Videoman
frame by frame analysis of the Nick Berg footage
Tue May 18, 2004 16:22
64.140.158.144

Author: Videoman
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=1471708&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=1

I have just conducted a thorough frame by frame analysis of the Nick Berg footage. I've paid particular attention to the editing.

I've included here a breakdown, shot by shot. I've tried to remain totally objective thoughout, and limit my analysis to the evidence we can see, and others can hopefully corroborate. My apologies for the messy layout.


For the sake of this discussion, I'll name the captors from 1 to 5

John Doe1
John Doe2
John Doe3 (reading the script)
John Doe4
John Doe5

==============================

Video Breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot A video time 13:26:24 to 13:26:27 synced audio
Nick sitting in a chair giving his details

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot B video time 02:18:33 to 02:18:43 synced audio
Nick sitting in chair, giving his details, different angle

This is NOT a second angle on the first shot. Nick has clearly moved in between these two shots, as illustrated by the change in his voice tone while reciting his details, and the change in the pattern of folds and clothing position under his harms and on his chest. This clearly shows a careful edit has been made, and we cannot know how long apart these two shots were taken. It also shows that the editor as at least some basic editing skills.

we also hear a door squeek at 2:18:41

we see the reflection of a horizontal light in the top left of screen.

questions :-
Why did they shoot the scene twice?
Was nicks "performance" not up to scratch?
Why did they go to such lengths to make it look like it was shot at the same time?
Did they get him to replicate his hand position is that just coincidence?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot C video time 02:40:33 to 02:44:37 (audio 5-10 seconds ahead (see below))

Nick is definitely alive and conscious though-out this section. He occasionally shrugs, as if he is aware of an impending issue regarding his neck. He sits tense for a moment, then forces has shoulders back down. He does remain very still.

In this shot, the audio is 5-6 seconds in front of the picture. The fact the this audio is out of sync while the first section is IN sync show that the slipped audio is part of the original master, and not due to later encoding/decoding issues of the whole video.

How far out of sync? The person reading the speech coughs audibly at video time 02:42:33. We see him raise his hand at 2:42:38. So the audio appears to be 5 seconds ahead of the picture..

however...
We hear a thump, which sounds like Nick hitting the ground, at 02:44:02, and then we see him hit the ground at 02:44:11. thats 10 seconds ahead, without any visible cut in the video. Therefore an audio edit has taken place, with five seconds of audio removed sometime before the thump.

Also The screaming also doesn't start unit a couple of seconds after the thump. Visually this shot also lasts about 2 seconds after nick hits the ground. As he hits the ground the JohnDoe3 raises his knife, but we do not see him actually cutting with it. We also don't see any panic reaction from him or hear a noise, even taking into account any slippage of the audio.

Some subjective observations.
JohnDoe2 is starting straight at camera. 4 and 5 though look nervous, and don't know what to do with their hands.
JohnDoe4 in particular seems to nervously fiddle with his mask, often just after JohnDoe3 has shuffled his papers, I've had trouble following these paper moves, but they don't seem to coincided with the speech. None of them show the same body languages as other Iraqi kidnappers we've seen?

Questions:
Why leave the audio out of sync when the editor is clearly perfectly competent?
What was the 5 seconds of audio they removed?
Why did the cameraman cut away from this shot just before Nick is actually attacked?
Why didn't Nick react or even make a noise has he was thrown to the ground?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot D video time 13:45:47 to 13:45:52 inconclusive audio

We now zoom in very close. the video is shaky and blurred. It is impossible to tell if nick is alive or dead at this point.

Between shots D and E, we seem to get a period of accelerated time, where the video clock jumps forward to 13:45:59,. However we also see an intermediate frame or two, giving as a glimpse of 13:45:57. this appears to be intended to give continuity while removing around 3 seconds.

questions:

Why zoom in like that? is that the best footage they had (given they were supposed to have 2 cameras)?
Why are we having seconds edited out, and yet returning to the same shot?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot E video time 13:45:59 to 13:46:32

There is a slight jump cut with about half a second missing at 13:46:27, as shown by the video clock and the jump in JohnDoe3's arm position. At the end of this shot we JohnDoe3 lift the knife away slightly and lay the head down, as if he's given up trying to get it off.

Questions:
Why the edit?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot F 13:47:46 13:47:52

Having just jumped about 80 seconds of video time, the head is removed from the body and raised in the air. However it isn't JohnDoe3 who is hold the head and knife, it's JohnDoe2 ! MINUS HIS BOMB VEST!!! (unless it's JohnDoe3 and he's switched masks!!!)

Questions

Why has JohnDoe2 removed his bomb vest????!!!!
Why is he now the the one to hold up the head?
Where as JohnDoe3 gone?
Why would JohnDoe3, as a terrorist leader, humiliate himself in front of thew others by appearing incapable of removing the head?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot G 2:46:18 to 2:46:22

Back to the other camera/different time. another shot of the head being held up.

This appears to have been shot at the same time as Shot F, but for reasons discussed earlier, we can't be sure of this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shot H 13:48:29 to 13:48:49 lots of missed frames here, about 5-10 seconds worth.
END

=======================================

Other observations.

it's widely assumed that two cameras were used, because of the difference in the video clocks.

If this is the case, both were set up exactly the same in terms of white point and aperture. Both exhibit the same edge of frame artifacts (dark pixels where the images doesn't make it to the end of the frame) Both may also be of the same model given the similarity of time clocks and image.

The two clocks are roughly 11 hours and 8 minutes apart at the start of the film. The exact difference is impossible to judge since shots A and B were NOT shot at the same moment in time. (see above)

At the end, they are roughly 11 hours and 2 minutes apart, although again it is hard to tell.

the camera with timings around 2:40 appears to be on a tripod at all times.

It is impossible to tell if there were two cameras or not. It seems likely, but we cannot be conclusive one way or the other.

--------------------------------------------------

Ill leave it there for now. there is much more analysis to be done, an I don't want to get into guessing at potential scenarios until all the objective evidence is in..

In particular I'd like to know about the video tears across the bottom of the screen. Is this a digital or analog artifact? What was the likely signal path, from camera to web? The blurred images suggest an analogue stage. However the skip time edits suggest digital, at least at the editing process.

Also can anyone identify the make of the camera? Do the time clocks look familiar? Things like this do differ from cam to cam, and the more we know the better.

Edited by videoman on 05/16/04 04:49 PM.

Post Extras:
basil
(nonconformist)
05/16/04 04:55 PM
Re: Nick Berg Video : detailed breakdown [ To: videoman | Post 1471745, reply to 1471708 ] (Score: 1)

Thanks for a very interesting post. I am still trying to work through the significance of these edits. I'm not sure what the clumbsy effects mean. The chair and the orange jumpsuit "coincidence" is also difficult to ignore. Either it was "Americans" or another government with access to well paid mercenaries and relatively competent technicians who were told to make it look "low fi".

I assume I don't say anything new here by mentioning the other famous tapes that have changed the course of history. I no longer doubt that it is a "fake" event, I'm just not sure who would be willing (and did) do it. Who has the un-edited footage if it still exists. What will/has happened to the "nervous" and incompetent perps?

I feel this has been just one of many "JFK moments" that I have seen. They are coming thick and fast now.

Post Extras:
videoman
(neophyte)
05/17/04 03:31 AM
Re: Nick Berg Video :PROOF of western involvement [ To: basil | Post 1472265, reply to 1471745 ] (Score: 1)

VERY Important note about the edit at 13:46:27

Who's white ear and green cap is see entering frame at this point from the right??

It looks like a millitary cap to me and is certainly a white persons ear.

Interestingly, if the editiors were looking at a broadcast monitor at the time, they could well have missed this, since it would be outside the "safe" area. They look like they cut the frames where it came within the "safe" area.

This explains the missing frames at this point, and CLEARLY shows this video is not all it seems.

Edited by videoman on 05/17/04 05:35 AM.

Post Extras:
Mariner
(extremist)
05/17/04 09:41 AM
Re: Nick Berg Video :PROOF of western involvement [ To: videoman | Post 1472472, reply to 1472265 ] (Score: 2)

In part the edits might reflect goofs that were immediate giveaways such as the Green Hat - and they did not have a second Nick Berg handy to re-shoot the snuff scenes.

Some of the glaring goofs may have thus been unavoidable. After all they had gone to all the trouble of whacking the guy and shooting the whole thing for this charming little PsyOps thriller and then were just too incompetent to get it right in one take and couldn't shoot it again.

That also means they might have whacked the witnesses to the shoot - John Does 1-5. Needless to say there might be a shortage of volunteers for a "re-shoot". Also they were under tight time constraints. This may only have been thought up as an emergency damage control measure and was a Rush Job to get it out there to kill the Prison Torture Scandal that was threatening to bring down the Bush Junta.

Speculations but they would seem to fit what we have been presented with.
MORE POSTINGS HERE:
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=1471708&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=1 

• PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT! — SALLY AND SIDNEY SHEEPLE., Tue May 18 20:58
• MAKIN` MONEY IN AMERICA. — RICH FIELDS, Tue May 18 21:16