BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:42 PM

"Then there is the black bear that you don't know or want to know. It is not a good career move to wake up the black bear because when he loses control; people tend to get hurt. The black bear (the dark side of my nature) left three schoolteachersm and aboout 70 classmates lying in the floor."

Pah. Wimpy. I live in brown bear country- and brown bears frequently chase down and kill and eat black bears.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:19 PM

The Korean hostage has been beheaded too I read.
I expect to read here a good tale who was this time behind the crime.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:49 AM

"Berg's family are fairly staunchly pro Bush."

Here's a report on Nick Berg's father speaking at an anti-war rally in Washington at the weekend, with a photo. I'm not sure "staunchly pro-Bush" is quite the way to put it.

Don't go believing everything people post on the internet, that's true enough...

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:45 AM

"Berg's family are fairly staunchly pro Bush."
Here's a report on Nick Berg's father speaking at an anti-war rally in Wahington at the weekend, with a photo. I'm not sure "staunchly pro-Bush" is quite the way to put it.

Don't go believing everything people post on the internet, that's true enough...

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:44 AM

Two bears states "left three schoolteachersm and aboout 70 classmates lying in the floor"

Which prison are you posting from?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:18 AM

Hey Two Bears, what happened to the third bear?

Did he quit? Or was he fired?

There never WAS a third bear.

There is the white bear you know.

Then there is the black bear that you don't know or want to know. It is not a good career move to wake up the black bear because when he loses control; people tend to get hurt. The black bear (the dark side of my nature) left three schoolteachersm and aboout 70 classmates lying in the floor.

In my life; I have been two completely different people; so the name Two Bears is completely appropriate, and because the Bear is my totem (power) animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 04 - 01:37 AM

LadyJean - Berg's father blames Bush for his son's death.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Jun 04 - 01:15 AM

Some years ago, I broke my left elbow. I can't straighten my left arm now. I often find myself standing in the "at ease" posture, as it's a comfortable way to stand when you can't straighten an arm. I've never served in the military.
I suspect the quartet who killed Berg weren't part of Al Qaida. They just came to Iraq to fight for Islam. There are Muslims in Russia.
Berg's family are fairly staunchly pro Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 11:18 PM

Hey Two Bears, what happened to the third bear?

Did he quit? Or was he fired?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Two_bears
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 11:12 PM

In the Michael Moore thread, it is mentioned that he has a filmed interview with Nick Berg that isn't in the film. He has sent it to the family, to see if they would like to have it released to the public. If that is true, it is a pretty creepy coincidence too.

If Michael Moore were to tell me it was noob; I would insist on checking the location of the sun.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 11:04 PM

You never baited me, dianavan.

You're the fish. As in smells like tuna.

OK, so you don't hate America. You just dislike it immensly.

Maybe it's a better place without you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 09:38 PM

Not only can you find pretty much anything you look for on the web, you can find a theory from pretty much any perspective on the web, justifying any point of view. Problem is, truth becomes hard to ferret out because now we have an overabundance of 'information' when we used to deal with dearth.

IMHO we are also experiencing an era where average journalistic standards have dropped. We can argue about the definition of journalist I suppose, but they seem to be parroting preconceived and predigested notions to the public; the barriers between entertainment and television reportage have been blown to smithereens, and there have been major scandals from the peerage of the press, the New York Times in the U.S. and the BBC in Britain.

For an interesting case in point, check out:

the story of Alexandra Polier

I found it believable and a good read.

Meanwhile, there are ourselves, who tune in to the exploits of the socially inert, who let ourselves be guided by our credulosities and predispositions.

We only believe things for four reasons, We believe what we're told, We believe what we wish, We believe what we fear, and I can't remember the fourth.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 07:13 PM

Wolfgang -

"Personally, I'd rather read a post from freda than one of your sophist arguments." I didn't say anything about what she thinks but I do appreciate that she has posted what she has learned.

...and I do read what you say with interest until you start putting words in my mouth or start 'splitting hairs'. Argument for the sake of argument is tiring.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 05:56 AM

Dianavan,

you've made me laugh:
One of the reasons I read the posts is to find out what others think or what they have learned..... Personally, I'd rather read a post from freda than one of your sophist arguments.
so far, I have made no comment, i have just posted excerpts from articles from the sydney morning Herald, the Guardian, and the BBC website. (Freda)
I do wonder a bit how you have found out what Freda thinks when she has explicitely told us she has made no comment yet.

You may well prefer Freda's posts to my posts, but if you have not found out in my posts what I think and what I have learned here, I do not see that as my fault.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 08:35 PM

Wolfgang - When there are contradictory stories, we no longer know what to believe. One of the reasons I read the posts is to find out what others think or what they have learned. You seem to spend most of your time splitting hairs. Personally, I'd rather read a post from freda than one of your sophist arguments.

Martin - I do not hate America but I do disapprove of their methods and motives. I also do not trust their propaganda. This is not the same as hate. I dislike lima beans but I do not hate them. I do not hate or dislike you. You are not worth the time or the energy. It used to be kinda fun, baiting you, but now you're just boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 06:51 PM

true Wolfgang, but that was a comment on the responses of catters, not on the article or making any whodunnit assumptions about its contents.

so far, I have made no comment on the beheading and who or what group of people may be the perpetrators. when making the statement "so far, I have made no comment" I just wanted to clarify Uncle Dave's misunderstanding, as he quoted words from an article as my opinions.

fred

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:16 PM

so far, I have made no comment (Freda)

So who was it you did cite when posting Its interesting that emerging contradictions cannot be reported without cries of "conspiracy" or unreliability.?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:44 PM

i've posted an article. simple.
and :
Freda underhill said: "such visits are bound to have been recorded but no transcripts have been produced."

i didnt say this, the article did.

so far, I have made no comment, i have just posted excerpts from articles from the sydney morning Herald, the Guardian, and the BBC website.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:12 PM

I'd probably give Germany a better chance of winning the Euro than this story being true. But then I'd always give even a poor German team a fair chance of winning the Euro.

But I can't see anything inherently improbable in the suggestion that this was a fake from "our side". More especially since that wouldn't necessarily have to mean a fake planned and authorised from a high level - what makes these kind of conspiracies improbable isn't so much "our people would never do something as bad as that", it's "our leaders would never risk authorising something like that, in the light of the consequences if it came out."

So Wolfgang would give it "extremely unlikely, but not thoroughly impossible"; I'd say "possible, but far from being proved". Not really all that much difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM

Just a reminder for those who say this should not be dismissed or ridiculed as another conspiracy theory: This expression comes from the subtitle of the article Freda has posted in the first post and is repeated in the article. That's where it started.

I have come to thoroughly dislike the way conspiracy theories are posted here in Mudcat. I even had thought of posting a parody of a conspiracy theory immediately after the death of Nick Berg. But I thought that would have been too gross and nobody would buy it, so it let slip by the opportunity. Well, sometimes the reality is weirder than my phantasies.

If you look closely at the different bits of information Freda has posted what strikes immediately is the lack of coherence, a complete lack of evaluation and the juxtaposition of irrelevancies as if these things had some connection.

A few examples:

- The Berg family has complained and blamed the Bush government for Nick's death.
This bit of information is true but refers to keeping Nick for longer in custody than necessary and letting him out when the danger was high. Read in the context of the conspiracy theory, this gets a kind of sinister touch and that is the effect wanted.

- The video is edited and the man may have been dead before the decapitation.
Quite probably true, but noone has claimed in the video that the man was alive at that moment. That was a quick inference which may be wrong, so what?

- The murderer may not be the man boasting about it.
Possibly true. When hooded terrorists claim responsibility and tell the police the name of a main responsible, I'd bet they lie to save themselves. Give the Bush government a wrong name with some plausibility and you may send them down the wrong path. If the man named is actually dead (but nobody knows for sure) all the better. He will not protest the wrong accusation.

- The man on the far left stands in the familiar "at ease" military posture.
That's a really damning piece of evidence. Noone else outside of the US Army has ever been watched in such a posture. And surely noone of Saddam's former army could possibly be among the five hoods.

The trademark of such theories is the stringing together of truths, halftruths, wild guesses (the words in 'English' for instance, you have to listen to them to hear how laughable that is) and completely irrelevant observations as if all these things have anything to do with each other. People doing these stringing together jobs go for the effect. The idea is to make more claims than anyone could check himself and to hope that 'where smoke is there is fire' will win the day once more.

People spreading these theories do not even see the most glaring contradictions. If it is true that the killers have offered to the Bush government exchange of prisoners, then the other part of the story (the killing was staged by Americans) makes no sense.

It is not the case that I completely exclude one possibility, but when reading what Freda has posted I consider the arguments threadbare to the extreme. You must show me much more convincing evidence before I give this theory more than a 'extremely unlikely, but not thoroughly impossible'. And here it is where I depart from McGrath's we just don't have the information which would make it possible to determine what happened with any degree of confidence. Of course, we can assign a degree of confidence to such stories and we do it daily. We look at how they are presented, what they cite as evidence, how they argue, and if we find them wanting in all vital aspect we assign them a very low degree of confidence.

Do a bit of critical reading of the so called evidence above. I'd rather bet on a mediocre German team winning the Euro 2004 than on this conspiracy theory being true. Which does not mean I buy every single aspect of the alternative story. I have my doubt whether we actually know why he was there. If he was, for instance, an American spy, I'd expect the Americans to lie about that detail for the sake of all the people who might have talked with Berg.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:16 PM

I think it was somebody from Hull, it might have been Les, [i'm not really sure about this really, so i'd better put allegidly].

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:12 PM

My theory about who cut off King Charles head was that it was dianavan, to take the heat off on how deplorable her hate of America is.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: greg stephens
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:40 AM

Anybody got any interesting theories who cut King Charles I's head off? I think it was probably his son, cui bono, dont yer know.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:39 AM

Freda Underhill, referring to the FBI's visits, presumably to interview Berg, said "such visits are bound to have been recorded but no transcripts have been produced."

The FBI, at least in normal criminal operations inside the US, does not record interviews. Two agents (at least) will be present at the interview. This serves two purposes: One is free to make thorough notes while the other conducts the interview; and if the agents' account is challenged, it's two people's word against one.

Of course I can't guarantee that this regular procedure was used with Berg, but I'd bet money on it.   In any case, "such visits are bound to have been recorded" is clearly erroneous.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:35 AM

Honest Greg, I wasn't implying anything about Macedonians. Any country "within the Coalition" would have made the point just as well - it just happened that it was Macedonians this time.

The point being, to use this as an indication that there have been people in important positions in countries within "the Coalition" - a Coalition which has been defined as consisting of those countries with troops in Iraq - who had no qualms about killing innocent citizens of a friendly country, in order to get some imagined political advantage, as members of "the war on terror".

And I also felt that it was appropriate to remind people that sometimes the kinds of intra-government conspiracies, which are often rejected out of hand, can actually take place.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about it is that it actually came to light within a couple of years, and that the key element in this happening appears to have been the Macedonian Government. I am certain that, if something like this were to happen in many countries, including the UK, it would successfully be covered up, and any efforts to expose it would be ridiculed as "another conspiracy theory".

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:26 AM

Isn't it also not inherently improbable that Beth Payne made a mistake in her information regarding Nick Berg? People make mistakes on the job all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:00 AM

from "Resignation call over Iraq murder; Monday, 17 May, 2004, BBC News UK "

The father of a US man whose murder in Iraq was videotaped has blamed the US defence secretary for his son's death. Michael Berg said he held Washington responsible, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, whom he said should resign.

Nick Berg's killers said they had offered to exchange him for inmates at Abu Ghraib prison, but the coalition authorities had, they said, refused.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:49 AM

Family says US held man who was beheaded; CIA links video execution to al-Qaida; Julian Borger in Washington; Friday May 14, 2004; The Guardian

… an email released by the family raises serious doubts about denials this week from the US occupation authorities that Berg was ever in American custody. It was sent to the family by a US diplomat on April 1, when the family had lost contact with their son for several days.

"I have confirmed that your son, Nick, is being detained by the US military in Mosul. He is safe. He was picked up approximately one week ago. We will try to obtain additional information regarding his detention and a contact person you can communicate with directly," said the email from a consular official identified as Beth Payne. The email was obtained by the Associated Press.

The family argues that Berg's fate was sealed by his detention, which delayed his departure until April, when Iraq was in chaos, and it was dangerous to travel. Berg's father, Michael, also demanded that the Bush administration answer claims from the killers that they had offered to trade his life for Iraqi prisoners.

"If that is true... I think the people of the United States of America need to know what the fate of their sons and daughters might be in the hands of the Bush administration," he said. The US authorities vigorously denied holding Berg, who had travelled to Iraq in the hope of finding contract work putting up communications antennae. Dan Senor, a spokesman for the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad, said FBI officials had visited Berg in an Iraqi cell in Mosul, but insisted the American had never been in US custody.

However, the Iraqi police chief in Mosul told CNN his forces had detained Berg, but released him within hours to the US military.
........end of article.....................

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: greg stephens
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:39 AM

McGrath from Harlow points out that some Macedonians were involved in killing some people in very nefarious circumstances a few years ago. He then points out "without in any way implying anything", that there were some Macedonians in Irag when Berg had his head cut off.
   Well, McGrath, if, as you say, you weren't implying anything, why exactly did you you put these two bits of information side by side? I cant quite see what you are doing, if you are not implying something. I, and anyone else reading your post, will spot exactly what you appear to be implying: that if some Macedonians did a bad thing some time ago, it follows that some other Macedonians will do another bad thing now. There's a word for making those sort of essentialist suggestions about ethnic groups.
(Alexander the Great was a Macedonian. It does not necessarily follow that all Macedonians are likely to conquer the known world. ).

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:31 AM

The point is, we just don't have the information which would make it possible to determine what happened with any degree of confidence.

There is nothing inherently improbable in it being "a propaganda video for jihadistas". But there is nothing inherently improbable in it being black propaganda produced by some group who wanted to take the heat off Bush.

The purpose of my reminding people of the Macedonia story was to point out that there are people "on our side" who have demonstrated this level of brutality towards citizens of a friendly country, as a means of achieving a political end. I wasn't suggesting that there was any connection between that incident and the Nick Berg killing.

Coming down firmly on either side over this strikes me as equally unjustifiable at this point. Perhaps further investgation by an independent source, as requested by Nick Berg's father, might throw further light on what happened that would make it possible to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 10:19 AM

The idea that anyone would even think this was a US secret plot is absolutely deplorable. It wouldn't have mattered WHEN it happened, someone would have come up with "oh look, it's a perfectly timed attempt to divert attention from (insert choice of crisis here)."

Yes, there are a lot of questions, and the answers probably aren't so simple.

I'm still waiting for someone to say that the whole thing is a CGI.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 08:01 AM

"I have not yet seen one reasonable argument for the murder being a 'black operation' by US psychological warfare specialists"

Wolfgang.

Don't worry Wolfgang, some beggar on this forum will come up with one, in the not too distant future.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 05:52 AM

If it now appears that this video was faked in at least one significant way (McGrath)

Faked? I'm not sure. I have not seen the video, only read a transcript of the words together with a description of the action. What I have read left open whether Berg was alive at the time of the decapitation or not. The video seems to be edited by the distributors, that's exactly what you would expect from a propaganda video. And that it is: a propaganda video for jihadistas.

In any at least a tiny bit complex happening, the reports will sometimes contradict each other, and not all the details will be completely clear. To infer from that that the whole story is fabricated is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Governments have lied and governments have told the truth. So, you'll find innumerous instances for both. The shortcut 'they have lied to me more than once, so they lie here too' is attractive for lazy thinkers but ir may turn out not to be a shortcut but a mental shortcircuit.

The Secret Service in Macedonia has conspired and killed Pakistani two years ago. Does this instance make it any more likely that some US personell has killed Berg? No. That example is only relevant for those who believe that these things have never happened, but I see nobody here with such an opinion. It also would be completely irrelevant if I told an example in which a conspiracy theory turned out to be wrong after all.

You'll have to judge this story here on its own merit. The tape seems to be edited, perhaps the video shows scenes from different cameras. That action by itself is easily consisted with the murderers editing their tape for propaganda purposes. Apart from that, I have not yet seen one reasonable argument for the murder being a 'black operation' by US psychological warfare specialists

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:20 AM

What makes the Bush administration so absolutely deplorable, is that they are so transparent. I suspected, from the beginning, that the beheading video was an ugly attempt to divert the attention of the American public from the torture videos. I wouldn't put anything past Americon. Why should I believe anything they say or do? Its a matter of trust. They lied and have done nothing to regain my trust. They just keep getting slimier and slimier.

The worst part is that they expect us to believe it. How insulting!

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 11:13 AM

"Why do mainstream media (at least some of them) not publish this story? Because after a quick follow up they have decided that the source is completely unreliable."

The fact that some mainstrain media outlets fail to carry a story can have many reasons. One of them is indeed that they have followed it up and decided that the source is completely unreliable; but there are all kinds of other reasons which can apply as well.

If it now appears that this video was faked in at least one significant way, it becomes more plausible to question whether it may have been faked in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:12 AM

Richard Neville has just written a summary of the rumours across the web with no attempt at critical appraisal.

If you did enjoy the original article you should not miss

Berg decapitation video was filmed inside the Abu Ghraib prison

The cuts (in the video) and the medical evidence in my eyes seem to indicate that the murderers did decapitate an already dead man. I can see their point: less evidence this way and less messy (if one cares about that aspect).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:08 AM

dianavan

Constant mistrust or constant paranoia?

Absolutely no integrity at all does the American government offer, do they?

I can keep an open mind as well as anyone. But is skepticism on virtually everything really that open?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:01 AM

at this stage, we can't be certain about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 09:50 AM

How can we be completely certain as to who's lying about what?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 08:07 AM

The story I posted was written by Richard Neville, an Australian author and journalist, and was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney's major newspaper.

Its interesting that emerging contradictions cannot be reported without cries of "conspiracy" or unreliability. To me its just an unfolding process of examining further information, its not clear at this stage what the actual events or motives were. There is further information at:

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/bloodstainanalysis.asp

25 May 2004 - Bloodstain Analysis from Nick Berg Beheading Video – Forensic Irregularities Cast Doubt on Events
Excerpted from issue 9 of the HQ INTEL-ALERT:

Introduction: My reaction to the horrific nature of the now infamous Nick Berg video overshadowed any consideration of performing any type of forensic bloodstain pattern analysis of the decapitation of this victim. Frankly, it appeared to be a rather open and shut case – a cold-blooded murder, an al Qaeda made-to-order "snuff film" where the victim was a 26 year-old American contractor working in Iraq. He was reportedly killed on Saturday, 8 May 2004 in a particularly gruesome manner – his throat was cut and he was decapitated. His body was reportedly found near a highway overpass in Baghdad, where his head was fully separated from his body. As the week progressed, analysts at the Northeast Intelligence Network found the absolutely revolting video posted on an al Qaeda linked website. The video was downloaded on 11 May 2004 for analysis.

As Laura Mansfield began her analysis of the footage, specifically the audio statement being read by the primary assailant identified as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I began to hear rumblings about oddities surrounding the footage. One of several "oddities" involved the blood evidence shown on the video. As I am certified in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis by the Laboratory of Forensic Science (Corning, New York, 10 May 2002) and a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts-IABPA, I decided to take a closer look at the video. The following is my report that details my analysis of the bloodstain patterns only.

excerpts follow: This investigator isolated the decapitation scene from the time initial physical contact was made by the individual holding the knife (but not close to the victim) through the final frame of the video. In total, approximately 460 individual frames were viewed, although only 330 frames were analyzed due their relevance to this analysis.

lengthy forensic analysis deleted but available at link cited.

Based on the investigative analysis conducted, it is the professional assessment of this investigator that the blood pattern shown in the video is NOT consistent with the cutting or breaching of the carotid artery or arteries of a person where the victim's blood pressure would be considered to be within the normal range. Based on this observation alone, this investigator questions the authenticity of the video as it was been presented for bloodstain pattern analysis.

Arterial Spurting / Arterial Gushing: Characteristic bloodstain pattern on a target surface resulting from blood exiting under pressure from a breached artery. (these pattern are characterized by their size and shape).

Sources:

Bloodstain Patterns-Revised Edition MacDonell, Herbert Leon Laboratory of Forensic Science © 1997
Blood Dynamics A.Y. Wonder Academic Press Copyright © 2001
Crime Scene Handbook Lee, Henry Academic Press Copyright © 1998
Analyst's Remarks: The above analysis does not lessen or otherwise mitigate the events surrounding the murder of Nick Berg. It raises a number of questions, however, especially when combined with other reported anomalies associated with this matter.

Notice: This report is the proprietary work of the Northeast Intelligence Network and the HQ INTEL-ALERT newsletter. This analysis may be reproduced in its entirety with credit to HQ INTEL-ALERT. Copyright © 2004 Northeast Intelligence Network.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 05:26 AM

When confronted with a conspiracy theory one can also do a kind of plausibility check:

Why do mainstream media (at least some of them) not publish this story? Because after a quick follow up they have decided that the source is completely unreliable.

What do people mentioned as witnesses do when they don't give credence to this story?

Do the 'inconsistencies' mentioned have simple explanations? In most cases in the article above, explanations are easy to find. Someone is trying to fool people by a juxtaposition of irrelevancies and (I guess) wrong informations. For instance, I do not believe that parents would not be shown a body upon demand. The writer simply hopes nobody is following this up. I guess someone did and found the story lacking any believable content.

As far as I see the story originates from aztlan (though the target article above only mentions aztlan in a URL and disguises the sources by stating '...flying around the world' which is very bad style).

Look up 'The nation of Aztlan' in any web search and you'll know who your are dealing with:

July 15, 2001 – "La Voz de Aztlan has just received a report that missing Washington D.C. intern Chandra Levy was seen yesterday afternoon entering an Israeli government building in Tel Aviv which reliable sources believe houses the 'Institution for Intelligence and Special Assignments'. The 'Institution' is the official 'spy' agency for the Israeli government and is more commonly known as the Mossad…. The Israeli Mossad's primary 'modus operandi' is to work through high level appointed and elected American Jews in the U.S. government. They also work through the 'U.S.A. Government Internship Program' to place personnel in key positions. Young bright and well educated American Jews are first indoctrinated, trained and then placed in key U.S. government agencies in order to carry out specific intelligence operations."

The original aztlan source even claims that Nick Berg was decapitated in Abu Gareib prison but that information was perhaps a bit too hard to swallow even for the most gullible journalist.

Yeah, I believe I believe!!, after the torture story came out and all the world turned its attention to this particular prison someone decided that staging a decapitation exactly at this spot would detract the attention from real American crimes. And we all know by now, no unwanted information comes out of this spot.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 03:23 AM

Well now Martin, you can't explain away the conveience or the perfect tiiming of this event to take the heat off the prison scandal, can ya? Oh, of course you can. Keep an open mind is all folks are saying. This government is backed against a wall in the eyes of the world. I wouldn't put anything past them

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 07:37 PM

A "conspiracy" just means that some relevant facts are not in full sight, and more than one person knows that. Accurately speaking, virtually all politics and all business dealings involve conspiracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 02:01 AM

I don't think you have to call it a conspiracy theory when events don't add up and no explanation is given.

Worse yet is when the explanation is just a lame excuse or a another lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 May 04 - 08:55 PM

This is exactly the one millionth conspiracy theory presented on the Mudcat forum.

I know.

I've been counting.

Every other one has been proven right also, haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 04 - 08:15 PM

A cigar may indeed be a cigar, and things sometimes may be the way they look, but the way things look is subjective - different people will see the same thing, but what they think it looks like won't be the same at all.

The idea that people allied to the US government might murder innocent people for political propaganda reasons will seem highly improbable to some people; but to others it would not seem improbable at all. And, as that story I linked to indicated, it has indeed happened.

The Macedonian security officers involved in the murder of those six Pakistanis would surely have had no qualms whatsoever about cutting Nick Berg's head off. (And it's worth noting, without in any way implying anything, that Macedonia is one of the countries with troops in Iraq, according to this site.)

We just do not have enough information to reach any kind of judgement about this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: dianavan
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:44 PM

Yes, a cigar is a cigar but that still doesn't explain why the U.S. lied about detaining him or why the parents were not permitted to view his body. As far as I'm concerned, that is their right as parents. Why would the U.S. deny them their rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Kim C
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:33 PM

All I'm sayin is, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 04 - 04:17 PM

Obviously he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that doesn't settle anything. And equally obviously his murder was a conspiracy of some kind, whoever killed him, even if it was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his mates.

Incidentally, how is this for an example of the kind of thing that gets dismissed as "just another conspiracy theory", involving murders carried out by a government agency? Except it turned out to be true.

Macedonia 'staged fake terror plot to woo US':
Macedonia has apologised for the murder of six Pakistanis by its security forces two years ago in a conspiracy supposedly intended to curry favour from America in the war on terrorism...

Subject: RE: BS: Who Beheaded Nick Berg?
From: Kim C
Date: 31 May 04 - 03:58 PM

Everybody loves a conspiracy theory.

The guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.