WAR: English Words and Western Voices Heard on Nick Berg Beheading Video

Originally posted by Valhall

BUT, you jumped a gap in concluding complicity in this act. There's another option a bit less sinister. They may have just tried to cover up, but had no part in it. If these people are not Al-Qaeda, and if they are american, and coming right in the middle of the abuse revelations...well, that may have been more bad press than they were willing to allow.

Thanks for your thoughts Valhall, I appreciate the time you have taken on this and other threads. You are right in saying that CIA may not have been actually involved in the act, but perhaps by deliberately misleading us or turning a blind eye they are still complicit.
In the light of the leaked report of General Antonio Taguba is it possible that non US "contractors were involved in the interrogation and torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib?

According to the following article..
www.counterpunch.org...
The report states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib."

Another article on the same site by Dave Lindorff suggests that "independent contractors" were involved in torture and murder there (although there seems no evidence in the article).
www.counterpunch.org...

Is it possible that "independent contractors" were involved in the murder of Nick Berg?
Sounds crazy but then again it is hard to make sense of this whole thing. After all there are reprts of English voices russian voices someone who speaks Arabic but without an Iraqi accent.

It seems that had Michael Berg not made a "song and dance" Nick would not have been released when he was. Surely whoever held him would have been keen to have him back?
there are a lot of coincidences spanning a couple of years in this thing.


[Edited on 31-5-2004 by judge]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by judge](to correct spelling)

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by judge]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by judge]

Is that a discovery of me? please read carefully, thanks.

-13 :45 :59 During that second exactly, he is pulled back by the man who hold his harms, and the one who hold his legs, hold his legs under his knees wich are maintained on the floor in order not to move. This give an impression of a �pelvis-move�. Some pictures are missing in that second and have been put forward to give an impression of a natural quick �pelvis move� of struggle. Look at the number 9 in the hour. It also have a change I don�t know why.
-14:46:00 We can hear in a non American accent : �Ok!�. Because the shot was good and the scene could continue. I can take the same accent as anybody. I can say ok in different accents.
Could you verify it also?
Is their other English words from the cameramen?

Please can you tell me if English worlds are also said and what they are, at :
-13 : 46 : 11 �Hell him�
-13 : 46 : 12 �over�
-13 : 46 : 13 strange relaxed words of the a cameraman �com� on ��.� Or �command ��, Do you ear those masked worlds?
-13:46:02-03 ; 13:46:04-05 ; 13:46:06-07 �Allha Oakbah� in a strange �may be�English�� accent, the last may be not Allha Oakbah�

Have you heard that Michael Moore had a tape of a Nick interview he didn't put in fareinate 9/11. He say he can't talk about. Not clear, but you can't understand what that movie brang in Cannes. Cineastes are not the same now and have started to do a lot of things (building cinema, theatre...) in Afganistan and other contries they wanted to do for years. They have found something to start it. He changed deeply something for peace. He doesn't hate Bush. Something very importante may apear for the good. I think he's a nice guy. Something may be wrong about what we think about terrorism. And all of us!!

Salut"

Originally posted by Lythium

Originally posted by tZykaar
...What it *actually* sounds like, if you put some thought into it, is not a poorly done CIA conspiracy but a television....Which by the way, you'll note is quieter than the much softer talking of the lead man....The televisions sound reverberates much like the mans voice does which would indicate it's in the same room....

I ran the egment with the voice through a spectrogram and came up with some very interesting things. First of all, it wasn't a T.V. Televisions when recorded give off a back noise "humm" sometimes you can even pick up the electrical pops of the horizontal and vertical scroll. Also the spectral pattern of the frequencies falls in range with the rest of the voices, this would not be the case if they used a TV.

The voice isn't quieter than any of the others. Given what information I could gather they didn't use just some ordinary camera mounted microphone. They seemed to have used a boom of some kind which would make someones voice thats close to the mic but out of the coverage angle seem softer and hallow.

The voice was deffinitely in the same room and close to the mic but not under the coverage spot, as if coming from behind the mics coverage area. A TVs audio does not reverberate just like an actual voice. It may sound that way to the ear but when it travels through the TV there are added frequency patterns. Such as small waves between waves which were not present when I did my tests.

As far as it possibly being another dialect, I can say that is a very limited possibility. I consulted a professor at school regarding other dialects particulary middle eastern, and he could not come up with any kind of phrase or words that had a similar sound-this after speaking with 13 other language professors. Furthermore, I tested the clip through waveform and spectrogram. Then tested the same words with my own and my fathers voice. "How wicked was that" is rather shaky. It could be dustortion from the recording but only the "How" and "That" Matched in the tests the other parts were similar but too different for me to say for certain. The interesting part was "How we gonna" at the end. Each word, syllable and phoneme matched my fathers and mine. So who know's. I would like to stress that just because something was a match does not mean that it isnt another dialect. For example, the Japanese phonetically say "Ohio" as a greeting. Now someone saying there greeting will leave behind the same pattern as someone saying the state. While it's two different languages with two different meanings the frequencies and patterns are the same. The tests I ran could never tell intent just display the numbers so to speak. If you want more clarification about the tests i ran and a better understanding of the results click here.

No, televisions don't necissarily give off a "hum". There is too much noise in the film to state that it isn't huming as it is. There is noise throughout the video. There is no question it is taped with the onboard camera microphone. There is no boom mic. If there were it would have sounded alot less distant and the reverb would not have been as perceivable. There are no "small waves between waves". I'm an audio engineer, you might be able to slick that by most people, but generally broadcast television is pretty high quality when it comes to recordings. Now it's very obvious that there is indeed a difference in the quality and intonations of the voice overheard and the mans voice. And you said "A TVs audio does not reverberate just like an actual voice." That's exactly what I'm talking about. It does *not* sound like it is coming from a man in the room. It *does* sound like it's coming from a television in the room, broadcasting who knows what. I am not going to speculate on that. But I am absolutely positive that the sound source is not a living human in the same room as the other men displayed there. You are not likely to get much data from the video that would allow you to reconstruct what was said from the television. There's far too much noise and quantization on the video to allow for that. It is far easier to pick out vowel sounds than the constinants. So reconstructing the constinants might be more guess work than anything unless you can determin exactly what everything else in the room is. The frequencies overlap.

Hi!
Take a look at this.
To the truth, and beyond!!

Take care..

Originally posted by tZykaar
No, televisions don't necissarily give off a "hum". There is too much noise in the film to state that it isn't huming as it is. There is noise throughout the video. There is no question it is taped with the onboard camera microphone. There is no boom mic. If there were it would have sounded alot less distant and the reverb would not have been as perceivable. There are no "small waves between waves". I'm an audio engineer, you might be able to slick that by most people, but generally broadcast television is pretty high quality when it comes to recordings. Now it's very obvious that there is indeed a difference in the quality and intonations of the voice overheard and the mans voice. And you said "A TVs audio does not reverberate just like an actual voice." That's exactly what I'm talking about. It does *not* sound like it is coming from a man in the room. It *does* sound like it's coming from a television in the room, broadcasting who knows what. I am not going to speculate on that. But I am absolutely positive that the sound source is not a living human in the same room as the other men displayed there. You are not likely to get much data from the video that would allow you to reconstruct what was said from the television. There's far too much noise and quantization on the video to allow for that. It is far easier to pick out vowel sounds than the constinants. So reconstructing the constinants might be more guess work than anything unless you can determin exactly what everything else in the room is. The frequencies overlap.

I'm happy for you that your an audio engineer. That aside-my "waves between waves" comment was regarding a waveform annalysis. If someones voice is recorded then run through a waveform it would appear in waves. If the voice was amplified through an object like a TV then recorded there is a background humm and if you ran that through a waveform and compared it the first sample you would see "waves within waves". eg where the voice drops out and the humm is present. In the first clip you would see the waveform drop to the 0 point whereas with the second clip it would remain at the frequency of the electircal humm given off by the speakers. And while you may not be able to always pick up this humm due to other sounds it is infact always there and always produced.

Regarding the use of a boom-while they probably didn't use a high quality boom you see in professional broadcast they most certainly did not use the on camera mics. There are several facts that prove this. First of all there were two cameras used with edited material switching between both cameras throughout the video and very frequently during the beheading phase. If they had used the on camera mics then-
1. there would be a change in loudness and quality of the sound as they switched between cameras- seeing as the cameras are at different locations in respect to the sources of sound they would have individual characteristics-thats why major productions use one mice and several cameras.
2. The audio clip, when tested properly, would show the splicing and cuts between the two mics as well as the individual characteristics mentioned above-this audio clip was taken from only one mic.
3. Anytime video is shot with an on cam mic you can hear the movements of the operator-everything from their hand sliding on the plastic or any sound made close to the mic-none of this is heard and while during the speach part the camera might have been on a tripod both cameras are moved around quite a bit during the beheading.
Now while they may not have had a boom stick they deffinitely had a seprate mic-possibly handheld.

You said "I am absolutely positive that the sound source is not a living human in the same room as the other men displayed there." yet you make no referrence of how you are so sure of that- you only state that you believe it was from a TV. A base spectral analysis tells you that they are from a human being in the same room as does a waveform. If it was a recording from a TV both waveform and a spectrogram would show that. Hence my "wave between waves" statement.

You also state that the frequencies overlap. This is true during the beheading as their is a struggle and shouting and several sources of sound. However, during the segment in question there is only the sound of the voice in question and seein as there is no humm from a TV set then there are no frequencies to overlap with. There is no noise to interfere other than regular background noise heard on every recording ever made.

As far as reconstructing what was said it is not a problem-again the segment in question is quiet and clear, there are no other sounds than the voice and as i said in my original post the frequency range of the segment in question falls in range with the rest of the voices on the tape again this is not the case with sounds reproduced from a TV, stereo, megaphone etc. Which I might add was a point you dutifully ignored in your reply.

Also, if it was a TV why didn't we hear it at any of the other "quiet" points in the video? We didn't hear them turn it on. Ever record the sound of a TV being turned on and run it through a waveform? It leaves a very distinct pattern-not from the pushing of a button but from the electrical discharge of the power as it kicks on as well as a small high frequency "squeal" as power is sent to the speakers. Nothing was present in the slience.

Hmm, the temptation of clicking a link.
Nick Berg anomalies stuff

My respect Val for your find.