Yes, Berg again

Previously, I referred to the Sydney Morning Herald story on the Berg controversy. Here is the unexpurgated, much-expanded version. Those of you who have been waiting to hear the opinion of an unquestioned expert on the amount of blood that should have been visible will take a special interest in this paragraph:

Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, told Ritt Goldstein of the Asia Times, "I would have thought that all the people in the vicinity would have been covered in blood, in a matter of seconds ... if it [the video] was genuine,". This echoed the conclusion of Dr Raul Castro Guevara, a surgeon and forensic expert in Mexico City consulted by other researchers, who said "there is no way that the individual in the video was alive and his heart pumping while his neck was being cut". He judged the video a fraud.

Asia Online asked another forensic “death expert” Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it."

A little Googling will reveal that the credentials of Simpson and Nordby both pan out. Do the harrumphers and pooh-poohers -- the ones who routinely relegate such discussions to the cloud-cuckoo-land of black helicopters -- have any independent experts willing to opine that the video is authentic?

Speaking of cloud-cuckoo-land (a term invented by Aristophanes, if memory serves): This site claims that digital water marks can prove that the same camera shot the Berg footage and the atrocity footage at Abu Ghraib. This notion doesn't seem likely to me, given the fact that the only available version of the Berg video was highly compressed.