The video showing Swami in compromising acts is not genuine because:
1. At one point the Swamiji (look alike) sports moustache.
2. From some angles the look-alike does not look like Swami.
3. If it was a sting operation to expose the Swami, and the actress was part of the plot, why was the light switched off at the crucial moment? The whole purpose of the sting operation would have been to expose the Swamiji in the act of sexual intercourse. Why was this act not videographed? Because videographing the sexual act would have exposed Swami’s full body and it would have become clear that it was not the Swami? It seems that the plan was to show as little of the Swami’s body as possible so that the look-alike was not exposed.
4. If the sting operation was carried out without the knowledge of the actress, the movement of the actress sliding up the Swamiji to get water and swami's reaction looks contrived. This indicates that both the Swami and the actress roles were played by look-alikes.
5. Two different girls were involved on two different days, which appears to have been previous night and following morning. A fixed CCTV video would have shown the two girls simultaneously. This proves the videography was carried out with look-alikes who were suitably directed – not by a fixed CCTV from a hidden place.
6. It appears that the Swami got up the second day in the morning, because his yawn is a give away. Then why was the light switched off after some point even in the morning? This also proves that the characters involved are all look-alikes.
7. Why is the Swami looking so intently at the TV even when the actress was massaging his legs and more? Apparently he was waiting for his cue from the director to begin playing the part. If it was the Swami, the reaction to the actress massaging him would have looked natural.
8. If technology to produce a clear video was used, why was the conversation not caught? Because the look-alikes could not imitate the true voices?
1. At one point the Swamiji (look alike) sports moustache.
2. From some angles the look-alike does not look like Swami.
3. If it was a sting operation to expose the Swami, and the actress was part of the plot, why was the light switched off at the crucial moment? The whole purpose of the sting operation would have been to expose the Swamiji in the act of sexual intercourse. Why was this act not videographed? Because videographing the sexual act would have exposed Swami’s full body and it would have become clear that it was not the Swami? It seems that the plan was to show as little of the Swami’s body as possible so that the look-alike was not exposed.
4. If the sting operation was carried out without the knowledge of the actress, the movement of the actress sliding up the Swamiji to get water and swami's reaction looks contrived. This indicates that both the Swami and the actress roles were played by look-alikes.
5. Two different girls were involved on two different days, which appears to have been previous night and following morning. A fixed CCTV video would have shown the two girls simultaneously. This proves the videography was carried out with look-alikes who were suitably directed – not by a fixed CCTV from a hidden place.
6. It appears that the Swami got up the second day in the morning, because his yawn is a give away. Then why was the light switched off after some point even in the morning? This also proves that the characters involved are all look-alikes.
7. Why is the Swami looking so intently at the TV even when the actress was massaging his legs and more? Apparently he was waiting for his cue from the director to begin playing the part. If it was the Swami, the reaction to the actress massaging him would have looked natural.
8. If technology to produce a clear video was used, why was the conversation not caught? Because the look-alikes could not imitate the true voices?
