My .02 after watching it and then promptly falling asleep in my hotel room. If I had the right software, I could do this for real, but for now, will have to rely on "trained" eye:

• Photometric analysis: Lighting seems reasonable, artificially generated in an interior environment using a mix of sources - 3 or more. Colorimetry seems normal with no odd, or unnatural light sources consistent with computer generated lighting. Shadowing is consistent throughout the production, with no points of origin changing locations. Shadow reaction is normal and responsive to body movements and acts predictably. There is one issue I find a little odd, but not concerning - the color temperature of the lighting behind Assange's head, used in the over-the-shoulder shot. The color temp was very high, almost daylight in appearance. It is a very blue color and odd for this type of shoot. There are a handful of reasons for this, it just seemed somewhat abnormal.

• Motion Analysis: Typically, counterfeit videos exhibit some amount of a range or "artifacts" which often indicate a fake video. These "artifacts" include: aliasing (motion artifacts), bitmapping, tearing or image peeling, jagging, and frame issues. An unaided visual review of the video didn't reveal any of these type of items. That being said, the video was viewed at 1080i, on a consumer LG 42" display with no color calibration. It would be doubtful that many of the aforementioned "artifacts" would be visible on this setup, but some would be. No such inconsistencies were noticed by unaided visual observation.

• Audio Analysis: Under my current circumstances, there is no way to analyze the audio program with current hardware at my disposal. All observed audio seemed normal.

If this video was faked, it was done with the absolute best of the best hardware. If it was, it would be doubtful that any of us would ever be able to prove it. And even if you could, the mouthbreathers would never understand the explanation.

For now, I'm going to throw down this is proof-of-life.