Videogate analysis featured prominently on Sigma’s “Protoselido” programme, where video and image forensics expert Kostas Kerlegkou presented his assessment of the controversial footage driving public debate.
Expert rejects AI and deepfake claims
Kerlegkou told the programme that the video does not originate from artificial intelligence or deepfake technology. He said the footage is real visual material and shows no digital alteration beyond editing and splicing. He added that many people confuse terms such as editing, splicing, and hybrid warfare, leading to misunderstandings about the video’s nature.
Hybrid warfare and selective editing
In his Videogate analysis, Kerlegkou explained that hybrid warfare now operates mainly through social media, aiming to sow doubt and confusion. He said the footage may be authentic, but selective editing can change the meaning of what viewers see. This process, he warned, drives panic and intense speculation online.
Short clips cannot show full context
Kerlegkou stressed that clips lasting 20 or 30 seconds cannot represent the reality of a recording that runs several minutes. Even when a short segment comes from genuine footage, it fails to show the full context. He noted that editing can dramatically reshape how a conversation appears and that only complete access to the material reveals the real picture.
He reminded viewers of a key principle: no form of misinformation exceeds the power of a half-truth. When someone presents only part of the truth – or an unclear fragment – the viewer can form almost any interpretation.
Authentic footage but incomplete evidence
Turning to the disputed video, Kerlegkou said visible markers confirm the footage’s authenticity, including clear sequences before and after a critical moment. However, he warned that conclusions based on partial material reflect only what appears before missing segments, not the full story. Without the complete recording, people inevitably draw their own assumptions.
Calls for independent investigation
Kerlegkou criticised the case’s handling and argued that authorities should have appointed an independent forensic expert immediately, rather than relying on a mechanism linked to the government. He said this step would have strengthened transparency and credibility, particularly if the European Public Prosecutor’s Office had joined the process from the beginning. An independent specialist with full data access, he added, could help European authorities reach more solid conclusions.
Delays and political fallout
He also pointed to delays in managing the case, saying they allowed fragmented actions and premature political developments, including resignations, before investigators established a full picture. He argued that decision-makers should first secure clear evidence before taking final steps, ensuring genuine confidence in claims of clean governance.
EU interest and missing full video
On the European Union’s role, Kerlegkou said EU officials showed strong interest from the start in understanding what happened. However, procedures could not move faster without essential evidence. He questioned whether any findings exist that remain undisclosed to the public.
Closing his Videogate analysis, Kerlegkou urged the public to await investigation results but stressed one unresolved issue: investigators still may not have the full video. He said no platform or source has yet provided the complete footage. Without it, he warned, final judgments may again rely on fragmented data. Until then, the discussion remains incomplete.
Also read: President outlines five points on Cyprus issue & CBMs
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
