http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
This is why I don't trust the media.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
This is why I don't trust the media.
What unbelieveable bullshit. The Red Cross and the Israelis are both lying? Obviously they are, because ambulances never get hit, even accidentally, and Israelis are absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing ever.
Apparently, the reason Israel admitted to bombing the ambulance, but actually didn't, is because they have a policy of "Apologize now, then investigate later."
It takes a special kind of blinkered bias to think that one side is so wonderful that they'll actually take the blame for things they didn't do, for no benefit to themselves at all (and much detriment) just because they are such good guys.
Based on shaky evidence and logic that beggars belief, they have concluded that that which even the IDF accepts is true, is actually fake.
Tim, there's no way in hell a Rocket hit that Ambulance. I find the story of "Israel appologizes without knowing facts" a lot more likely then "rocket doesn't explode and kill everyone inside ambulance, instead makes hole in roof and pulls fabric down"
I wonder if the Israeli pilot used to bullseye womp rats in his T-16 back home.
Hmmm. This photo analysis would be a lot more credible if it wasn't from some guy named "zombietime".
Also, check out the main site. The guy is unabashedly pro-Israel and extremely anti Arab.
"Send more paramedics."
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Israel attacked Red Cross-marked vans, because the Palestinians have in the past used them as cover for arms smuggling. Doesn't excuse the act at all, but I can see it happening pretty easily and for a bit more complex reasons than "Israel hates Arabs and wants to killz0r them".
The media bias in this war has been all over the map. Foxnews was rabidly pro-Israel (no suprise there), and CNN was mildly pro-Israel with some coverage of civilian deaths. The BBC was pretty neutral at the start but started to become anti-Israeli mainly through liberal coverage of Lebanese destruction, though not to the degree of the quoted ITV clip, which is pretty rabidly pro-Arab (the quote "Excuse me, this is the Israeli Army we're discussing" is very illustrative). And of course al-Jazeera and the rest of the Arab media were willing mouthpieces for Hezbollah propaganda; most reporting consisted of giving a Hezbollah representative a mike and letting him talk for 10 minutes, usually with the backdrop of some horribly brutal mutiliated bodies, then putting on an Israeli representative and berating him.
The best coverage was actually through the Israeli online newspapers, I thought. They were pretty even-handed and the op-eds are getting pretty brutal in their calling the leadership to account.
Oh no, I can see that happening. But that vehicle wasn't hit by a rocket, a missle, a bomb, or 20mm cannon fire. No where near enough damage.Originally Posted by Lum
You don't think it is possible for a rocket to hit and not leave it in a similar state to that ambulance? You think that because that guy posted a few pictures of cars that had been hit by missiles and were completely wrecked, that means that they always wreck so badly when hit by missiles?
Take a look at these two photographs:
Both are vehicles that were hit by Israeli missiles. The first one killed the occupants, the people in the second one escaped. Notice how the vehicles aren't completely destroyed. The first one has more damage from the resulting accident after the driver was killed than from the missile which killed him. Most of the damage in the pictures this guy used as evidence was caused by the resulting fire like the one that is being put out in the second picture.
Why is it so difficult to believe, Guido? The IDF seems to be convinced, and they've almost certainly examined the evidence more closely than you. What do you think motivates the IDF to accept the blame for something that, apparently, looks so obviously fake? Why do you think they accepted the blame for this apparent fake when they don't accept blame for other more credible claims until it is proven beyond doubt, such as when the Englisman Tom Hurndall's parents had to drag them through the Israeli courts to admit that he'd been deliberately shot dead by IDF troops?
But you trust some random website?
The IDF accepted responsibility without a proper investigation, probably due to previous incidents involving "ambulances" (both real and fake). The evidence posted regarding a faked photoshoot certainly looks damning.Why is it so difficult to believe, Guido? The IDF seems to be convinced, and they've almost certainly examined the evidence more closely than you.
I'd actually tend to Occam's Razor - Israel shot up the ambulance, then Hezbollah made it look more dramatic for the cameras. Everyone wins!
Apparantky it seems such a policy somewhat exists, at least to the extent that Israeli media had been discussing it on a few occasions.
Usually what happens is that an IDF correspondent would say he's sorry for that incident, and that is considered taking responsibility.
Anyhow I feel quite stupid for looking at the roof picture and wondering WTF made someone launch a rocket straight into it. It looked a bit odd to me then, but I couldn't figure it out.
This way it seems more reasonable and the damage fits to being in the vicinity of a bomb. Defintely not the target.
BTW, of course such a thing will be found by a pro-Israeli guy. These are the guys with interest to actually work and figure out these stuff.
You can't deny that among a lot of silly blogs several important stuff where published in blogs like the fake pictures and more.
At least some of the points in this article seem to be right.
Without knowing the context for your images (or you know, having them bigger then postage stamps), I can't comment on them.
It's entirely possible that the damage to the van was caused by a close miss - but as described, rocket coming through the roof, the available pictures do not support this, at all.
I don't try and guess at Israel's motivations for doing what they do and what they say, but the evidence doesn't add up here. Also, were you able to find some more sources for this apology then the guy from the original site? Honest question. Half of his exaplanation for this was "they apologize for stuff all the time" and the other half was "I only found two out of 400 articles that said this"
For more information on the IDF:
Public Appeals Section, Public Affairs Branch, IDF Spokesperson, military post 01025, IDF
Fax: +972-(0)3-608-0343
Email: [email protected]
Shiroko, do you have any evidence to support your contention that the IDF regularly admits to things that are later proven to be false? Or are you just basing that impression on discussions by people who cannot believe Israel does bad things, and so assumes that when the IDF admits that it does, it must be because they are so super nice that they admits things even when they probably didn't do it?
Guido, in both photographs there has been an explosion inside the vehicle, so it must have penetrated it centrally, most likely from the roof as most of them do. You can know that the missile exploded internally, because in the first one it killed the driver, and in the second one there's a fire burning inside the vehicle.
Despite this internal explosion, there's actually less visible damage than in the photographs of the ambulance, the ones that are claimed to have been faked because no missile ever does such a small amount of damage.
You believe he really looked through 400 articles and found only two referecnes? This after he didn't look hard at all for pictures of vehicles hit by missiles (or picked only the ones that supported his contention). The ones I posted were from the first couple of pages of google searching for "car missile". It wasn't hard.Honest question. Half of his exaplanation for this was "they apologize for stuff all the time" and the other half was "I only found two out of 400 articles that said this"
Neither of those vehicles were hit with a missile. Even assuming the warhead didn't go off there isn't nearly enough damage from the kinetic impact. Who the hell made that damage assessment? It is hard to tell in the first photograph but it appears that a piece of falling debris might have gone through the windshield which would have killed the driver. The angle of the second photo makes it difficult to determine the state of the rear of the vehicle, although due to the smoke/fire outbreak I would tend to assume it was struck in the rear by either a flare popped by low-flying aircraft or a falling AA tracer round.Take a look at these two photographs:
Both are vehicles that were hit by Israeli missiles.
I have no opinion on the veracity of the zombie's claims, but I think I'm going to need more evidence that a rocket caused this:
Lum, I'm surprised at you. What part of his evidence do you find the most condemning?
1. The hole is actually from the ventilation cover.
The missile could, very reasonably, have been much smaller than the hole where the ventilation cover went, and that the ventilation cover was broken on impact, leaving a bigger hole and some damage around the edges on the side the missile entered... as it is in the picture.
2. The attack didn't happen when it did because the roof was rusty
Has this guy ever been to a poor country? Many of the vehicles are total rust buckets. The vehicle was probably that rusty when it was hit. This argument is as naive as the guy who claimed the burning photographs of Lebanon were faked because there were two high-rise buildings in the photograph that were identical, just like all high-density housing the world over...
(Not saying that the photograph wasn't faked, but the evidence was retarded.)
3. There wasn't a big enough explosion inside the ambulance
As I've already shown, he's cherry picked the photographs of cars hit by missiles to show only the ones that whose fires were not put out and went on to devastate the cars almost beyond recognition.
4. That there was no fire inside the vehicle as the witness claimed
It's quite possible that there was no fire inside the vehicle as the witness claimed, without the strike being a fake. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, so comparing it to the evidence and saying "the whole thing is fake" is just wrong.
5. There is no evidence that a man had his leg blown off in the incident.
We can't actually see the inside of the ambulance clearly enough. There's nothing but a shaky image taken from a quickly moving video that shows nothing at all. That plus the mistaken testimony taken from some bloggers site is all he has to conclude:
"Conclusion: Though there exists a man who indeed lost part of his leg, all evidence indicates that his injury did not take place in the ambulance and was not caused by a missile strike."
All evidence. That has got to be a big LOL.
6. The ambulance driver doesn't look like he had 3 stitches in his chin
They take the stitches out after a week and 3 stitches is a tiny wound. My friend has three stitches under his chin from when he fell off a bridge when drunk. They are just under his chin. I have hundreds of pictures of him, and you can't see the scar in any of them.
The evidence is so bad it doesn't even cast doubt on the incident, let alone prove it was a fake. Because Reuters withdrew a single photograph that had evidence of alteration, now every right-wing nut is trying to show that every incident that shows Israel in a bad light is a fake.
Are you sure?
The first one is from Israel Reporter. The image is cycled at the top left, with the text "Car Occupants Killed by Missile in Acco, Israel". The picture can be seen more clearly here on flickr.
The second one is from the Sydney Morning Herald. You are right that it was hit on the rear, but not by a flare, but a "precision guided missile" fired from an attack helicopter.
I guess they could all be lying too, but then we are starting to enter fantasy land. If we haven't already...
I have no opinion on the veracity of the zombie's claims, but I think I'm going to need more evidence that a rocket caused this:
Tip: Most real life explosions and such aren't like what's in the movies.
But they do usually involve light poles? I'm not saying it wasn't hit by a missle, I just want more evidence than a thumbnail of a car wrapped around a post.
The first picture seems more like someone losing control of car due to close rocket fall. All of the rockets had a lot of fragments, so a car hit would have a lot of small dents going through the paint job. It seems the car was rather far to me.
A precision guided missile from a chopper is a hellfire, that's not hoe a car would look after being hit with a hellfire. (8kg of explosives in warhead, same weight as explosives on a standrad 155mm HE artillery shell for example).
But it's estimations and only real experts can know and have seen enough damage pictures to tell what's right.
Anyhow Tim, the case on the beach at Gaza is an example, IDF said it was sorry for the incident right on the day, with first conclusions of the event being published two days later or so...
Yeah, I guess. But we don't have any details on the missle attack. Again, it's hard to tell from the picture, but where did the missle strike the car? Where is the damage from the impact? I guess the driver's side could be pretty well torn up and we'd never know it from this picture, which seems to have been taken in order to emphasize the gore sprayed on the street.Tip: Most real life explosions and such aren't like what's in the movies.
I have no trouble believing that this was the result of a missle attack, especially one of those redneck Hezbollah anti-personell nailbomb jobbies, but I do have a hard time believing that this was the same scenario as the ambulance thing (ie a direct hit from a missle specifically designed to fuck up vehicles).
So what's the scoop with these pussy missiles the Israelis use? I could do more damage than that by dropping a cinder block off a bridge.
I mean, these missiles are supposed to be able to take out an armored truck, aren't they? With so little firepower, they must try to aim for the tires...
The driver lost control because the missile killed him.The first picture seems more like someone losing control of car due to close rocket fall.
The IDF expressed regret, but didn't accept that they had anything to do with the deaths.Anyhow Tim, the case on the beach at Gaza is an example, IDF said it was sorry for the incident right on the day, with first conclusions of the event being published two days later or so...
"Halutz said that, while the IDF expressed regret immediately following the incident, it did not mean to take upon itself responsibility for the explosion." - Jerusalem Post
Forget the appearance of the car except for this, and try to explain it scientifically:
If all the holes in the ambulance top are from shrapnel, where did all the rust come from? If we suppose that the environment is sufficient to cause rusting that rapidly, and the central hole is due to a rocket impact, why is the steel of the central hole pristine while the ancillary shrapnel holes are rusted through?
There's no way all those features came from the same time period. And if the hole and the ancillary damage aren't both from a rocket, then we have to assume that if a rocket blew up in the ambulance, only the central hole represents the rocket's presence. If that's the case, please explain how a fatal explosion managed to do so little damage that the roof shows no ancillary signs of damage,
Most of which is reaching (I agree with you on the rust thing) But this was pretty condemning:
So ignore that. Instead look at this:3. There wasn't a big enough explosion inside the ambulance
As I've already shown, he's cherry picked the photographs of cars hit by missiles to show only the ones that whose fires were not put out and went on to devastate the cars almost beyond recognition.
That's not the result of a missile strike. That MAY BE some shrapnel coming through the roof. But the interior of the ambulance is in FAR too good a shape for there to have been an explosion. The gurneys should be showing damage at a minimum.
I think there's more than enough reasonable doubt to cast into doubt the original claim put forth by the media: that Israel intentionally blew up Red Cross ambulances. And the point the blogger made, albeit buttressed with as much piecemeal and ultimately irrelevant evidence as he could find, is still a sound one; there is a clear media bias against Israel in some parts of the media, and that bias shows itself in things such as the credulous acceptance of this story without even the most basic fact checking.
Another example: European media repeatedly during the crisis referred to Lebanese casualties as "civilians" and Israeli casualties as "Israelis". Consistently. Often in the same sentence. Which puts forth the Arab view - there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian, their very existence is illegitemate and thus any action against them is justified - in a very sneaky manner. Foxnews does the same thing but in far more hamfisted ways (referring to suicide bombers as "homicide bombers" for example).
I find evidence of media bias fascinating. It's the elephant in the room everyone knows admits and most won't admit to. Humans are biased by definition.
Last edited by Lum; 08-24-2006 at 04:21 PM.
So what you're all saying is that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon?
What kind of fucking idiot believes a missile hit that?
Missiles don't leave vehicles intact. With modern high explosives, a 40mm grenade will do more damage than that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
