We’ve had so many threads about this that it’s getting impossible to keep them straight, but other posters have suggested it’s possible that the time stamp marks when the video was uploaded to the internet. That makes sense to me. I’d rather not watch the video again, but like I’ve said before, I see no signs that things occurred in a different order than we see them. If there are sudden changes in somebody’s position or anything of that sort, nobody has posted that they have noticed it.
Would you prefer “the evil ones”? That, to me, sounds equally naive and childish.
without comment,; from bartcop:
http://www.bartcop.com/
ct: the news story of the millenium
Ok - so - the millenuim is only 4 years old but - this is still one hell of a story.
Friday, new video was released showing Iraq prisoner torture.
The most important piece of information in this video is something that you don’t see.
Digital cameras have been built to inclued a digital watermark that identifies which camera took the video.
I am seeing messages on the internet who are saying the people at Kodak who developed the watermarking
technology have compared the digital watermark on the Berg video with the new pridoner abuse from
Abu Ghraib prison and the digital watermark matches one of the two cameras used in the Berg beheading.
If this is true then it means that Americans killed Berg at Abu Ghraib prison.
We need a digital video expert to verify the digital watermarks to prove this is true.
Anybody?
Mark Perkel
San Fransisco, C
Look, I am pretty damn anti-invasion of Iraq. I said it the, and I say it now- without a UN mandate, it was WRONG.
But this idiot idea that the Nick Berg -vid is fake is tinfoil hat woo-woo stuff. Thus, the OP is tinfoil hat woo-woo stuff. Tell me that we “don’t know the whole story”- and I’l say sure. But tell me that video was faked for some stupid propagada reason, and I stop listening.
Sure, anyone can post a 'what if?"- like- “What if GWB is actually an alien android?” :rolleyes: :dubious: So, Cisco- what do you think the Public’s reaction would be if THAT was true? :rolleyes:
I haven’t seen the entire Berg video, but what makes anybody think it was taken with a digital video camera? I’m also fairly certain that digital cameras do not have watermarking technology anyway (and analog ones certainly don’t).
I haven’t even seen the video. As near as I can gather, the use of the term “watermark” in this instance, refers to idiosyncratic characgtyeristyics of the camera shooting the world’s most famous hand job and the one producing the berg video, the said characteriwtics supposedliy ma tching.
me, i dunno.
Umm…Kodak doesn’t even make digital camcorders. Sure, maybe they used the video function of a digital camera…but I doubt it.
Finally, Kodak’s digital watermarking is specifically targeted for cinema environments and not stuck all kinds of camcorders.
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/cinema.shtml
I think the Berg video is wierd but the digital watermarking stuff is silly. The video is very widely available and I haven’t seen any expert (and one would emerge) showing this. It would be very easy to display and prove objectively AND it would yield a journalist great prestige and awards to break this story.
Since when is Bartcop a source for anything other than crap? Bartcop makes up and literally steals content from other sites with wild abandon. It is a pile of crap that using as a cite only serves to make yourself look stupid.
that’s why I offered it without comment.
AS for making myself look stupied, I don’t need Bartcop for that.
Like I said, I havent seen the video.