R. KellyDespite R. Kelly’s legal team saying the tape could have been digitally altered last week, video analyst testified otherwise Thursday (May 29).

The singer received a few blows in court this week, when video analyst Grant Fredericks took the court through the sex tape at the center of Kelly’s trial, sometimes frame by frame, to show how he had authenticated the tape, claiming it’d take someone 44 years to fake the video.

Furthermore, he also took images of the man on the tape and the room featured on the tape and matched them to Kelly and his former home.

In his opening statement last week, Defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. emphasized that a “significant” mole in the middle of Kelly’s lower back is not seen throughout the tape, which makes it clear it’s not his client. However, Fredericks proved otherwise, showing a spot on the male’s back in the video in fact has a visible mole in a half-second’s worth of footage once the tape was slowed down.

“It’s in the exact same position, at about the same size,” Fredericks said, pointing to a video display.

The analyst continued his testimony stating that the footage was created from the same tape throughout and was never removed from the camera, but was either paused or shut off during cuts in the 26 minutes of footage. He said the tape was in fact an original, authentic recording, despite the actual tape being a copy several generations removed.

“Are there signs of any manipulation? The quick and simple answer is no,” Fredericks said, according to the Associated Press. “It’s simply not possible. It’s not possible to fabricate these images without detection, and there is no doctoring in any part. We don’t have the technology yet to fabricate the errors and the facial features and the motion and the light in this way, not like this.”

Defense attorney Ed Genson fired back though, as he tried to argue that altering the tape must be possible, but Fredericks maintained his testimony.

“There is no way the tape could be altered, in any fashion at all, any sort of digital manipulation?” Genson asked.

“It could be done, but it wasn’t done on that tape,” Fredericks said.

In addition to Fredericks, FBI forensic video expert Grant Skaluba also authenticated the tape.

Skaluba told jurors that even if someone wanted to create digital images, it would be costly and could take years. “It would be very, very time consuming and very hard to do,” he said.