Decapitation kills?

[sammylou]

We all know destroying the brain is the best way to take care of a ghoul, but I have a question about decapitating them. In the Zombie Survival Guide (A.K.A. my bible in life) it says severing a zombie's head will also take care of them. But don't you have to destroy the brain? Even if you do decapitate them, the brain is still untouched, it just the spine and all the nerves that have been severed along with the jugular and the other key arteries running through it. So does decapitating one just make the ghoul less volatile as it is only a rolling head without a body? If so, then you'd still have to finish the ghoul off. Anyone else have something to offer about this question?

[jim102016]

Well, remember in Day' that McDermott decapitated the creature in the mine shaft with a shovel. I guess you could call it a decapitation, although he cut it off at the mouth rather than the neck. It was rendered incapable of hurting anyone else who might have come along, but its eyes continued to move showing it was still "alive".

[Slain]

Just breaking the blood/brain barrier, so the central nervous system come in contact with the outside environment or the creature's own internal fluids seem enough to kill a zombie. I remember Flyboy killed a ghoul at the airport by cracking open its skull with a sledge hammer. Rodger also killed the mall zombie wearing a robe with a butt stroke upside the head/neck. Why the hacked off zombie head in Day kept on livin' is beyond me.

[Suicycho]

Decapitation only disables the body. The head is still alive. In Day, not only did the shovel decapitation my McDermot leave the head alive, but in Frankensteins lab, McDermot found the head of one of the dead soldiers and it was still alive.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Decapitation only disables the body. The head is still alive. Agreed. Though i would argue that the head without the body would last no longer than a year (four season's) at most due to several factor's, the main factor of course being an increased speed of decomposition, or if you prefer, a return to a relatively "normal" decomposition rate, due to open exposure to the natural element's in and around the top of the spinal column. I wrote several entry's in my journal (still yet to be posted!) where the lead character had decapitated several zombies, placing their still "living" head's on poles around the perimeter, initially as a crude experiment, but with the specific intention of taunting the other remaining zombies. The severed head's serving as a warning to any potential trespassing zombies, though over time, not an effective one.

[jim102016]

Decapitation only disables the body. The head is still alive. In Day, not only did the shovel decapitation my McDermot leave the head alive, but in Frankensteins lab, McDermot found the head of one of the dead soldiers and it was still alive. Johnson's head in the lab, wasn't it? Don't think he was alive, his head was hooked up to some wires that made him jerk.

[EvilNed]

Johnson's head in the lab, wasn't it? Don't think he was alive, his head was hooked up to some wires that made him jerk. No, it was alive. Remember, Sarah tried to shoot it but Billy stopped her.

[Suicycho]

No, it was alive. Remember, Sarah tried to shoot it but Billy stopped her. Ya. It actually responds to some noise. I think its when McDermot throws the tape recorder aside, its eyes look towards the noise.

[Exatreides]

Then if that works, wouldn't a shot or a blow sufficient to break the vertebrae in the back, and therefor paralyze the zombie? Wouldn't a 7.62x54 round straight to the heart of a zombie take him down? not kill him, but paralyze him by blowing the spine out?

[EvilNed]

Then if that works, wouldn't a shot or a blow sufficient to break the vertebrae in the back, and therefor paralyze the zombie? Wouldn't a 7.62x54 round straight to the heart of a zombie take him down? not kill him, but paralyze him by blowing the spine out? Well, theoretically? Yes. Practically? No. They seem to be working without a nervous system to speak off.

[Neil]

We all know destroying the brain is the best way to take care of a ghoul, but I have a question about decapitating them. In the Zombie Survival Guide (A.K.A. my bible in life) it says severing a zombie's head will also take care of them. But don't you have to destroy the brain? Even if you do decapitate them, the brain is still untouched, it just the spine and all the nerves that have been severed along with the jugular and the other key arteries running through it. So does decapitating one just make the ghoul less volatile as it is only a rolling head without a body? If so, then you'd still have to finish the ghoul off. Anyone else have something to offer about this question? I seem to recall this being covered very well in the original Day of the Dead script. Decapitations were almost treated as being cruel as the creature just existed there to look around and rot away... Especially if the head was just buried in a hole...

[Skippy911sc]

There are stories of people cutting the head of a rattle snake off and yet still getting a venomous bite a while later. I would think that decapitation would eliminate a moving threat but the Zs ability to infect would still be viable. As far as a gun shot to the chest blowing out the spinal cord...that would depend on the round...most rounds would fragment into the body...a hunting round should do the trick...or hollow point. I would think a safer and more reliable approach would be to shoot the head or neck rather than the chest...just my opinion.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I would think a safer and more reliable approach would be to shoot the head or neck rather than the chest...just my opinion. Captain Obvious to the rescue!

[Yojimbo]

We all know destroying the brain is the best way to take care of a ghoul, but I have a question about decapitating them. In the Zombie Survival Guide (A.K.A. my bible in life) it says severing a zombie's head will also take care of them. Though I enjoyed reading the Survival Guide, there is a lot of information in that manual that I think is incorrect or unrealistic. Yeah, I know the whole premise is a fantasy, but I mean within the parameters of the fantasy some of that information is off the mark. I know that there are a lot of fans who swear by Brooks' manual, so I am sure that by pointing this out I will offend someone, but this is not my intention. What you have mentioned is one of those points that do not make sense. But, the book is meant as entertainment, and not an actual guide for an actual problem. Good thing, though, because I wonder how many people would injure themselves while standing on a stair case that they were attempting to destroy with an axe!

[acealive1]

soo yea shaun of the dead tells u twice how to "destroy the head or remove the brain"