Berg Beheading a fake?

Hairy Homer

I wonder what credibility can be ascribed to this source.

Any audio/video experts out there able to cast any light on it?

**WARNING**

This link now has gruesome still photos on it that either weren't there or that I didn't see when I first put it up. Don't scroll too far down if you don't want to see them.

smoke.me.a.kipper

it was an interesting read. still undecided about whether its a fake or not.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

when i watched it, the guy reading frm the sheets of paper turned the paper round arund ten times... do they have special ten sided paper in iraq? this really confused me

oscarBravo

From the Pravda link:

Only one answer lends itself here: the video was doctored. Either a portion was clipped out or the beheading never took place as shown, with the possibility of the victim being already dead.

I wondered about that while watching it: the video timecode jumps by about 11 hours, if memory serves, between Berg being knocked to the floor and the actual decapitation scene. I hadn't noticed the lack of blood though.

halkar

What I found hard to understand is that his family was not allowed to be at the airport when his body arrived in US. They wanted and refused.
And his family critises US over their actions and lies about him.
Here we go again, it will be a biiiig mess when and if the truth comes out.

Stark

These were my comments on it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1638047#post1638047

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Originally posted by halkar

Here we go again, it will be a biiiig mess when and if the truth comes out.

no it won't. it probably should be, but it won't.

Pompey Magnus

Probably should warn people that the link shows 2 pictures of the decapatated head, something I could have done without seeing !

edit/ listened to the audio link, does sound like a western voice but I can't make out "thy will be done" sounds just like "dummeldy dumm" to me.

flogen

there are certainly some credible arguments around the tape, although i dont know if I can watch it again to be sure if they are real or not.
Lack of blood is certainly something I noticed.
Its my guess that if this is a fake, or doctored to some degree, the people who did it hoped it was too gruesome for the average person to analyse so deeply. Its why I wont watch it again tbh.

Flogen

conZ

Has anyone noticed that when the Iraqi's are reading the sheets, the time at the bottom right of the screen is ~2:40. Berg is definately alive at this point, you can see him moving and blinking.

When they stop reading and drag Berg down, the camera changes to a close up shot, and the time at the bottom right is ~13:46.

Lack of blood? - There's loads of it, it just blends in nicely with the room's decor. The camera isin't great but you can make out the blood. You can see it gushing onto the floor once they make the first incision.

vorbis

why do people persist with idiotic conspiracy theories. There's apparently two copies of the video, one is a poor re-encode that leaves out a lot of the tape and the other is a higher quality copy that includes the entire gruesome act. On the latter, there's plenty of blood and theres little doubt about what was happening.

Regarding the screaming, are people getting seriously stupid? People honestly believe that the Americans couldn't have used a man screaming instead of a woman. Please tell me that that reason is only supposed to be a joke. Honestly can people look past the anti-US bias and analyse this objectively? for instance reasons regarding the time are explained by the simple fact that two cameras with different timestamps were used.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by vorbis
why do people persist with idiotic conspiracy theories.

.... Honestly can people look past the anti-US bias and analyse this objectively? for instance reasons regarding the time are explained by the simple fact that two cameras with different timestamps were used.

Well to be honest. That's just what I was trying to do: be objective. I was just wondering whether anybody had any prior experience of that site and what is the mindset behind it.

Originally posted by Depeche_Mode
Probably should warn people that the link shows 2 pictures of the decapatated head, something I could have done without seeing !

Well to be fair, the site itself warns you pretty blatantly that the pictures are graphic and you don't have to look at them to read the text. I haven't watched the video myself. Wouldn't have the stomach for it. Especially as there's a chance (at least) that it's genuine.

Memnoch

if one were to look at it objectively, i would say that the timing of this incident was EXTREMELY convenient.

the prison abuse scandal was scalding the administration at this point, and this incident definately took the edge of it at the time (atleast within the US).

To be honest, when I see such incidents, I always think about who has the most to gain? Just like 9/11.

The person who personally profitted the most from 9/11 imo is Bush. I have similar doubts about this incident.

Off course anyone who questions these things will always be written off as a conspiracy theorist, no matter how convincing or challenging their arguements are.

minority

I dont think it was a fake, but i wouldnt lambaste anyone for thinking it could be.

You can always get the real gob****e (everything that happens is orchestrated by the yanks) conspiracy theorists to raise their heads just by saying 'So, did the Americans fake the moon landings then?'

Tuars

Good summary of the anomalies here (as has been mentioned on another thread).

arcadegame2004

How can it be a fake when Nick Berg's decapitated body was later discovered? I agree though that its debatable whether Al-Zarqawi is the man killing him. I was shcoked to discovere photos of the decapitated head I hadn't expected that. I am convinced the man is this photo was decapitated. It is astonishing how far some people in this country take anti-Americanism when they even suspect US conspiracy in this case. I don't liek US policy on Israel-Palestine which I wholly acknowledge is totally biased towards Israel. However even I do not soubt the authenticity of this video.

GuanYin

Beheading isn't going to spurt blood everywhere like in the movies.

There would be blod flow but alot less than you would think. I wouldn't put too much faith in that.

Lemming

Originally posted by syke
Beheading isn't going to spurt blood everywhere like in the movies.

There would be blod flow but alot less than you would think. I wouldn't put too much faith in that.

Actually syke, it would - although maybe not quite as much as in the movies. I've not seen the footage (on reasons of principle), but I'll say this ....

The main aerteries running through the neck are close to the heart, and will therefore have a strong flow of blood going through them to the brain. They will squirt my son ...

they will squirt .....

as I said though, not movie style, but you can bet your ass there will be a fair bit of a mess. Unless his heart wasn't beating.

minority

Originally posted by Lemming
Actually syke, it would - although maybe not quite as much as in the movies. I've not seen the footage (on reasons of principle), but I'll say this ....

The main aerteries running through the neck are close to the heart, and will therefore have a strong flow of blood going through them to the brain. They will squirt my son ...

they will squirt .....

as I said though, not movie style, but you can bet your ass there will be a fair bit of a mess. Unless his heart wasn't beating.

I believe those main arteries and vein that run through the neck are on one side of the neck only?

They started the cutting on one side and worked around to the other side.
The blood poured out, it didnt squirt. Maybe his heart stopped before they got to them.

Lemming

Originally posted by minority
I believe those main arteries and vein that run through the neck are on one side of the neck only?

They started the cutting on one side and worked around to the other side.
The blood poured out, it didnt squirt. Maybe his heart stopped before they got to them.

I dunno exactly, but the blood doesn't just stop right away, so even if they'd cut through the wind-pipe and he died from lack of oxygen the blood would still be moving around the body at that early a stage.

To answer the question on arteries - there are two branches of the coroted artery running through the neck - one each side of the trachea and osophageus (sp?)

Again I've not seen the video so I can't say with certainty

GuanYin

Originally posted by Lemming
Actually syke, it would - although maybe not quite as much as in the movies. I've not seen the footage (on reasons of principle), but I'll say this ....

The main aerteries running through the neck are close to the heart, and will therefore have a strong flow of blood going through them to the brain. They will squirt my son ...

they will squirt .....

as I said though, not movie style, but you can bet your ass there will be a fair bit of a mess. Unless his heart wasn't beating.

No actually, beheading ala Kill Bill would cause what you suggest, but in doing what they did, the body would go into shock and the heart would stop as soon as either the vagus nerve or the oesophogial tract was severed. This would prevent a "spurting" of blood. I've seen many animals beheaded within 30 seconds of death and the blood loss is surprisingly small.

Lemming

Originally posted by syke
No actually, beheading ala Kill Bill would cause what you suggest,

Did I or did I not say "not movie style" (or words to that effect)??

I am not referring to a gore-fest "a la Kill Bill" and please don't think I tried to paint such a picture.

*sigh*

GuanYin

Well I wasn't suggesting that you were, by beheading ala Kill bill I meant a beheading with a sharp object such as a sword!

Don't be all paranoid!

Magnolia_Fan

I feel there is a whole lot more to the story then meets the eye..I believe the video is real but isn't very bizzare that he just happened to let a terrorist use his e-mail address...then go to Iraq and pretty much be killed by the same guy (his group anyway) And I thought it was very Strange that after the Father was told and had got the crying out of his system the first words he chose to speak were Politicised?

Too Weird...he also said Nick would of been friendly to his captors right up until they killed him cus he was just a nice friendly guy...Its just my opinion but that sounds like incase they find evidence of him being tied with them he can pawn it off on his good nature..like if there was an un-edited tape of before their speech and killing..Just another Theory to throw out there

Grow up, kids

Originally posted by syke
but in doing what they did, the body would go into shock and the heart would stop as soon as either the vagus nerve or the oesophogial tract was severed. This would prevent a "spurting" of blood. I've seen many animals beheaded within 30 seconds of death and the blood loss is surprisingly small.

That's exactly what happened. They cut from the back of the neck first, severing the spinal cord before cutting the arteries.

pork99

Originally posted by Lemming
Actually syke, it would - although maybe not quite as much as in the movies. I've not seen the footage (on reasons of principle), but I'll say this ....

The main aerteries running through the neck are close to the heart, and will therefore have a strong flow of blood going through them to the brain. They will squirt my son ...

they will squirt .....

as I said though, not movie style, but you can bet your ass there will be a fair bit of a mess. Unless his heart wasn't beating.

Heres a couple more for comparison. WARNING - these are NASTY

<edit> www.urlsnipped.com </edit>

You will notice that there heavy bleeding but it doesn't really "squirt" - more of a flooding effect.

But I expect the Americans faked these too, eh Memnoch?

Edit: Links pulled. Sorry.

Memnoch

when did I say it was faked?

I didn't say anything was faked... or not...

i merely pointed out that I was skeptical in general, since it seems to me that this incident came at an EXTREMELY convenient time for the current administration...

as far as i'm concerned, the current administration consists primarily of people who are utterly selfish and care only for themselves. I don't think they value human or american lives, only their own greed and power, as evidenced constantly by their actions and policies in the world and america, so keeping that premise in mind... and again thinking about WHO gained the most tangibly from the incident...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a CIA black ops, so the video could be authentic but the killers may not necessarily be who we are told they are... off course this is merely a theory and i have no proof, and i'm not even sure if its the right theory, or what the truth is.

maybe it was faked, maybe it wasn't

the sad fact is that the CIA have played some really really dirty games in the past.

the same goes for 9/11. While i'm not sure who really made it happen, i'm of the opinion that the bush administration could have prevented it, and choose to allow it to happen.

motive is always important i believe. Its easy to say that "terrorists" need no motives and they are just crazy fundamentalists who do these things. But the truth is that terrorists aren't just "crazy fundamentalists" they are calculating and do things with specific agenda's.

So is it possible that it was a buncha terrorists who did this.. i'd say yes, definately, but i'd say its also equally possible that this was some kind of US black ops to take the edge of Abu Garib. The timing is too perfect. I find it hard to believe that this was just pure coincidence... just as the timing of 9/11 came at a great time for Bush.

Gurgle

The guy is undeniably dead.
His head was found separated from his body.
So either he was murdered then his head was cut off or he was murdered by cutting his head off.

What is the point in this discussion ?

Lemming

Originally posted by Grow up, kids
That's exactly what happened. They cut from the back of the neck first, severing the spinal cord before cutting the arteries.

Ah, I was under the impression that they had cut from the front back. I stand corrected

Tuars

Some more professional medical opinions can be found here.

I don't think this story is as straightforward as it first appeared.

Sand

I dunno - I really dont. As I said when the video first became available on the internet it was worth watching purely because I knew this sort of crap would crop up. Anyone whose seen the video knows what they saw, its this sort of stuff that preys on those whose views are informed by what other people see fit to tell them.

He was cut from the back of then neck with a small bladed knife, they dug the knife in to the back of his neck and worked it around slowly with berg screaming for about 10 seconds. He was quiet by the time they reached the front of the throat. They resorted to ripping the head up and back to make it easier to work on what was left of his neck. The blood spurting argument would make sense if was beheaded in a one swift blow. He wasnt. They murdered him in such a fashion as to prolong his suffering.

Now on to some of the hilarious conspiracy theories - all of course couched in the "Im not saying this is the case, Im just throwing it out there, so dont criticise me for being wrong, cos im not saying its what happened, Im just saying its....blah blah blah" style of non-argument.

i merely pointed out that I was skeptical in general, since it seems to me that this incident came at an EXTREMELY convenient time for the current administration...

Well youre wrong, but well come to that. First of all, Abu Gharib came at an extremely convenient time for the terrorists in Iraq. How skeptical are you of that? Not very? Is this because your hatred of the Bush administration isnt blinding your reason in that particular case because it suits your political views that Abu gharib should have happened?

as far as i'm concerned, the current administration consists primarily of people who are utterly selfish and care only for themselves. I don't think they value human or american lives, only their own greed and power, as evidenced constantly by their actions and policies in the world and america, so keeping that premise in mind... and again thinking about WHO gained the most tangibly from the incident...

You could say the exact same thing about terrorists. Now who benefited most from Abu Gharib? Damn, youre almost convincing me.

So is it possible that it was a buncha terrorists who did this.. i'd say yes, definately, but i'd say its also equally possible that this was some kind of US black ops to take the edge of Abu Garib. The timing is too perfect. I find it hard to believe that this was just pure coincidence... just as the timing of 9/11 came at a great time for Bush.

Actually this came at a lousy time for Bush - He had a brutal killing of an American repairman ( or mercenary if you prefer ) which grabbed world attention due to the horrific nature of it and to top it all off he had the victims tearful family blaming *him* and his administration for the death of their son and brother.

Yeah, who benefitted most again? No, really - who benefitted?

I just weep for the future sometimes.

I don't think this story is as straightforward as it first appeared.

It wont be by the time political interests are finished with.

On a related note did you hear about this other murdered hostage ? Theres apparently a bit of a debate in Italy as to whether he should be given a state funeral, as some Italians seem to view him as a bit of hero for defying his murderers. Some have disagreed feeling that because hes not a soldier he doesnt deserve a state funeral - fair enough but what caught my attention was the fact the BBC, who have been hailed as unbiased here, defined the anti - state funeral mob as being the center-left oppositon. Why would the opposers be defined by political idealogy? Since when has a funeral become a political issue?

Tuars

Sand, it's a dishonest debating tactic to compare Abu Ghraib to the beheading of Nick Berg (the old bait-and-switch). They are two seperate and only loosely connected events. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

Incidents at Abu Ghraib were proved to be true with documentary evidence. Equally, allegations of abuse by British soldiers were found to be false. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The Nick Berg case is being analysed on its own merits and based on the the available evidence - not according on what happened at Abu Ghraib - and for me it's too early to say what exactly occurred. If more evidence comes out I could be swayed one way or another.

And, by the way, where do you get off equating the US government with terrorists? More distraction?

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Memnoch
when did I say it was faked?

I didn't say anything was faked... or not...

i merely pointed out that I was skeptical in general, since it seems to me that this incident came at an EXTREMELY convenient time for the current administration...

as far as i'm concerned, the current administration consists primarily of people who are utterly selfish and care only for themselves. I don't think they value human or american lives, only their own greed and power, as evidenced constantly by their actions and policies in the world and america, so keeping that premise in mind... and again thinking about WHO gained the most tangibly from the incident...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a CIA black ops, so the video could be authentic but the killers may not necessarily be who we are told they are... off course this is merely a theory and i have no proof, and i'm not even sure if its the right theory, or what the truth is.

maybe it was faked, maybe it wasn't

the sad fact is that the CIA have played some really really dirty games in the past.

the same goes for 9/11. While i'm not sure who really made it happen, i'm of the opinion that the bush administration could have prevented it, and choose to allow it to happen.

motive is always important i believe. Its easy to say that "terrorists" need no motives and they are just crazy fundamentalists who do these things. But the truth is that terrorists aren't just "crazy fundamentalists" they are calculating and do things with specific agenda's.

So is it possible that it was a buncha terrorists who did this.. i'd say yes, definately, but i'd say its also equally possible that this was some kind of US black ops to take the edge of Abu Garib. The timing is too perfect. I find it hard to believe that this was just pure coincidence... just as the timing of 9/11 came at a great time for Bush.

I agree with you Memnoch. It's blatently obvious that the US administration has no respect for human life. People are really programmed how to think these days.

Nick

Sand

Sand, it's a dishonest debating tactic to compare Abu Ghraib to the beheading of Nick Berg (the old bait-and-switch). They are two seperate and only loosely connected events. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

Dont they? Mems theories rest on his asking who benefits? Now he was mistaken about who benefitted from the Berg murder, but his mistaken view was enough for him to start talking about CIA black ops and the corruption and evilness of the bush regime, how its plausible they could do something evil like that, cos theyre evil.

Im just applying Mems logic to abu Gharib - who benefitted? The terrorists clearly. Anything Mem said about the Bush administration applies far more easily to the terrorists so theyre evil enough to do something like that. So Mem must thus be deeply skeptical that that Abu gharib is as clearcut as it seems. Surely the terrorists must be involved - they have benefitted massively from it.

Now youre choking there, thinking how ludicrous it is to suggest that Abu Gharib involved the terrorists - but Im only applying mems logic, which would imply that that mems logic for being skeptical was also ludicrous. And i agree, it is. That was the point of applying it to Abu Gharib.

If more evidence comes out I could be swayed one way or another.

Thats the thing though - there is no evidence to doubt that Berg was beheaded alive. The problem of the spurting blood has been addressed. As such its not a case of more evidence - there is no evidence contrary to the determined event. As such youre not waiting for more evidence, youre waiting for *any* evidence.

But the point of conspiracy theories like this is not to provide evidence - it is to muddy the waters and cast doubt. Did you hear that the WTC was actually hit with a missile? Did you hear that theres mysterious discrepancies on the passenger lists?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
He was cut from the back of then neck with a small bladed knife, they dug the knife in to the back of his neck and worked it around slowly with berg screaming for about 10 seconds

....

The blood spurting argument would make sense if was beheaded in a one swift blow.

Not true.

The blood spurting argument would make sense if his heart was still beating when his carotid was cut. This would most likely happen in a single-cut situation, because - as pointed out by others - shock and trauma would often kill the person before these were cut

However, because Berg screamed for some time while they were "working it around slowly" at the back, it is clear that the severage of the spinal chord (if it occurred at that point) didn't render hm unconscious, so it seems reasonable to say that it didn't stop his heart beating either.

So now, we have a situation where the shock-kill is - by the evidence you are using to back yoru own case - did not kill him almost immediately, which then raises the question of when he did die. If it was before the carotid (or the jugular) was cut, you still wouldn't have massive spray. If he was alive when these were cut, there would be.

But your recounting of what happened, Sand, doesn't debunk the theory at all. You offer nothing to show he died suddenly of shock before the major blood-vessels were severed, and - in fact - offer evidence to show that he remained not only alive, but conscious for quite an amount of the proceedings.

jc

Sand

But your recounting of what happened, Sand, doesn't debunk the theory at all. You offer nothing to show he died suddenly of shock before the major blood-vessels were severed, and - in fact - offer evidence to show that he remained not only alive, but conscious for quite an amount of the proceedings.

The theory was that he was he wasnt beheaded alive because there wasnt any spurt of blood. The video shows him screaming as hes cut from the back of the neck. This is evidence that hes alive. Hes quiet by the time they reach the throat. Given the pain, the lack of screaming is a good indicator that hes dead by this point - hence the spurt of blood or lack of it isnt a sustainable piece of evidence. You would have to show that Berg was alive, but somehow incapable of screaming or of feeling pain, yet his heart was still beating. Then the lack of blood spurt would be evidence of something not being quite right.

But like I said, conspiracy theories arent about evidence - theyre about casting doubt.

Tuars

The video shows him screaming as hes cut from the back of the neck. This is evidence that hes alive. (Sand)

There are suggestions that the soundtrack has been overdubbed so it may not be reliable.

And as regards muddying the waters it's you who's bringing in Abu Ghraib, Italian funerals,and 9/11 missiles and passenger lists. None of which are relevant to the topic.