UPDATE: Revisiting the Apache video yet again

Download the full-length video here from MO (8,472KB). (You may need to download and install the XviD codecs to watch it.)

I previously mentioned a message board that brought this issue up again. See the message board for more.

He says that he normally doesn’t copy and paste without noting that it’s a quotation or providing attribution (this is “perhaps the only one” where he didn’t do so), and invites me to check out the rest of his board to verify. I haven’t done so, but I’m willing to take him at his word.

He also writes:

And thanks for using your real name. That is your real name, right, or are you a big MacGyver fan? http://members.aol.com/immurdoc/murdoc.htm Would you like to tell us your full name and who you are? I noticed no biographical information on your web page. Maybe I just missed it. Easy to do, a lot of content there.

Standing up for what you believe while using your real identity adds weight to your arguments, don?t you think? You would be among the first conservatives ever to do so on this board.

If I were an Apache pilot and willing to post my name and background, perhaps it might add some weight to my arguments. But as I’ve noted before, I’ll remain “Murdoc” for the time being. My pseudonym doesn’t change what’s on the video, and I’ll let my writing on my web site speak for itself.

This may change in the near future, as this site has grown considerably since I started it as a lark using my old AOL and MSN screenname and a bastardized spelling of my junior high nickname. (However, there is a sort of “MacGuyver” connection, and those that know me probably find it funny. Those that don’t know me probably find it much less so.) As my readership continues to grow, I will give more thought to the issue of my identity, though I don’t really see what difference it will make at this point.

(Not that semi-clever people can’t find it out if they really want to, anyway.)

I always use “Murdoc” online, whether on my site or others, and I feel that I have a certain identity even without divulging the name on my birth certificate. And what if I “came out” but gave you a false name? What difference would it make?

Watch the video. Read the debates. Think about it and form your own opinions.

And tell me if you would like to know my real name.

UPDATE: If you’re going to link, please link to this page and not directly to the video. Thanks.


  1. No connection between my real name and ‘Murdoc’. My pals from junior high will tell you the connection is that I’m Howlin’ Mad, but don’t listen to them. Besides, he spelled his name with a ‘ck’, not a ‘c’, so that PROVES I’m not crazy. Really.

  2. FWIW, I think you should stay ‘Murdoc’. We enjoy little enough privacy in today’s world and there is no reason to divulge your real name unless you have a burning desire to do so. As far as that Apache video goes, I will defer to the judgement of the troops who risk their lives to protect each other in whatever AO they may be. If they say thoes guys were burying weapons, so be it. If the Marines say that the enemy is faking dead and need shooting, so be it.

  3. Well, I think Kevin’s statement is a little strong. I think its important for the military to have a system to investigate these types of situations and prosecute or exonerate the soldiers in question as warranted. Note that’s ‘as warranted by the evidence’ not ‘as warranted by politics’. Its important that such investigations are trusted by both the soldiers and the American people. Can’t have a situation where soldiers can get away with murder (not saying either one of these qualifies, but it has happened). Can’t have a situation where soldiers don’t believe they get the benefit of the doubt (they are putting their lives on the line, after all).

  4. Not to take the argument of your correspondent too lightly or anything, because I’m incapable of taking it as lightly as it deserves,your real name is immaterial and your writing speaks for itself quite clearly. Using your real name would just confuse me, because I checked, and unless I’ve just taken a head fake, I don’t get the connection between it and Murdoc. Nor should I, frankly. Damn those missed historical connections! ***Reposted from 11/24/04 00:24***

  5. Great observations by Chuck! I spent many moons in a state law enforcement agency; many of our personnel (including me) were accused of wrong doing. Any agency needs an objective investigative mechanism to scutinize ‘credible’ complaints against personnel for exactly the reasons Chuck enumerated. ‘Murdoc’ is good enough for me! I hated MacGyver; so I never watched it (Ok, once when I was being investigated by my agency; they made me watch 14 back to back MacGyver episodes in a cheap unseccessful effor to make me talk! LOL!) so I don’t get the connection (if there is one), or see the need for your real identity just, as Kevin says!

  6. Sh**! Then I forgot why I started my first post! Wanted to say thanks for researching, finding, and posting the Apache Vid! I had a copy of the Vid on my old desktop comp at home, but when I took off for this overseas contract, I wiped it, and all my other personal stuff, off the that comp to ready the comp for sale by my wife. Thanks again for this copy!

  7. I agree with Chuck that this incident and any others like it that are bound to happen are investigated fully and fairly. Please let me paste from a comment I made on another post: ‘It’s a tough job over there (to say the least) and I’m willing to give our guys the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I think that things like the Sites video incident should be investigated fully to ensure that our guys deserve that benefit of the doubt and that if there are individuals who jeopardize it they are stopped.’ I think we’ve proven that we try to do things the right way and that when we don’t we investigate and punish. Sure, it’s a bureaucracy and the little guys often take the heat for the higher-ups, but I think we do an adequate job. Always room for improvement, of course, and I’d like to see that improvement. But our guys are generally excellent ambassadors and I think most people know it.

  8. Notice the guy standing next to the truck ‘doing nothing’ you can tell by the ends hanging down off his headdress he is wearing a war-bonnet. The story I heard from a captain is that this apache was QRF (Quick Reaction Force) responding to a mortar attack on a FOB (Forward Operating Base). Maybe a mortar tube he threw out and maybe some mortars???? JOC (Joint Operations Command) was the entity who gave the ‘clear to engage’ command. Also the ROE (Rules of Engagement) I was told was if someone is moving they are a threat, your mission is to stop the threat. Sorry for all the acronyms, they are SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). THUD-OUT