Authenticated - 30s Sample Analysis Lingam Video Clip Contents Not Tempered; ACA DG demands Full Video Clip from Anwar Ibrahim otherwise No action
A Video Clip cut is said to be edited and believed tempered says ACA DG & Demands Full Video Clip from Anwar Ibrahim otherwise No action; but the contents are NOT necessary tempered?
Malaysiakini has the story of ACA wanting the full length of the Video Clip
ACA repeats demand for original recording Oct 23, 07 6:33pm and its
Malaysiakini.tv is still on Cops fail to obtain statements from Bar Council
= == == = == == = =
A video clip when cut short is edited but its contents not necessary tempered. The ACA DG and the gang in legal affairs department in the Prime Minister department are holding on to a wrong believe that the video clip has been tempered since they have only the 8 minutes cut part. Now on what basis of facts are they holding on to this believe and assumption? Yes the clip has been cut and therefore edited but why jump to the conclusion that the clip’s contents have been tempered? Examine the contents of the clip; see the free flow and uninterrupted sequence of the video frames and waves in the sound track. You do not need the other cut part to determine the authenticity of the first part of the clip. Use some common sense.
Just like if after a fire a RM1000 note is half burnt, are we saying that Bank Negara would not be able to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the note and must demand the reproduction of the other part?
The ACA DG has stated (see BELOW) “we cannot act on copies...you can manufacture a lot of tapes nowadays...everyone can make video clips these days”. Yes everyone can make video clips (duplicating it and making copies?) even with a digital camera but to tamper it and add or alter in the video frames or sound track in a clip are beyond the scope of everyone with the existing video editing tools in the market. I doubt even the FBI can do it. In the recent Body–in-bag CCTV footages that were sent to them they could only enhanced the clarity of the video clip up to a point and place spotlight to highlight certain figures. See examples below.
ABOVE: The FBI enhanced CCTV footage, they can add in the yellow color and BELOW: the tempering is done by "adding" or overlaying other images into the Video footage. It is next to impossible to replace the "red blouse woman" with another frame by frame in a video clip
= = = == = == = == BELOW: What the FBI did was to add in Spotlight i.e. to brighten up the man talking on the clip and I added in the overlay image of the zoomed up man and the photofit of the woman released by the Police & Nurin pic on the right. Go H E R E & see the "tampered" CCTV Video Clip
Most Video clips are recorded in 30 fps (frames per second) and there are 8mins in this Lingam Clip. Get any Video editor and run through the 8 x 60 x 30 (or 14,400 frames) and see if there are any overlapping frames.
ABOVE: As the video Clip is running at 30 fps, you would not see the overlapping ghost images (when an image changes) unless BELOW: if you run through the last frame before a new clip is added or inserted you can observe it in a video editing software like Ulead. Note the "vertical" red marker (see above small frames) indicates the overlapping frames your eyes cannot see but captured below the "two DGs"
In the example (ABOVE) captured on the ACA DG interview over the news, the overlapping video frames can be easily seen. Any inserted clip would show overlapping frames.
From a 30s sample Video Clip that was broadcasted & captured, I ran through the 900 frames and there was a smooth continuity of frames without any "overlapping ghost images" so it can be concluded there is No tampering and therefor this sample is authentic. Others should be able to corroborate these results here.
See the 3 results Screen captured BELOW
ABOVE & BELOW: Sample results of the test run. Note the split sec (30 frames per sec) smaller images do not show any "ghost" i.e. no tampering
= == == = == = == = = == BELOW: The white light - from the split images below it can be seen it represents a door being opened and the speaker moves away and was seen in the subsequent frames
If anyone can forward a copy of the 8 mins Clip (no need Original); the full 14,400 frames can be viewed to determine any tampering. There is no need to send the Clip to HK, anyone with the video editing software can run through a check (it might required many coffee breaks) As a matter of fact Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has already mentioned he has the 8 min Video clip authenticated. So why is the ACA still insisting to have the other portion?
Datuk Ahmad, anyone can make a video clip with a camera or can duplicate & make further copies of any Video clip; tell me who can tamper & alter images & audio in a video Clip?
And most video editing software enable ordinary folks to tamper the color correction (for brightness, contrast, gamma, saturation & hue). Lastly a video clip can be tempered for “Playback Speed”. A 3 minutes video recording on someone speaking slowly can be speeded up 30% to have a final version of 2 min 6 sec of smooth speech. This would reduce the file size for quicker uploading.
The most beautiful & useful part of this Playback Speed feature is that it can enable you to get a FULL & ACCURATE 100% transcript of anyone talking from a Video Clip or a podcast. Forget about that Tape Recorder where you need to rewind and play again, it is time consuming & take hours to do a transcript. All aspiring reporters and sub-editors should learn this trick to get accuracies from the horses mouth. Email me if you need any further info & help. = = == == = == == = == = == =
= = == == = == == = == = == =
Give Us The Original Video, ACA D-G Tells Anwar
PUTRAJAYA, Oct 23 (Bernama) -- The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has once again asked Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to produce the full-length video clip showing a prominent lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of top judges in the country. ACA Director-General Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan (ABOVE), in making the call, said the agency would give the former deputy prime minister until Thursday to hand over the original video clip. "Anwar has said that the clip is with the source and would be handed to him...so it is up to him to give it to us. We wait until Thursday. We need the original clip, otherwise we cannot take action," he told a news conference at the ACA headquarters here Tuesday.
Yesterday, the ACA head of Special Tasks Branch, Sazali Salbi, after meeting Anwar, was quoted by news reports as saying that the former deputy prime minister had until Thursday to hand over the original video clip. If he failed to comply, then Anwar could be charged under section 22 of the ACA Act which carried a fine of not more than RM10,000 or a jail term of not more than two years jail, or both, on conviction, he had said. The meeting yesterday was the second with the de facto Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) leader following the release the video clip by him last month, with the first meeting being on Oct 5. "What they (PKR) gave us earlier is not the full version of the tape. Out of 14 minutes they gave us an eight-minute version.
We believe it has been tampered with. We cannot rely on copies. We have to look into the original clip," Ahmad Said said. He said that although the ACA had the edited version of the video clip, it needed the full version so as to confirm the authenticity of the clip. "Even the courts need the original. Otherwise we cannot determine its authenticity...we cannot act on copies...you can manufacture a lot of tapes nowadays...everyone can make video clips these days. "We have to look into the full version of it to be fair to all. We don't know what happened in the full version," he added. Asked if all those involved and mentioned in the edited version of the video clip had been interviewed, he said more than 10 people had been questioned. "But we cannot determine on what we have now. Over 10 people...all those involved and names mentioned have been questioned," he added.
= = == = == = =
Cops want to quiz lawyers over 'Walk for Justice'
by Llew-Ann Phang and Pauline Ouah; theSUN
The three-man team from the Putrajaya district police CID were Chief Insp Saunders a/k Henry Xavier Jamut who led the team, Insp Mohd Safuan Alias and Insp Wooi Shien Shin. Ambiga told reporters the meeting which also included vice-president Ragunath Kesavan and secretary Lim Chee Wee in the presence of their lawyers – Sulaiman Abdullah for Ambiga, M. Puravelan for Ragunath and Cheow Wee for Lim – was conducted in an amiable, professional manner.
"We’re perplexed that our activities are subject of police investigations and we urge the police to tackle real crime. And in their battle against real crime, we have no doubt they will enjoy the full backing of the Malaysian Bar and the general public," she said. Asked if they knew what they were being investigated for, Sulaiman said "the police gave us the general idea that it was under the Police Act and Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code but they were not specific enough". Ambiga said the Bar Council’s members were ready to cooperate with police "as long as we know what it is we’re being investigated for, and that’s why we need the first-information-report". On Sept 26, the "Walk for Justice" saw some 2,000 lawyers walk from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department to present two memoranda, calling for the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the video clip which purportedly shows a telephone conversation between a lawyer with a "Datuk" said to be a senior judge and for an independent commission to be set up to deal with judicial appointments and promotions.
Police investigations on the Bar Council, according to news reports, have been classified as illegal assembly in breach of Section 27 of the Police Act which provides that anybody intending to hold an assembly, meeting or procession needs to obtain a permit from the district police chief and satisfy him that the gathering will not disturb the peace or be prejudicial to the interest of national security.
In another related developement in PUTRAJAYA today, Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan (ABOVE) said the agency had interviewed more than 10 people mentioned in the controversial video clip recording a conversation between a prominent lawyer and a "Datuk". "All those names mentioned in the video clip have been questioned," he told a press conference in the ACA headquarters. However, he evaded repeated questions by the reporters whether Chief Justice Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, who was only being insinuated in the video clip, was interviewed by the ACA.
ACA deputy director (I) Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed, who was also in the press conference, would only say: "Everybody mentioned in the video clip had been questioned. Whoever necessary in the investigation (had been questioned)." On Sept 19, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had exposed the eight minutes video clip which rocked the legal fraternity as well as civil society. The video clip recorded conversation allegedly between lawyer V.K Lingam and the ‘Datuk’ believed to be Ahmad Fairuz. Lingam was seen discussing the potential appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of
He was said had been mentioned in the second part of the video recording.
Yesterday, Anwar was given an ultimatum until Thursday (Oct 25) to provide the ACA with the complete 14-minute video recording or face a fine of RM10,000, two years jail, or both under the ACA Act 1997. On Oct 4, PKR vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah and Anwar’s political coordinator Sim Tze Tzin were also served with a similar notice compelling them to reveal the identity of the source within seven days. They had declined to do so. Asked about the ultimatum in the press conference, Ahmad Said said the ACA will take the necessary actions should they decline to comply. He reiterated the ACA cannot continue the investigation if it did not obtain an original copy of the video clip. "The earlier one (video clip) was not the full version.
We cannot rely on that copy. It’s not enough for the ACA to take action based on that. Courts also want the original copy. Otherwise, the ACA can‘t determine the authenticity because the video now can be tempted (buat)" he added. On Sept 25, the government had set up an independent three-member panel led by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor to examine the authenticity of the video clip