This post is also available in: enEnglish

This post is a specific breakdown of the ashram’s claims about the four forensic experts who “proved” the Nithya-Ranjitha sex tape was fake. We strongly recommend you read the critique of Edward J Primeau’s testimony and analysis here before reading this page. For a critical look on SUN TV ex-COO Hansraj Saxena’s  alleged “confession” that the video was morphed, see here.

We will use screenshots as much as possible, as we do not want to improve the org’s ill-gotten SEO by providing them backlinks.  We request you to search for the resources we quote yourself if you want the file or link itself. 

Nithyananda’s greatest shakthi seems to be to trap genuine, devoted seekers in a “Maya matrix” and then blame the rest of the world for it.

The shamefully unethical and dishonest PR spin created with the “four forensic experts” is possibly one of the best demonstrations of the evil that pervades the man you’re dealing with. By the end of this very short article you will have learned the subtle but powerful art of lying with the truth. 

Nithyananda’s official site claiming clinching proof

 “Four such top-class experts who are expert witnesses in USA as well as other countries worldwide, with multiple years of experience, have given their detailed analysis of the video.”

Here is what they’ve done, in steps: 

1. The Life Bliss Foundation themselves gave four experts unauthenticated, amateurishly edited and purposely ridiculous videos and links.

2. They formed the impression to them that these videos were to be admitted to court (rather than being truthful that these videos have nothing to do with the authentic tape which had already been authenticated with a proper chain of custody)

3. The experts immediately saw the various obvious problems with the videos they were given and rendered it in technical language as a report. The experts correctly inferred that what they had been given was shockingly poor in quality.

4. One expert exceeded their domain by making inferences about an original tape and equipment, an indian forensic team,  and a legal case they could not and never had access to. The others asked for the original tape and equipment for a proper evaluation.

5. The PR teams used these reports and these inferences to make a false equivalence between them and the authentic tape 

5. They made everyone repeat this lie so often people forgot to ask how they managed to analyze a tape and a camera device abroad that was in custody of the CID in India, and why three of these experts were made to analyze obviously spoofed and edited Youtube videos from other people’s channels.

You can see these points demonstrated below.


The four experts clearly define their sources and premises

The annotations in red are ours. Note the people it came from, how it was delivered, the mismatch in formats and dates to the ones examined by Penrod Ellis and the FSL. Note that they mostly limit the scope of their statements to what they were given, and NOT the possible source material they came from. It is the Nithyananda organization that is guilty of broadcasting misrepresentations of their statements by altering and often outright removing context.  

The four experts POINT OUT THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY as WEll as their lack of access to the original

The annotations in red are ours. Note that two expert in these written testimonies, ask for access to the original tape, format and equipment to make a proper and professional judgement of the actual source video of these clips, rather than these particular clips they have been given.

The Four Experts make observations that are obviously limited to the tape they were given, the original is missing all these features

Annotations in red are ours. In the first set we have the four experts listing their observations. In the next set under it, we have some of the analyses on the original. Additionally several experts make the ridiculous claim that it is abnormal that a spy cam does not have audio recording. Yet, here is an example of an air purifier spy cam of the type Aarthi used (mentioned in the reports) which makes no mention of recording audio: (also note the unusual resolution even on this one, a point which Edward Primeau takes nonsensical issue with in his report)

Here is another highly expensive one :

Despite that expense, this one goes as far as to clearly state that audio can be enabled ONLY for law enforcement and export customers. So what is the real validity behind this suggestion that aarthi’s cheap sony imitation spy cam HAD to have come with audio capability? 

The majority of Brian Neumeister’s report is concerned with how a morphing could be performed on a hypothetical video. It is a hypothesis and a technical explanation.  The rest is concerned with criticizing the FSL report for being incomplete and not to his standards. This is a fair discussion to be had among peers of the forensic fraternity. However, it is inappropriate as an inference about the original video and the local case because none of us outside of the Indian investigative agencies have used the original tapes.  And if by law the defense received them from the prosecution, it is clear those are not the video files they chose to submit, for obvious reasons.  And if they did not ask for them from the prosecution, then that is revealing too. And if they haven’t moved the court for it despite 5 years of their own constant objections and delays or they asked and were rejected, then that is revealing in turn. 

As you have seen, the video artefacts and graphical and technical “anomalies” are not shared by the two sides. One is full of them, and one has none.


Edward Primeau


Brian Neumeister


David Notowitz


Joe Yonowitz