything remotely like that


How would you know, do you work at head office of Kodak? Technology is so advanced now that it is actually quite possible that this waterspot tracing it real. I know for a fact, that they DO have it on printers, why not digital cameras?



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
MacKiller,
When you post on ATS you're expected to provide backup for your claims. Your unique digital signature claim is just plain silly. This whole post isn't worth the electrons required to post it.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
WOW, that would take Kodak to have both the original copies of each tape. 1. No way in hell the government gave up evidance to Kodak. 2. Do they even have the original tape of Nick Berg? To the best of my knowledge, they don't even know who has the physical copy of that tape.

They are what they are, two seperate cases of human beings being inhuman. I love how it's always our government that does these things.

What if the terrorist killed Berg, and tricked our soldiers into abusing the prisoners at Abu Ghraib? My god, I think I'm onto something!!!



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
No concrete evidence right now, but it has been going around the web, thought i might as well post it here. Looks like my first post hasn't gone so well. Oh well, better luck next time I guess.

Anyways, here it one of the links I stumbled across.

www.prisonplanet.tv...



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
There MAY be other forms of digital watermarking but the one I am aware of has to do with marking a digital image to indicate the identity of a copyright holder. I know Photoshop supports the concept of embedding watermarks. Not sure what programs support it. I believe Digimark is the company that handles watermarking. From what I have seen I believe images are marked with the name of the application that created them. I could be wrong. Open an image file with a text editor and look for messages like Photoshop, Paintshop, etc. And with all the image software in existance including opensource applications it would be impossible to keep any other kinds of watermarks secret.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You never know... But it seems just as possible to me that the terrorists who had seen the prison abuse images could have tried to make it look like it was done by americans.. I wonder if we have anyone in the CIA would would be willing to saw off the head of a fellow american and speak perfect arabic and stage this barbaric act with others using the same camera used in the abuse images, all to distract away from the abuse case.. please


Of course frogs are going to evolve wings and stingers by weeks end and attack all humans!

Gazz



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
You got to be kidding me, your linking us to wack that is speculating aswell?

and btw...


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

No secret about it, and not a government initiative, there is digital coding on camera's, and has been for a long time.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Sorry, what else could I link you too? As I already said, there is no hard evidence, and it is only a theory.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
There MAY be other forms of digital watermarking but the one I am aware of has to do with marking a digital image to indicate the identity of a copyright holder. I know Photoshop supports the concept of embedding watermarks. Not sure what programs support it. I believe Digimark is the company that handles watermarking. From what I have seen I believe images are marked with the name of the application that created them. I could be wrong. Open an image file with a text editor and look for messages like Photoshop, Paintshop, etc. And with all the image software in existance including opensource applications it would be impossible to keep any other kinds of watermarks secret.


Precisely. The cameras themselves don't provide a "watermark" and there's no forensic method for telling one camera from another unless there's something very peculiar (a strange lens scratch, or rough edge on the interior that scratches footage in a unique way.)



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
No offense Mac but for you to have a theory there has to be some real basis for the claim. I cannot say for sure scientifically what you need for something to be called a theory. To me a theory implies some sort of scientific credibility. Something to me that indicates some research was done and the idea was based on some sort of fact. Even if the evidence were circumstantial.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darktalon

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

No secret about it, and not a government initiative, there is digital coding on camera's, and has been for a long time.


I'd like some links, please. I'm a semi-pro photographer and a student videographer. I'd like to see the evidence of this (and I'll check my cameras for it, since I do have geektype tools for the things.)



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I am away from home and dont have access to my computer or pictures I have taken with my digital camera. Does anyone here have access quickly to unaltered pics they have taken with their digital cameras? Can you open the file in a text editor and see what kind of information the camera leaves? Like make, model, date, serial number, etc. Much like when you create a file with Photoshop and it marks it with the name Photoshop in the file there should be SOME kind of marking to indicate the camera software that created the image. I do not believe that programs like Photoshop actually mark the image with the registration number of the software, just the name of the program and perhaps the version number.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Wait a freggin second.... Mac you said

"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."

And now you said there is no hard evidence. Are you saying that you just made that up? What you first said would imply rock solid evidence. Then you say such evidence doesn't exist.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   

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.
Thats not a theory, thats a statement, link us to something other then someone else saying apparently they said this.

As far as a link goes, I really don't have one per say, it's been awhile since I did video work, and longer since I researched it. But heres a search peramiter. Feel free to look at it.

search.yahoo.com... %40



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Here's my freggin' reply Indy.

I got that information from various websites, then put it into the few paragraphs that you read. The only evidence that I have is what I got from those websites.

I am not aware of what the parent sites of what I wrote have as of evidence, and that is why, right now, I am saying that I do not have any hard evidence.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
It really doesn't matter what the software does or does not do with regard to the image. The claim in the original post is that the device that captured the image watermarked it, whether that be digital photo or video and I would assume tape video, the favorite of under-funded terrorists. That stuff just doesn't work that way. Not yet at least.

Just because a story makes the rounds on the web doesn't make it true. The link which was subsequently provided here was even worse. I guess when you look at things, you've got use a little CommonSense.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I am away from home and dont have access to my computer or pictures I have taken with my digital camera. Does anyone here have access quickly to unaltered pics they have taken with their digital cameras? Can you open the file in a text editor and see what kind of information the camera leaves? Like make, model, date, serial number, etc. Much like when you create a file with Photoshop and it marks it with the name Photoshop in the file there should be SOME kind of marking to indicate the camera software that created the image. I do not believe that programs like Photoshop actually mark the image with the registration number of the software, just the name of the program and perhaps the version number.


Text editor won't do it, but if you happen to be geekish (like me) you can just simply run 'debug' on it and see the machine language for the file. It has basic header info about the type of image and compression in it. The camera itself assigns a temporary file ID to the file while it's in your camera (this is digital) and it's not stored anywhere.

But he was talking about videotape and physical film, not digital. There'll be a batch number on the film showing where it was produced and which batch it was part of. But nothing that marks the camera.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join