‘Maharlika’: Alleged video of Marcos sniffing cocaine authenticated by US-based expert
POPULAR vlogger Maharlika (Claire Contreras) emailed the few people reporting on the issue an analysis of a US-based expert on the authenticity of the viral video clip showing President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. allegedly snorting cocaine, supposedly taken when he was still a senator.
While Contreras said that the expert requested that he not be identified, he would be willing to be identified and testify on his findings in a court of law.
The expert’s conclusion: “After conducting a thorough analysis of the video file given to me by Ms. Claire Contreras, I found no evidence of editing. The file exhibits consistent patterns and characteristics that align with an unaltered recording.”
You decide, dear reader, if the analysis rings true. Or better yet, consult your own video-deception expert who can tell you if the analysis is along the methodology video analysts and experts normally use.
President Marcos and his allies should submit the video to an expert outside the country, and make the process transparent to everyone. That Marcos was a cocaine user and may still be addicted to the drug is a very serious accusation: How can we let the nation be ruled by a drug user whose mind may be altered by the drug, leading to disastrous decisions affecting tens of millions of Filipinos? The head of state notorious for taking cocaine was Adolf Hitler. If Marcos is proven to be or have been a cocaine user, he would certainly confirm as accurate that old 1970s protest slogan: “Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, Tuta.”
Accusations
Neither President Marcos nor the Palace have commented on the authenticity of the video. Strangely, or maybe not, it was solely the Defense Department — led by Gilberto Teodoro Jr., who has practically been urging the country to go war against China — which claimed the day after the video was released, without getting an expert’s opinion, that it was “a contrived video released to escape Philippine criminal jurisdiction.”
Justice Undersecretary Hermogenes Andres warned “those who spread the fake video may be held liable for cybercrime because this is a malicious imputation of a crime of vice that is being done through the use of the internet.” I wonder who would be suing as the victim, Marcos?
The US-funded news site Rappler immediately jumped to Marcos’ defense, again proving my long-standing point that the outfit is a tool of the Americans, who have Marcos as their most important puppet tasked to counter China’s growth as a superpower in Asia. Rappler’s headline was that the video was “face-swapped,” meaning, fake, as Marcos’ face was put over the body of another person who was taking cocaine.
That is a lie as the online sites Rappler consulted merely concluded that the video was “suspicious,” a response amateurs would get if one merely asked online “experts” without officially contracting them to do a rigorous study. I tried it that way myself for two videos, and got that “suspicious” comment even for videos that are authentic, such as Marcos giving a speech in a video released by Malacañang’s communications office.
Contreras
In contrast to Rappler’s amateurish work, Contreras contracted an expert to do the analysis which took a month to undertake, and presumably for a professional fee.
The expert’s report in full, without the figures he mentions:
“I was asked to analyze the video file Claire Contreras submitted to me to assess its authenticity and determine whether any signs of tampering or editing were present. The video file underwent a series of comprehensive analyses, including visual analysis, file structure examination and detailed assessments of compression artifacts, GOP structure and entropy levels. These techniques were employed to ensure the integrity of the video and to provide a thorough evaluation of its contents.
“1. Audio analysis. The video file does contain a video stream, but the audio stream is not audible during playback. To analyze the audio, I used a program called WaveSurfer to extract the audio stream from the video file. This tool allowed me to isolate the audio and thoroughly examine it for any signs of edits or tampering. Through WaveSurfer, I was able to perform a visual, cut detection and auditory analysis of the extracted audio. Across all three methods, I did not detect any cuts or irregularities in the audio file, further supporting the conclusion that the audio stream is unaltered.
Metadata
“2. Video analysis
“2.1 File structure analysis. I examined the video file’s metadata and binary data to determine if any third-party editing software had been used. Such software typically re-encodes the video after editing, leaving traces like its name and version within the file’s metadata and binary data. In this case, no third-party software was detected, suggesting the video has not been edited.
“2.2 GOP Structure and frame analysis. The Group of Pictures (GOP) structure refers to the sequence of frames in a video. Each frame type (I, P, B) serves a specific purpose in video encoding. By analyzing the pattern and size of these groups, it is possible to determine if a video has been edited or remains in its original state. The analysis of the video’s GOP structure and frame types supports the conclusion of non-tampering. The GOP size is consistent, with only minor deviations, and the frame type pattern follows a regular sequence typical of standard video encoding processes, further indicating that the video has not been edited.
“Figure 2 (not provided to this author) illustrates the Group of Pictures structure, showcasing the sequence of I, P and B frames, which are essential in video encoding. The consistent and predictable pattern in the frame sequence confirms that the video follows standard encoding practices, strongly suggesting it has not been tampered with or edited.
Entropy
“2.3 Entropy analysis. Entropy measures the randomness or complexity of pixel values in video frames. Consistent entropy values across frames indicate that the video likely has not been tampered with, as tampering would disrupt this consistency. The analysis revealed consistent entropy across the frames, with values gradually increasing and corresponding to scene changes or varying levels of detail. All entropy values fell within expected thresholds, suggesting no significant abnormalities. This uniformity supports the conclusion that the video has not been tampered with, as tampering typically introduces irregularities in compression and disrupts the entropy balance.
“Figure 3 illustrates the entropy analysis of the video, showing the level of detail and randomness in each frame. The consistent entropy values, all falling within the expected thresholds, indicate that the video could not have been tampered with.
“2.4 In this phase, I carefully examined the video to identify any obvious signs of tampering, such as cuts, edits or inconsistencies in the footage. The visual examination did not reveal any abnormalities within the video. There were no cuts or edits apparent upon review, and the video presents a continuous recording of the events. An additional observation in the visual analysis was the presence of salt-and-pepper compression artifacts, which appear as small black and white specks sporadically throughout the footage. These artifacts are a natural result of standard video compression processes and are commonly found in videos that have been saved or transmitted with some loss of quality. Their presence supports the notion that the video has not been reprocessed by artificial intelligence (AI), as AI-generated videos often attempt to eliminate such imperfections or may reprocess them in a way that creates abnormal shapes.
Frames
“Figure 4 showcases a series of four frames, each highlighting instances where salt-and-pepper compression artifacts appear in different areas. The shifting locations of these artifacts across frames confirm that they are a natural result of video compression, reinforcing that the video has not been AI reprocessed.
“Conclusion: After conducting a thorough analysis of the video file, I found no evidence of editing. The file exhibits consistent patterns and characteristics that align with an unaltered recording.
“This conclusion is based on the detailed examination of the file structure, visual content and other key attributes.”
If you’re interested how video-deception is undertaken, the following articles would be useful:
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
X: @bobitiglao
Website: www.rigobertotiglao.com
The post ‘Maharlika’: Alleged video of Marcos sniffing cocaine authenticated by US-based expert first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.
‘Maharlika’: Alleged video of Marcos sniffing cocaine authenticated by US-based expert
Source: Breaking News PH
No comments: