<< $1050 PER IDIOT ~ MAIN ~ STEVE IRWIN >>

MISSILE STORY X (UPDATED - INCLUDES PIC)

Dan Riehl has second thoughts on the Red Cross ambulance story after reading Sarah Smiles’ report in the Age and reviewing video footage. Powerline’s John Hinderaker isn’t convinced by Riehl’s latest post. Unhelpfully, the Age doesn’t run any image of the ambulance in question online.

I think I know why. I’ve got a print copy of the paper in front of me. Only one photograph accompanies the article (this below the ridiculous headline “Ambulance attack evidence stands the test”). The “huge hole” Smiles describes is in fact only about twice the size of the vent hole on ambulance 782. The vehicle’s roof is caved in, as with 782—so much for a concussive force within—and there are similar scattered holes and abundant rust. But, unlike 782, the red paint of the cross is cracked and split with age and faded down to a weak pink; this unit looks very old. Also, there are five closely-grouped holes on the cross itself which could be the result of small-arms fire. Page 16 of Saturday’s Age, if anyone wishes to scan the image. Meanwhile, UPI reports:

A news photo that circulated worldwide of a Lebanese ambulance hit by an Israeli missile was a hoax, the Israeli Arutz Sheva broadcaster said Thursday.

UPDATE. Here’s the Age‘s photograph (courtesy of David P.):
image
UPDATE II. From the video supplied to ITV, an image of the interior. Note all the limb-cauterising fire damage:
image
(Again, via David P.)

UPDATE III. USS Neverdock:

The photograph the Age uses to bolster its case is even worse than the original. When in a hole, don’t dig.

Posted by Tim B. on 09/03/2006 at 10:24 PM
  1. Is Sarah Smiles twelve-years-old, or are Age journalists encouraged to write for upper primary school students?

    Posted by Hanyu on 2006 09 03 at 10:49 PM • permalink

  2. Note how The Age today Mon 4/9 has chosen to deal with reaction to the ambo-hoax – giving a run to pro-Age letters no matter how daft, and running nothing from the other side. Did The Age not get a single letter from ambulance skeptics, other than the single one The Age published a day after the story first appeared in July?

     

    Alexander in Zombieland
    THANK you very much, Alexander Downer, for pointing out the elaborate, anti-Israel hoax perpetrated by the world media to portray the honourable Israeli army as Red-Cross-bombing war criminals (The Age, 2/9).
    At last somebody has the guts to acknowledge that the only place to get solid, unbiased, learned information is the internet. It is good to see that our Government no longer relies on the first-hand reports, media agencies such as The Age or the BBC, or even advice from their own departments. Instead you are willing to embrace the completely reliable, egalitarian world forum that is fast replacing the archaic, inconvenient sources such as the media agencies, which only rely on their integrity and reputations.
    You have been brave enough to get your information unfiltered, unchecked and completely randomly from anonymous sites where respected and esteemed scientists like Mr Zombie analyse digital images and come up with their own opinions, then publish it as fact.
    I look forward to you publicising more research in this way such as the learned Dr Stefan Grossman’s work on 9/11 (it was all holograms — http://www.gallerize.com), Brad and The Cosmic Penguin’s overwhelming evidence that tells us that there is no way a passenger plane hit the Pentagon (http://www.freedomfiles.org, http://www.cosmicpenguin.com) and of course Herman Otten’s proof that the Holocaust never occurred (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au).
    I think you should have your own site so that we’d know that Saddam plotted 9/11, he had loads of WMD, queue jumpers throw their kids overboard and you had no idea about those silly AWB warnings.
    If only more people would trust the internet there would be no need to learn boring old history because we’d be rewriting it every day.
    Colin Mowbray, Fitzroy

    Not online – in Letters briefs today

    Hoaxes
    Fake exposers exposed as fakes (“Ambulance attack evidence stands the test” The Age 2/9) : has anyone told Alexander Downer there’s no need to rely on second-rate conspiracy websites? I’d have thought he has all the intelligence services of the Australian Government at his disposal.  Benni Seidel, Alexandria, NSW.

    Letters to Editor

    Posted by percypup on 2006 09 03 at 11:34 PM • permalink

  3. I’m new to the work of this so called ‘journalist’ Sarah Smiles.

    Earlier today, a friend emailed me this piece by her, sympathising with Hezbollah and all the wonderful social services that their non-military wing perform:

    [Gigantic, page-destroying url removed because The Management is out of patience. Anyone wanting to read up on terrorist-sympathizing junk by this Smiles woman is welcome to do so on their own.]

    So I would take her visual testimony and conclusions with a grain of salt, to say the least.

    Posted by Jono on 2006 09 03 at 11:55 PM • permalink

  4. O/T
    Steve Irwin has just been killed by a stingray near Cairns.

    Posted by entropy on 2006 09 04 at 12:35 AM • permalink

  5. Crikey!

    Posted by Kaboom on 2006 09 04 at 12:50 AM • permalink

  6. If only he had spent more time learning how not to piss off Stingrays or just stuck to his beloved crocs…

    I have to say he often acted like a bit of a knob, but he seemed an ok guy, and for some reason the Americans couldn’t seem to get enough of him???

    Sad…

    Posted by casanova on 2006 09 04 at 12:52 AM • permalink

  7. Forget all this.  The sad and bad news is Steve Irwin, The Crocodile Man has been killed by a stingray on the GBR off Cairns.  It is the end of days.

    Posted by stickit on 2006 09 04 at 12:58 AM • permalink

  8. The rescue helicopter was called to an incident at 11am today, but the patient was deceased.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 04 at 01:00 AM • permalink

  9. #4 Sad, sad news. I feel for his wife and children.

    Sure he seemed a bit of a clown, but he was a John Howard fan. If I knew nothing else of him, that would be enough.

    That and pretending to work for him when I was travelling through the US and Europe made things considerably easier when talking with young ladies.

    Posted by AnthonyC on 2006 09 04 at 01:04 AM • permalink

  10. And can we have a bit of respect for the dead thanks and not now come out with a whole bunch of Steve-Irwinisms such as the aforementioned Crikey….  :o)

    Posted by casanova on 2006 09 04 at 01:04 AM • permalink

  11. Steve, The Wonderful Larrikin, I guess, made one very big mistake - taking on some fauna in their environment he didn’t know enough about.. 
    A very sad way to teach us all that lesson.

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 09 04 at 01:13 AM • permalink

  12. I guess he also went doing what he loved, which is more than I could say about myself if I suddenly dropped of the twig here at work….

    He would have squeezed an awful lot into his 44 years…  It is sad for Terri and the yound kiddy of his that he took into the crocodile pen and almost got eaten….

    PS I hope they find that damn stingray who has robbed us of Steve and fix it up good and proper!!!

    Posted by casanova on 2006 09 04 at 01:24 AM • permalink

  13. “You have made danger your vocation; there is nothing contemptible in that. Now you perish of your vocation: for that I will bury you with my own hands.” - Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    Posted by JSchuler on 2006 09 04 at 01:28 AM • permalink

  14. At least it wasn’t a French dolphin…

    Posted by cuckoo on 2006 09 04 at 01:32 AM • permalink

  15. I have been next to a bloke on a trawler who was struck on the wrist by a small (30-50cm) wide stingray. Tiny puncture but struck bone. They also tend to be barbed on the tip and do a fair bit of damage. If it was a big ray it could have done catastophic damage. At least the bloke died like he lived I suppose.
    Barrie . You can hande rays a lot and still get hit by one. Generaly pretty placid but dont give “warning shots” either strike or run, not much in-between.

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 04 at 01:34 AM • permalink

  16. Damn. I actually pet the manta rays in the tank at Sea World. (The last time I went there in the late 90s they had them in this open tank and you could just reach in and stroke them on the back. They felt like wet mousepads.)

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 01:50 AM • permalink

  17. Forget the bloody missiles Steve Irwin is dead! How on earth do we break this to the kids?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1732439.htm

    Posted by the nailgun on 2006 09 04 at 01:54 AM • permalink

  18. Hey guys, I was searching through the Australian Letters section, (where I had put up my own letter) and I noticed that the post has completely disappeared.

    These were linked to from this site
    Here- /ee/index.php/weblog/missile_story_iv/
    And here- /ee/index.php/weblog/missile_story_v/

    This is the leters section where u will find the posts missing - http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/ 

    I find this slightly troubling as letters appear before and after the 1st of September in the short history, but all of the letters from this day are gone.

    Tim is this normal practice?.....And if this is, is it ethical of them to remove the critical opinions on the article by Martin Chulov.

    Something smells like fish…..

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 01:58 AM • permalink

  19. Also my sympathy is with Mr Irwin’s family. I’m sure his death has come as a shock to us all. I believe he was a fine ambassador for Australia and as a country we owe him a debt of gratitude.

    I think a state funeral would be the least we could do.

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 02:03 AM • permalink

  20. Do Manta rays have stings???  I thought they may not have and so were not a stingray per se???  But then I also seem to recall seeing pics of mantas in the wild and fully grown they seemed pretty humungus, not exactly the sort of things I think would fit in a smallish tank to let people stroke them etc???

    But I am no expert on these things….

    Posted by casanova on 2006 09 04 at 02:03 AM • permalink

  21. Dunno what Sarah’s got to Smiles about.
    Her story has more holes in it than say, er, the roof of a Lebanese Red Cross Ambulance.

    Boom. Tish…..............

    Posted by Bonmot on 2006 09 04 at 02:06 AM • permalink

  22. stingray injuries

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 04 at 02:08 AM • permalink

  23. Re the Steve Irwin tragedy.
    I just head a marine biologist on the radio and he reckons a 200 lb. stingray would have a barb on it like a steak knife. If Steve copped his wound in the chest, he had no hope the poor bugger….

    Posted by Bonmot on 2006 09 04 at 02:08 AM • permalink

  24. I wish the Irwin family peace and sympathy.  I only caught bits and pieces of his show from time to time, but he always struck me as a man who actually LIVED his passion…how many of us can say the same?  Seems like he can now look down at his life and say that he did those things he had always meant to do.  How many of us can say the same?  I should hope to go out living life with the kind of joy that Steve Irwin had.  What is the saying : “you shouldnt leave life moaning and crippled, rather you should slide in roaring ‘wooo hooo! what a ride!’”  Seems to me Steve is doing that right about now.

    Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2006 09 04 at 02:14 AM • permalink

  25. #16 Andrea,
    That is the strangest simile I’ve ever heard.

    Posted by Daniel San on 2006 09 04 at 02:20 AM • permalink

  26. #17 You’re right! My little girl will be heartbroken. She never missed ‘Ol Steve on the Animal Channel. Gonna be a rough night.

    #12 Mate, I think “fixing up” that ‘ray for doing what comes natural would be the last thing any Irwin would want.

    #24 You said it!

    The man had a mission in life, he lived it and breathed it. Like, love or hate him, the man had more guts than most and more heart, too.

    Vale, Steve Irwin.

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 04 at 02:25 AM • permalink

  27. Just sent this to The Australian

    Dear Editor,

    Why has your online blog/letters removed posts and comments (and their histories) from the 1st of September. As I remember there was a fair bit of interest in these topics, regarding the article by Martin Chulov, not all of it positive.

    Is it standard practice for you to remove these?...I have checked your terms section and the link is down. Maybe you should consider keeping an active history for others to look through.

    I have noted that there are topics from before and after the 1st of September still posted.

    An answer would be appreciated.

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 02:27 AM • permalink

  28. Yes Irwin certainly crystallised the issue about how we Aussies wanted to be perceived. The la-de-da’s wanted latte “sophisication” whilst I was quite happy to allow foriegners to think Steve Irwin was pretty much representative of the average Aussie.
    The one small consolation is it will now have a lot more crediblity when I explain to my two little girls they are not under any circumstances to pick up a snake they might come across and not having to explain why the Crocodile Hunter IS allowed.

    Posted by the nailgun on 2006 09 04 at 02:48 AM • permalink

  29. Keep up the pressure Mospact…  I wonder if Media Watch will run with this stuff tonight???

    Posted by casanova on 2006 09 04 at 02:52 AM • permalink

  30. Nobody should believe that the reptiles of the Australian media are, with but a few exceptions, anything other than a mob of arrogant believers in their own infallibility.

    Most wouldn’t recognise the truth if was a bus and ran over them. Complaining to them, even when you point out where they are wrong with unimpeachable references, is a total waste of time and effort. If they do deign to reply it only to say that they stand by their story.

    I wouldn’t p*** on them if they were on fire.

    Posted by hipower on 2006 09 04 at 03:01 AM • permalink

  31. We enjoyed Mr. Irwin, though I thought he was nuts.  A good kind of nuts, though.  I am sorry to hear of his death.  He was a good ambassador for your country, very positive.  My sympathies for your country, and for his wife and children in particular. 

    The man did a lot of good.  He’ll be missed.  The good ones are too few.

    About the damage done to both of those ambulances, and Mizzzzzzzzy Sarah’s attempt to rewrite history:  Once again, there would be nothing left of either the ambulances or the people in them if they had been hit by missiles.  How are we to begin to make sense of all the different stories?  There is no way that any honest person could begin to say that anything happened based on the evidence provided.  Even if Israel had committed some atrocity, no one could point to this sorry tale as evidence of anything. 

    The MSM has, once again, let its readers down.  We so desperately need decent reporting.  Too many articles are nothing more than emotional vomit spewed for the entertainment of the thoughtless. 

    I used to wonder how so many people in Chicago could praise Al Capone just because he handed out milk money to children.  I read the praises of murderers, done in the name of a few social services, as though that wiped out the deliberate destruction of human life.  I have to admit that I still don’t understand the kind of ethic that allows anyone to forgive mass murder because of bribes paid to those who were lucky enough not to be murdered.  I’m so sick of thoughtless people who refuse to consider anything beyond the next five seconds.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 04 at 03:15 AM • permalink

  32. #29 - It will be a sure test of their mission statement here - http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/more.htm

    About Media Watch
    Media Watch is Australia’s leading forum for media analysis and comment.

    Conflicts of interest, bank (Note that they can’t spell) backflips, deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, technical lies and straight out fraud: Media Watch has built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989.

    The media provides the information we need to make decisions about our lives, but how reliable are the media reports that shape our views of the world?

    Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who literally “make the news”: the reporters, editors, sub-editors, producers, camera operators, sound recordists and photographers who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, spin-doctors, lobbyists and “news makers” who set the agenda.

    Media Watch airs on ABC TV at 9.20pm Mondays and is repeated at 11.55pm on Wednesdays.

    I’d say it qualifies

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 03:20 AM • permalink

  33. saltydog

    “I have to admit that I still don’t understand the kind of ethic that allows anyone to forgive mass murder because of bribes paid to those who were lucky enough not to be murdered.”

    Lucky your not in Victoria. That scathing condemnation of the entire shiarah legal system would get you in trouble.
    I have had evil done by certain gentlemen explained away as ” but hes so smart he can speak 5 languages”. My response was generally “You mean can lie and shitstir in 5?”.

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 04 at 03:23 AM • permalink

  34. Please, please, PLEASE - can we all dob in a bit and buy a digital camera for our MSM reporters in Lebanon. Even a cheapo - 2 MP, $100. Ms Smiles views the second ambulance but can but only describe it in words. But she is a journalist I suppose and not a photographer. Besides some sod might Photoshop her work before it got back to the Age. Or even after it gets back to the Age.

    Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 09 04 at 04:14 AM • permalink

  35. Ambulance attack, Media Watch doing a proper job and Steve. Which one did the right thing? Any primary student should be able to answer the question. I do not include most inventive news writer in the primary student category. Steve will be remembered while the others will be forgotten.

    Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 09 04 at 04:15 AM • permalink

  36. Do Manta rays have stings???

    Manta Rays do not have stings.

    It was not a Manta Ray.  Rays have the ability to detect the primary source of the pulse (ie the heart) in their victim.  The attack is akin to a rifle shot into the heart.  Irwin would have died almost instantly.

    It’s for this reason that I cut my line when I land a ray.  They’re just too dangerous to bring into a boat.

    Posted by murph on 2006 09 04 at 04:18 AM • permalink

  37. Now waiting for that know-all dickwad, StefanK, to show up and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about:

    “Oh no.  It couldn’t have been a stringray.  If you analyse it with your eyes shut and fingers in your ears after drinking 10 pints of Stella Artois, the only conclusion is that a dirty, stinking rotten baby eating Joo did it.”

    Posted by murph on 2006 09 04 at 04:23 AM • permalink

  38. hmm end of the day and nothing back from The Australain yet…. Maybe tomorrow i’ll get my answer

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 04:40 AM • permalink

  39. Mospact

    C’mon.  Get with the program.  You’re nothing but a pleb in their eyes.  How dare you question them?!  They did Arts at Uni don’t you know?

    Posted by murph on 2006 09 04 at 05:18 AM • permalink

  40. #37: “the only conclusion is that a dirty, stinking rotten baby eating Joo did it”

    That’s exactly what happened.

    As soon as there’s even the slightest bit of doubt about the zombietimes expose, the Jooos go and do something to distract us…they kill our Steve, the bastards.

    Posted by Wally on 2006 09 04 at 05:25 AM • permalink

  41. Um, the hole in the ambulance in the above Age pic is in the wrong place, not to mention that this ambulance still appears to have some sort of assembly in the middle of the cross.

    Posted by benson swears a lot on 2006 09 04 at 06:20 AM • permalink

  42. OK I assume the ambulance in the picture is the mystery second ambulance.

    Now, are they telling us a missile big enough to make a hole that size wouldn’t have completely obliterated the ambulance and incinerated anyone inside?

    I won’t even start on the rust.  It looks like some decrepit old ambulance that’s been sitting in a junkyard for years.

    But as i’m no expert i’ll say no more.

    Maybe Mythbusters could have a go at this one.

    Posted by Francis H on 2006 09 04 at 06:39 AM • permalink

  43. Agree Francis H

    Also the paint seems to be peeling from the ambulance roof

    Posted by Steve at the pub on 2006 09 04 at 06:41 AM • permalink

  44. Is this image consistent with the video regarding the location of the hole?

    I HOPE SOMEONE DOWNLOADED THE VIDEO: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WAS MADE PRIVATE!

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 06:46 AM • permalink

  45. Ha, I can safely say that that hole was not caused by a missile (of any size), dumb bomb, or artillery shell.

    -No explosive at all could have been used. Due to the fact the roof is weighted downwards. (this would only be possible if there was a fire inside the vehicle that weakened the metal, this would have taken a while and left a lot of black smoke as it burned the insides away. This would also more than likely have made the fuel tank explode, something I’m pretty sure would not have happened. But as there are no scorch marks this is ruled out.

    -It Cannot be small arms or heavy machine gun fire (ie 20mm rounds) as the damage is inconsistent with this type of damage.

    -The rust marks in the picture have been caused by ware, and are not consistent with the damage from an air strike. They do not match shrapnel patterns. Plus they are pushed inwards rather than out (once again… no fire or explosion).

    -the ambulance has gathered an incredible amount of dust in the last few weeks, that or they have used some cheap ass paint on these vehicles.

    Ok she says that this is at the back of the vehicle.

    -My fried owns one of these cars he tells me that the hit would almost certainly have taken out the back wheels.

    It is time for them to admit they are wrong. You were tricked, apologies to Israel, and most of all The Australian can apologies to me.

    (I know this is brief but I’m sick of this shit)

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 06:50 AM • permalink

  46. There is a simple explanation for this now that we have the pics of the 2 ambulances.

    The holes made by the missiles are almost identical except that they are in different places in each vehicle.

    The missiles were both duds and didn’t go off when they hit. Oops!! They did go off according to our on the spot witness, Qassem Shaalan. In one report he said that each ambulance was hit by 2 missiles.

    Ok - next theory?

    Posted by amortiser on 2006 09 04 at 06:54 AM • permalink

  47. I HOPE SOMEONE DOWNLOADED THE VIDEO: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WAS MADE PRIVATE!
    —-
    As I already posted on Dan Riehl´s page:
    Another user apparently also uploaded it:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nX-NzeRhU
    But it´s probably a good idea to save it now.

    One more possible explanation (Which by no means is meant to be a “joo bashing” or “definitive answer” piece, just to say it clearly again):
    http://factsfictionmiddleeast.blogspot.com/2006/09/attack-on-ambulances-on-july-13th.html

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 07:03 AM • permalink

  48. LOL

    they went to the ambulance dump and this was the best worst one they could find.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 04 at 07:09 AM • permalink

  49. That Age photo ambulance looks like it dates from the Yom Kippur War. I do not believe to to be the second ambulance in the video, but a third vehicle.

    Spin, media tossers, spin!

    MarkL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 09 04 at 07:18 AM • permalink

  50. #50 I’m watching MediaWatch now ... they are on about a Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes story ... pathetic.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 09 04 at 07:34 AM • permalink

  51. 50 Lingus

    Well, we are having the news and a tribute to Steve. No Media Watch.

    Then we will have Enough Rope, tributes to Don Chipp and Steve Irwin.

    I’m in Qld.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 04 at 07:36 AM • permalink

  52. yep, media watch are slack, nothing on this story at all.

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 04 at 07:36 AM • permalink

  53. The photo proves nothing except Smiles’ “hole through the back” is really hole through the roof.  And no one said both ambulances were struck smack in the middle of the red cross, only one of them (see ITV)

    If you look at photo 16 on my blog, you can see indentation and a black hole on ambulance in the distance(Rego 777/C140).  The photo today just tells me why I couldn’t see a red cross on that ambulance and why the font of the arabic script (photo 9) was different and looked “old”. (Would still love it if someone could translate the Arabic) It must be some old wreck alright.  And such a devastating hit that the rear door - whether open or closed at the time - was not buckled, paint outside not even discoloured by intense heat.

    I reckon the licence plate rego777 would also have an interesting multi-use history but I’m not counting on any sophisticated Hezbollah-free DMV in that part of the country.

    Sad news about Steve -even though I didn’t really like his shows one of my American friends is a die hard fan. And such young kids. His death was important enough for someone at work to email the news around when it broke, which says something.

    Posted by saint on 2006 09 04 at 07:39 AM • permalink

  54. Worthy Praise for Tim Blair from Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times.

    ‘The only reason I know that is because the Aussie Internet maestro Tim Blair grew curious about the epidemic of incidents committed by men of no known appearance and decided to look into it.’
    “Why abduct us? We cede our values for free” -another must read article from the master.

    Posted by davo on 2006 09 04 at 07:41 AM • permalink

  55. #47 unfortunately for the case presented by the web site you quote the impact on the roof looks nothing like any of the pictures used.  The ambulances don’t exibit any of the scalding or burn marks around the point of entry.  Ofcourse the photos only show the entry damage and not the damage done inside.  The operative word of the M798 HEDP isn’t dual purpose it is HIGH EXPLOSIVE.  The danger radius for blast damage from a 30mm HEDP is about 30 metres if fired at the right angle.  There is no indication of a high explosive projectile going off either at the point of entry (the circular blast scald pattern or smoke stain as per the photo’s) and there is certainly no evidence of shrapnel or blast going off inside the vehicle either (it would have blown out).  It is a hoax, every explanation defies reality.  The best way to fire a 30mm cannon to reduce collateral damage is to load a practice or inert round and they would have an exit hole after going through metal as thin as the ambulances.

    Posted by platey mates on 2006 09 04 at 07:52 AM • permalink

  56. I’d actually be surprised if this second hole is in fact twice as big as that in the other ambulance. 

    Look at how the camera is postioned:  the hole is immediately in front of the camera and takes up a large portion of the camera’s field of view, whereas the medic (the only object in the foreground that can easily be used to judge scale) is some distance away and is cropped by the body of the ambulance and the edge of the picture, making him look much less significant.  The camera being close to the roof accentuates this, creating a more pronounced ‘perspective’ effect and pushing everything except the hole into the background.
     
    The camera is also at a slight angle - a visual trick intended to create a sense of uneasiness and discomfort in the viewer.

    These are photographic tricks that pre-date photoshop…

    Posted by Wally on 2006 09 04 at 07:55 AM • permalink

  57. Media Watch is upset about
    1) item about falling woman in The Advertiser next to an ad for skydiving;
    2)Nicole Kidman’s pregnancy bump
    3)Tom Cruise and Ernie (we are talking gossip magazines here folks)
    4)Today Tonight and A Current Affair fighting over some story about an engagement ring (we are talking tabloid television)
    5)Piers Akerman (good grief, who reads him?) not watching Play School
    6)And more spat between Media Watch vs the world on “misreporting of facts” behind reasons for Jihad Jack’s squashed conviction

    Yep.

    Posted by saint on 2006 09 04 at 08:07 AM • permalink

  58. Let me give Saint’s page a plug in the context of the new photo. As he says there’s some evidence that Smiles’ photo really is the second ambulance, rego 777.

    If this is the case he also has some nice views of the interior, under the hole, so hardware enthusiasts can debate where the mystery munition might have gone. After amputating/cauterising the poor guy’s leg, of course.

    Posted by dipole on 2006 09 04 at 08:26 AM • permalink

  59. The western media are in bed with the propaganda arms of ME terrorist organisations . The world Blogging community has exposed this long running sham, through exposes of numerous photographic frauds, staged managed video sequences etc etc.
    it would be naive to believe that these western news agencies have merely been “conned”. There is not doubt that this is active collusion by Reuters, Ap and others to legitimize islamic terrorism .
    How many nore examples do we need to come to the realisation that ME reporting by western agancies is terminally corrupt?
    The MSM has purposefully ignored the exposure of this corruption except where the information is inconclusive so they can direct Ad hominem attacks at the blogosphere and accuse them of xhamateurism or conspirational theory.
    The Red Cross,in this particular case have concocted this falsehood no doubt motivated by the long established hatred of Israel and maki9ng full use of their media perceived “neutrality”.
    we most all congratulate the blogosphere and its astute analyses in exposing the corrupt sham of ME reporting.
    And we must castigate the MSM for bringing their journalism into widespread dishonest reporting.

    Posted by davo on 2006 09 04 at 08:37 AM • permalink

  60. At last we see the vent (or maybe a flashing light) that sits in the middle of the red cross on Red Cross ambulances.  I saw screw holes in the unpainted ring around the perimiter of the supposed missile hole in the pictures of the other ambulance.  I am not an expert in munitions and their effects but I am a mechanical engineer who has been taking things apart since childhood.  It appears to me that the vent is mounted before a body shop paints the red cross on.  When you take it off you see screw holes and ring lacking red paint.

    Posted by Richard in Texas on 2006 09 04 at 08:41 AM • permalink

  61. As a photographer I would also add that they used a wide angle lens that clearly distors the size of the hole. For whatever that is worth.

    Posted by captain on 2006 09 04 at 08:47 AM • permalink

  62. #60 If you want to see a pristine version of the various rooftop appendages, you need the hi-res (6 megapixel/4Mb) image which the ICRC had on their web site and then removed. Still available various places I think.

    There is an intact ambulance in the background which shows all the features very clearly.

    Posted by dipole on 2006 09 04 at 09:00 AM • permalink

  63. Daniel San: I wasn’t making a “simile,” I was just remarking upon my one experience with rays (which as I think about it now, may actually have been a collection of sting rays with their stingers removed—apparently, it’s a common practice in aquariums to provide stingray petting tanks).

    Re that photo: that ambulance is an old wreck from a scrap yard. If it was hit by any sort of missile it happened years ago. I’m from Florida and I know what old rusty wrecks vs. newly-damaged vehicles looks like—and believe me, the way people drive around here I get to see a lot of damaged vehicles. No, I’m not an expert, just someone with eyes.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 09:30 AM • permalink

  64. G’day

    I have looked closely at the originally released video, said by ITV to have been taken by a local Red
    Cross volunteer, and apparently aired within 24 hours of the alleged attack (the reporter says “the
    ambulances were hit at around midnight last night”). The ‘second’ ambulance (the one The Age’s Sarah
    Smiles says Mr Fawaz was in) has no burn damage visible inside. It has much undamaged, unburnt equipment under unburnt severely ripped vehicle roof lining material.  The worst ripped roof lining matches the position of the big hole in the Age Saturday 2 September.

    The local video does not show the roof or ceiling of the second ambulance, except for
    - What might be a momentary glimpse of the ceiling, but I think it’s actually the back edge of the roof,
    not the hole
    - The roof seen in the distance when filming the hole in the red cross on the first ambulance. This has a dark blur that might match the hole in The Age’s 2 September photo.

    The combination of failure to show the roof in the video on the day and the faded, flaking red paint and severe rust in the new photo suggest that the hole in the second ambulance was rusty on 24 July, and organisers in Tyre covered this up. Certainly you would never take this ambulance out now and claim immunity because of the ‘red cross’ on the roof – it’s more grey.

    I have taken some screen shots of the local video of the ‘second’ ambulance. I’ll email them to Tim.
    Like the first they show:
    - All side windows missing their glass (but the front and rear glass appears intact, although only shown in glimpses).
    - Devastated roof lining dangling down.
    - Undamaged seat upholstery, without visible litter or dirtiness at this resolution.
    - Undamaged gurney and clean undamaged stretcher.
    - Undamaged side linings in the rear of the ambulance.
    - No exit hole in the floor or walls of the ambulance.

    Similar conclusions to those made about the first ambulance are reasonable:
    The lack of fire damage, damage caused by shrapnel from a disintegrating projectile or missile, and lack of exit holes mean that:
    - No explosive missile impacted the ambulance on July 23
    - No 30mm projectile created the hole in the roof (a 30mm chain gun is the main non-missile weapon on Apache helicopters)
    - No huge explosion and ball of flame occurred in the ambulance

    Surprisingly for a vehicle just wrecked by an attack, it has a undamaged and fairly clean stretcher directly under the location of the hole in the roof shown in the photo
    - Was this stretcher in this place at the time Mr Fawaz was so severely wounded as to lose his leg (in The Age on 2 September he is quoted as saying “I put my hand on my leg and I couldn’t feel it”)
    - Did Red Cross volunteers move a new stretcher into place in a wrecked ambulance?
    - Did the person setting up a hoax position the equipment there?

    The presence of apparently undamaged & clean gurneys and stretchers in both sides of both ambulances strongly suggests that someone has arranged the props in these scenes. Who would put good stretchers back into an ambulance when there are eight seriously injured people? If the story is true, they must have removed the gurney Mr Fawaz was on when his leg was injured

    Posted by davidp on 2006 09 04 at 09:36 AM • permalink

  65. - No explosive missile impacted the ambulance on July 23
    - No 30mm projectile created the hole in the roof (a 30mm chain gun is the main non-missile weapon on Apache helicopters)
    - No huge explosion and ball of flame occurred in the ambulance
    —-
    Actually, the damage shown on both ambulances is pretty consistent with a small to medium sized HE/HEDP warhead, be it a handgrenade, an 23mm-30mm AAA shell, a M789 HEDP round, a 60mm mortar bomb etc.
    If it happened that way, the round fuzed on impact (or at least was detonated on the roof), creating a fragment pattern and blast effect bending parts of the roof inward. A detonation inside the ambulance can pretty much be ruled out.
    A ball of flame can be expected to have happened outside the vehicle then, with minor parts reaching the inside, together with shock, stress and concussion leading to eyewitness reports of a “fireball”.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 09:58 AM • permalink

  66. who cares about Media Watch? Tim Blair is the new Media Watch.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 04 at 10:11 AM • permalink

  67. People, could you all try to use conventional quoting techniques when quoting someone for a back-and-forth? By that I mean either using the “quote” tag provided in the button bar (click once, insert the quote, then click the button again to close the tag), or else use quotation marks like “this.” It would make the argument you are trying to make (yes, I am looking at you, StefanK) less confusing to read.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 10:24 AM • permalink

  68. From the high res image published by the icrc one can see that there is indeed a pattern of not rusty small marks around the vent hole which indicates an explosion on top of the roof. One should not ignore that. But as I pointed out somewhere else and as StefanK suggested above, that is consistent with both, an attack with some kind of ammunition and a staging scenario, in which someone could have detonated a hand grenade on top of the roof.

    I think that one can see an overlay of two damage patterns here: an old rusty pattern and a new one I described above.

    Note from the video that there are impact holes in the rear part of the roof of 782 ‘far’ away from the vent hole.
    I don’t that they are consistent with a 30mm single round at the location of the vent because of the distance. Note the high res image that shows 782 from the right side. One can see there that rusty damaged areas are located in the not plane parts of the roof, ‘behind’ the bulge of the roof. I doubt that shrapnels could travel from the center of the roof to that point and penetrate the roof there.

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 10:51 AM • permalink

  69. Also see the
    Dahr Jamail site for some images that show the damage in the rear part of the roof

    [Link fixed. For God’s sake use the “preview” function. The Management.]

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 11:00 AM • permalink

  70. I’m sorry!!!!!!

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 11:06 AM • permalink

  71. Re:

    Actually, the damage shown on both ambulances is pretty consistent with a small to medium sized HE/HEDP warhead, be it a handgrenade, an 23mm-30mm AAA shell, a M789 HEDP round, a 60mm mortar bomb etc.
    If it happened that way, the round fuzed on impact (or at least was detonated on the roof), creating a fragment pattern and blast effect bending parts of the roof inward. A detonation inside the ambulance can pretty much be ruled out.

    What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.

    Posted by davidp on 2006 09 04 at 11:39 AM • permalink

  72. I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.  Except, of course, that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances.  Such stories tell me a great deal about the people writing them, and nothing about what happened to those ambulances.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 04 at 11:48 AM • permalink

  73. No doubt StefanK will be soon suggesting a trebuchet…

    Give up dude.  If you need to scrounge for evidence to fit a conclusion that you’ve already reached then you’re nothing but an intellectually dishonest jerk.

    Posted by murph on 2006 09 04 at 11:51 AM • permalink

  74. What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.

    We only have very low res images of the interior, so we can´t definitely tell wether there is fragment damage or not. At least some windows have been blown out and some small “stuff” seems to be lying inside the floor of the ambulances, pointing to possible fragmentation damage.

    I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.  Except, of course, that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances.

    And I love how people attempting to find sources for the ambulance damage are put into the “they only want to discredit and hate the jews” camp, even if they never have written anything that even remotely justifies such an accusation.

    No doubt StefanK will be soon suggesting a trebuchet

    No doubt you´ll just go with ad-hominem attacks, so please don´t surprised that I don´t take you serious.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 12:05 PM • permalink

  75. Sorry, messed up the quotes in the above posting, use this one instead please.

    What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.

    We only have very low res images of the interior, so we can´t definitely tell wether there is fragment damage or not. At least some windows have been blown out and some small “stuff” seems to be lying inside the floor of the ambulances, pointing to possible fragmentation damage.

    I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.  Except, of course, that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances.

    And I love how people attempting to find sources for the ambulance damage are put into the “they only want to discredit and hate the jews” camp, even if they never have written anything that even remotely justifies such an accusation.

    No doubt StefanK will be soon suggesting a trebuchet

    No doubt you´ll just go on with ad-hominem attacks, so please don´t be surprised that I don´t take you serious.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 12:07 PM • permalink

  76. What happened to the fragments after they went through the roof ? No rips in the side panelling, no tears in the upholstery, no holes in the floor. The damage to the roof could be caused by a small HE device, but not at a time when the equipment shown was in there.

    davidp is spot on.  Any explosive warhead produces fragmentation, either from the casing (by design), or secondary fragmentation from the target.

    Actually, the damage shown on both ambulances is pretty consistent with a small to medium sized HE/HEDP warhead, be it a handgrenade, an 23mm-30mm AAA shell, a M789 HEDP round, a 60mm mortar bomb etc.

    A typical hand grenade tends to be small, since they are throwable.  The US issue, the M61 hand grenade, for example, has 5.5 ounces of Composition B, and an effective killing range of 5 meters.  It’s designed as an anti-personnel weapon.

    A 60mm round, OTOH, is different.  For example, the M270/888 HE roundare used against personnel, bunker and light materiel targets.”  I can’t find specs on these, but I expect that the amount of Composition B in the warhead is far more than in the M61, since they are intended against more than personnel.

    I bring this up, StefanK, because you compare those munitions as though they are similar.  Which, in point of fact, is a load of crap.  They are not similar.  A hand grenade may have caused that hole in the roof.  A 60mm mortar round would have, at the least, removed the roof. 

    And, although immaterial to my point here, in either case, the inside of the ambulance would have been peppered with shrapnel.

    My point?  I bring this all of this up not as a counterpoint to your arguments, but because it’s pretty clear that you are not a munitions expert, let alone someone worth listening to.  No one with any military experience would have compared a hand grenade with a mortar round.  Period.

    In short, you’re a jabbering twit, posing as some sort of expert.  Stop wasting other people’s time with your posts, as they are not worth reading.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 12:23 PM • permalink

  77. ....you’re nothing but an intellectually dishonest jerk.

    Thank you, murph, I was struggling for the right words to describe StefanK.  You beat me to it.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 12:26 PM • permalink

  78. @The_Real_JeffS

      ....you’re nothing but an intellectually dishonest jerk.

    Thank you, murph, I was struggling for the right words to describe StefanK.  You beat me to it.

    If you think that there is no need to argue, to bring counterpoint to arguments, then why are you in fact doing that?

    All the people posting in the respective forums are sitting thousands of kilometres away from the incident site. The war is over (well, almost). There is no immidiate need for closing the case. And at least of all there is no need to go stampede. That is exactly what the anti-Israeli media is doing. And though it seems to be contrary, there is a commonness in it: The refusal of thinking. So all one can do - all one probably should do - is to reflect on the case and the material involved, unbiased and with distance. With respect for the arguments of other people and with respect for the quality of the matter.

    So if you are a hillbilly who does not know, what distance to other people and to the matter means, then you should probably stay away from such forums.

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 12:54 PM • permalink

  79. And I love how people attempting to find sources for the ambulance damage are put into the “they only want to discredit and hate the jews” camp, even if they never have written anything that even remotely justifies such an accusation.

    The point people are making is that you’re spinning wildly with your only rebuttals to any criticism amounting to “yes, but, but…we don’t know with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen like I say it did”. That’s why people have been attacking your posts and their ever-more outlandishly constructed claims with Occam’s Razor. You’re behaving exactly like the mainstream media on this, trying to fit the (usually contradicting) evidence to the theory instead of the other way around.

    I for one don’t care if you’re hating Jews or not (though your performance in this and the earlier thread certainly makes you a useful idiot for the Jew-hating camp), the basic point is that you’re a blustering fool.

    Posted by PW on 2006 09 04 at 12:56 PM • permalink

  80. I can’t find specs on these, but I expect that the amount of Composition B in the warhead is far more than in the M61, since they are intended against more than personnel.

    You see, that is the problem with intuition, it´s sometimes wrong. I digged out the specs for the M270 60mm mortar bomb here: http://www.tpub.com/content/explosives/TM-43-0001-28/css/TM-43-0001-28_406.htm
    Now look at the explosive filler weight:
    M270 60mm mortar bomb: 0.42lb=190 grams
    M61 handgrenade: 5.5 ounces=155 grams

    As you can see, both weapon´s explosive filler is exactly in the same ballpark, and also please note that I didn´t say “the M61 handgrenade” but “handgrenade” implying that one of a wide range of handgrenades could have been used. There are quite a few handgrenades who are heavier than the M61.
    Of course, the 60mm mortar bomb will produce heavier and possibly more fragments, but both weapons are candidates for the observed damage.

    I bring this up, StefanK, because you compare those munitions as though they are similar.  Which, in point of fact, is a load of crap.  They are not similar.  A hand grenade may have caused that hole in the roof.  A 60mm mortar round would have, at the least, removed the roof.

    Well I guess I just pointed out who talked a load of crap, didn´t I? I don´t think that you´re the one to decide what a handgrenade or 60mm mortar bomb does to a car, seeing that you had a gross misunderstanding about those weapons in the first place. What a 60mm mortar bomb does to a car for example largely depends on which fuze (and with which settings) is used.

    And, although immaterial to my point here, in either case, the inside of the ambulance would have been peppered with shrapnel.

    Again, this is a far to broad statement. Depending on the round, with a detonation atop the roof, fragmentation inside the car doesn´t have to be significant.

    Stop wasting other people’s time with your posts, as they are not worth reading.

    You know, you are neither forced to read nor forced to reply to my posts. I, for one, will decide for myself when and when not to post.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 01:22 PM • permalink

  81. This was to be history in the making; a truly diabolical occurrence. Every single one of an as yet uncertain number of ambulances was to be hit at precisely the same moment.

    It was the perfect plan… until some careless operator at the Zionist Space Laser targeting console bumped the lightspeed skew control just before flash set. This in turn changed the differential exit flex enough for some of the targeted bursts to leave the emitter locus at greater than light speed.

    One of the ambulances is undeniably older and more weathered. It was simply hit by the same shot many years earlier.

    Posted by splice on 2006 09 04 at 01:30 PM • permalink

  82. If you think that there is no need to argue, to bring counterpoint to arguments, then why are you in fact doing that?

    Because I loathe psuedo-experts, that’s why.  I tagged StefanK for probably being one a while back, but I waited to see just how far he dug his hole.  Pretty deep, it turns out.

    The point people are making is that you’re spinning wildly with your only rebuttals to any criticism amounting to “yes, but, but…we don’t know with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen like I say it did”.

    I, personnally, am doing no such thing.  I accept that this is a hoax, created for propaganda reasons.  No evidence to the contrary has been presented. 

    StefanK, OTOH, offers his alternate explanation, fails to make his case….and keeps on pushing it anyway, changing his story in an attempt to negate or ignore valid criticisms.  That’s not serious debate, that’s an obsession.

    The refusal of thinking.

    Just so.  StefanK is merely adding to the noise level on this discussion, taking away from the main point by harping on weapon systems he clearly doesn’t understand.  He refuses to think about what he is doing….and why.

    So all one can do - all one probably should do - is to reflect on the case and the material involved, unbiased and with distance. With respect for the arguments of other people and with respect for the quality of the matter.

    “Unbiased and with distance”?  Well, in one way, I wish that it were so, although I question the need for “distance”.  This hoax discussion wouldn’t have flared up in Australian newspapers, for one thing, and the ICRC wouldn’t be a group of partisan hacks. 

    OTOH, I would like to point out the objective analysis offered in many blogs, including this one.  By “objective”, I mean “unbiased”, in terms of looking at the facts before coming to a conclusion.  Something that StefanK seems to be ignoring—he may offer only a technical conclusion, as opposed to a political one, but he remains guilty of being subjective.  But he continues to spin his tale, even when it has been discredited in several ways. 

    That’s why I’m ignoring him…..after giving him several chances to come around. 

    So if you are a hillbilly who does not know, what distance to other people and to the matter means, then you should probably stay away from such forums.

    Hmmm!!!  I called StefanK a twit and a jerk, strictly a personal insult, and you refer to me as a hillbilly, an ethnic slur.  Hmmmm…..am I white?  Do I live in the hills, and eschew the doiminant culture?  Or are you speaking metaphorically because I don’t embrace the “No one knows what happened, so we shouldn’t lean either way!” meme espoused by the infamous MrLefty?  It’s not conclusive, but I’ve noticed that people who lean far left politically tend to be quicker with etchnic and racial slurs than people closer to the center.  Either that or they are simply too arrogant to worry about being a bigot.  Take that as you will.

    As for “distance”.....being truly unbiased means accepting the facts as facts, and evaluating them unemotionally.  It strikes me that StefanK is unable to detach himself from this specific aspect of the issue…and it is distracting to the adults, who want to have a real converstation.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 01:41 PM • permalink

  83. #72, Saltydog:  I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.

    This seems to be a parallel effort as that engaged in by Mary Mapes/Dan Rather to find some kind of printing implement-anything!-that would have been available in 1971 and been capable of exactly reproducing M/S Word format.

    Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 09 04 at 01:53 PM • permalink

  84. I accept that this is a hoax, created for propaganda reasons.  No evidence to the contrary has been presented.

    You see, that is the whole problem. You not only accept that it´s a hoax, you insist on it and react irrational to anyone pointing out the remote possibility that the IDF (or by now even explosive ordnance) could have been involved.
    In fact, there is no proof that we´re dealing with a hoax, there´s just the fact that “it could have been done with a sledgehammer” and some contradicting reports by the media, who are known to report crap “once in a while”.
    The only thing certain so far ist that the media talked biased crap and presented facts which were none.
    I, for one, am open to proof and arguments from all sides and for all theories, but until new evidence emerges I don´t think we can draw the “it´s a hoax”, case closed, conclusion from some low-res videos and contradicting media reports.
    To me, a IDF attack, a purposefull use of explosives, as well as 2 days time and a sledgehammer all remain very possible scenarios with the current available information.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 01:58 PM • permalink

  85. @Bruce Lagasse and others

    #72, Saltydog:  I love how people attempt to find some kind of munition—anything!—that would fit the damage to the ambulances, but which doesn’t fit a single one of the myriad of ever changing stories told.

    This seems to be a parallel effort as that engaged in by Mary Mapes/Dan Rather to find some kind of printing implement-anything!-that would have been available in 1971 and been capable of exactly reproducing M/S Word format.

    With some distance one could have recognized that the theory of using a hand grenade or some other small explosive device such as a mortar round points to a possible modus operandi of a possible staging. StefanK made his posting 4 hours ago. I posted thoughts about using a hand grenade in several forums including Riehl World some days ago. I pointed out above that there in fact seem to be traces of a recent explosion on top of the roof of 782 which has to be explained.

    Reading this all now is really a frightening experience for me.

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 02:07 PM • permalink

  86. It’s been touched upon, but worth expanding:

    Standard junkyard practice is to remove the wheel and tires [quite saleable] and stack the hulks two or three high.

    When an important part is wanted, they are unstacked and re-stacked. This causes the roofs to be caved-in, and holes in the corners are from the naked brake rotors of the top hulk being pressed against the roof of the lower hulk.

    A rolled-over vehicle will have a different look, the rear hatch will get un-square and the edges will be marred.

    Don’t ask how I know all this….

    Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 09 04 at 02:31 PM • permalink

  87. Okay, so it was a drone F16 that dropped a handgrenade on the rusty old ambulance, and the Lebanese swapped out the burned and shrapnel-ridden interior for for one without obvious signed of explosive damage. See, the press was right along.

    Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 09 04 at 02:56 PM • permalink

  88. I posted thoughts about using a hand grenade in several forums including Riehl World some days ago.

    <snip>

    Reading this all now is really a frightening experience for me.

    That’s not frightening.  You and StefanK are terrifying, though.  From an educational perspective, anyway.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 04:55 PM • permalink

  89. Don’t ask how I know all this….

    We won’t!!!  :-D

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 04:56 PM • permalink

  90. Okay, so it was a drone F16 that dropped a handgrenade on the rusty old ambulance, and the Lebanese swapped out the burned and shrapnel-ridden interior for for one without obvious signed of explosive damage. See, the press was right along.

    An excellent synopsis, Bruce!  Hopefully Reuters or AP will sign you as an editor….

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 04:58 PM • permalink

  91. StephenK:

    You continue to offer your idea of what could have caused the damage to those ambulances.  What made you think about the damage to those vehicles in the first place?  It was stories—plural—that Israel deliberately targeted ambulances, which is a war crime and one of the most serious accusations that can be made against a country. 

    If the damage isn’t consistent with any of the stories given, which stories are why you are questioning anything in the first place, why do you come up with alternates?  When there has been one hoax after another, when the majority of the media around the world has shown themselves to be firmly on one side of the argument in the ME, when the propaganda is this war plays a pivotal role in the war itself, why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to come up with something that could fit the scenario that Israel is to blame; i.e., why insist that Israel had anything to do with those ambulances in the absence of any objective evidence?

    Your protestations of neutrality, much less objectivity, ring hollow.  You do not start with one idea and try to fit the facts to that idea if you are being objective.  Objectivity (and neutrality) demands that you define what the facts of the case are before coming to any conclusion.  We’ve been told so many stories that determining the facts is now absolutely impossible.  In that case, one doesn’t not sit and posit one theory after another based on nothing more than mere assertions.  One dismisses it all.  One certainly does not continue to argue for one’s favorite theory in the face of these facts unless one has a reason that has nothing to do with what actually happened.  I don’t know if you are anti-Semitic or simply attempting self-aggrandizement, and I don’t really care.  Your posts still attempt to point to an accusation of a war crime against Israel.  That requires more than adding your assertions to all the others, whatever your reasons.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 04 at 05:07 PM • permalink

  92. Irwin was a conservative green…Oh, great, now you tell me. I’ve written some scathing shite about him being the progenitor of all these awful animal interaction “eco-tours” springing up everywhere where people contact their inner beings and challenge themselves by annoying, bothering, freaking out, pestering, stressing and generally behaving badly with wild creatures who really just want to be left alone. I’m a wild critter stalker meself, but I never do more than look with my binoculars. If one of my mates, all of whom are natural scientists and researchers down there in Oz, grab on for a quick check for a ring on a goana’s leg or whatever, that’s one thing. But the other just bothers me. But now you tell me he’s a Howard fan. Crikey. Put me in a bad light, guys. You have. Do I retract my remarks on purely political grounds? (thinks thinks thinks smokes smokes smokes coughs coughs cough…) No. I don’t. Wish I could but…

    Posted by ekw on 2006 09 04 at 05:20 PM • permalink

  93. @The_Real_JeffS

      Don’t ask how I know all this….

    We won’t!!!  :-D

    Who is “we”? Are you pretending to speak for me? Please don’t do that.

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 05:36 PM • permalink

  94. If the damage was done by a handgrenade or a mortar then i would imagine that would pretty much rule-out Israel doing it.  As far as I’m aware the ambulance wasn’t hanging around territory that was controlled on the ground by the Israelis.  I don’t know about delivering handgrenades any way but by hand but i imagine that regardless the range isnt very far.

    Looking at the specs for the mortar it has a maximum range of just under three and a half ikilometres. Again, i don’t think the Israeli’s were anywhere near that close to where the ambulance was. And if it was a mortar fired from that distance then it rules out deliberate targeting anyway.

    Posted by Francis H on 2006 09 04 at 06:05 PM • permalink

  95. Stefan says: “In fact, there is no proof that we´re dealing with a hoax.”

    Like The_Real_JeffS [#82] and others here, I find StefanK’s elaborate justifications tiresome because he is obsessively focused on his small area of partial knowledge.
    My belief long ago was that the the ‘two ambulance attack’ was an elaborate setup using various ambulances damaged or wrecked earlier in conditions unknown. 
    Now, many weeks later -after the hoaxers have had time to re-group and bolster their very weak stories, naive Sarah Smiles is taken to a yard to see one of ‘the’ ambulances, which could have had an enlarged hole put in it just for her.  She didn’t even describe it correctly and missed the very heavy rust.  She’s just an ignorant patsy out of her league.

    The theory of hoax is virtually proven now by TWO heavily rusted tops. 
    Stefan completely ignores this telling evidence of hoax [claiming it’s for others to determine -they have!]], given the time factors and secretive control of all photography in this case.

    Now, could we assume that the latest ‘Smiles ambulance’ was indeed hit by an Israeli [deliberate or accidental] attack?  Yes, it is known that they hit an RC ambulance at least once some time ago, in circumstances when it was clear it was being used by terrorists. Is this it? No-one an be sure.
    But is this the reason the recent hoax was prepared?  Yes. The idea of Israelis attacking ambulances makes excellent new propaganda.
    That’s the reality, Stefan.  Deal with it first before offering your expertise to the accepted enemy.

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 09 04 at 06:43 PM • permalink

  96. #84 To me, a IDF attack, a purposefull use of explosives, as well as 2 days time and a sledgehammer all remain very possible scenarios with the current available information.—Posted by StefanK

    But here’s what the fuss is about Stefan.  The MSM didn’t publish articles stating that it was a possible scenario.  They stated that Israel did it.  Period.  This reflects a biased mindset and shoddy reporting methods.  This simply has to change.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 04 at 06:45 PM • permalink

  97. Excuse me, harris? Why have you signed up using my last name when your email indicates that you are from Germany, and your syntax indicates that English is not your native tongue? “Harris” is not a German name. You’ve started out here by breaking the code of the page—I had to fix it—and using ethnic slurs to insult people (unless you didn’t know that “hillbilly” is considered an insult in America). So right away I am suspicious of you. Answer, please.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 06:47 PM • permalink

  98. And as to the wrecks being used as “proof” of these attacks—I repeat, anyone with half a brain who has seen more than one car in their life knows that those are old wrecks, that have not been driven anywhere for years. So it doesn’t matter what happened to them or who did it. Anyone who believes this story now is either lying or too stupid to be let out on the street without a leash.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 06:50 PM • permalink

  99. You continue to offer your idea of what could have caused the damage to those ambulances.

    Yes, exactly the same thing numerous other people are doing.

    What made you think about the damage to those vehicles in the first place?

    -Eyewhitness reports who have in common that the ambulance was attacked by “something”.
    -The fact that a war was going on with israeli aircraft targetting Hezbollah assets.
    -The pattern of the damage, suggesting a strike from above.
    The above factors suggest that, among others, an accidental attack by the IDF remains a possibility (just like a deliberate bombing by Hezbollah, Red Cross workers etc.).

    It was stories—plural—that Israel deliberately targeted ambulances

    So? If some media dipshits report such things that doesn´t mean I agree with them.

    If the damage isn’t consistent with any of the stories given, which stories are why you are questioning anything in the first place, why do you come up with alternates?

    Because it just makes sense to look in all directions. Looking into just one, drawing some conclusions and calling it a day is easy, but wrong IMHO. We´re very far from any proof for any theory, so looking in all directions makes sense.

    when the majority of the media around the world has shown themselves to be firmly on one side of the argument in the ME, when the propaganda is this war plays a pivotal role in the war itself, why do you work so hard and spend so much time trying to come up with something that could fit the scenario that Israel is to blame;

    Look, the media spouting out hyperbole and wrong accusations of deliberate attacks by the IDF doesn´t automatically mean that the IDF didn´t accidentaly attack the ambulance. It also doesn´t automatically mean that the whole thing was a big hoax, but just that the media is biased and not doing their job well.
    What the media reports and what really happened are different things, connecting both doesn´t make sense.

    why insist that Israel had anything to do with those ambulances in the absence of any objective evidence?

    Once again for the 32432nd time: I don´t insist on “israel having anything to do with the ambulances”, I´m pointing out the possibility of that being the case.
    That certainly is no stretch, considering that there was a war going on and the IDF was rightfully searching for targets in the area of the ambulances.
    The reason I point that out? Many people around the blogosphere are so focused on the whole hoax stuff because of the bad media reports that they have become blind for other possible scenarios, so my intention is to remind people to look in all directions again.

    Your protestations of neutrality, much less objectivity, ring hollow.

    I never said I was neutral, I said I support Israel´s struggle for survival and that I consider the recent war rightful self-defense.

    You do not start with one idea and try to fit the facts to that idea if you are being objective.

    I did not do that, I looked at the damage of the ambulance and considered possible scenarios for the events that could have led to this damage. In the end the damage looks consistent with the detonation of a small to medium size HE round, like explained above.
    Wether it was such a HE round fired by an aircraft, deliberately placed there, or a guy with a sledgehammer, is unknown, but all these scenarios have something going for them, and something going against them.

    We’ve been told so many stories that determining the facts is now absolutely impossible.

    Good that you´re saying this, I think we can agree here. We can´t determine the facts, therefore we have to consider a broad range of scenarios, if we want to consider scenarios. That´s all what I´m saying.

    In that case, one doesn’t not sit and posit one theory after another based on nothing more than mere assertions.  One dismisses it all.

    This of course, is not what is happening in large parts of the blogosphere. Instead, many people are totally convinced that it´s all a hoax, even though that is not based on facts, but a bunch of assertions.

    One certainly does not continue to argue for one’s favorite theory in the face of these facts unless one has a reason that has nothing to do with what actually happened.

    Like I said, I consider it of importance to keep all possible scenarios in mind, when there is no sufficient proof for one. Therefore, I consider it necessary to describe the one scenario that is automatically dismissed (for whatever reason) by many people.

    continued..

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 06:50 PM • permalink

  100. ..

    Your posts still attempt to point to an accusation of a war crime against Israel.  That requires more than adding your assertions to all the others, whatever your reasons.

    If one of the possible scenarios involves an accidental shooting of the ambulances by the IDF, then this is regrettable. But disregarding a possible scenario because it is not convenient certainly doesn´t meet the criteria for objectivity you stated above.
    Until we know more (which is doubtful to ever be the case) a israeli attack remains as likely or unlikely as any other theory.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 06:50 PM • permalink

  101. Stefan,

    You have your own (prejudiced) view and you try and massage the facts to suit. That is wrong. Look at the facts first and then form your view without prejudging.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 09 04 at 06:55 PM • permalink

  102. I guess Media Watch could have tackled whether or not false reporting helped alter the course of a war and or whether Australia’s Foreign Minister was wrongly influenced by a blog, but Nicole being pregnant was obviously the bigger story on the day…

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 04 at 07:05 PM • permalink

  103. Stefan, you’re missing the forest because you’re focusing on the freaking moss. The press propogated the claim that the ambulances were intentionally attacked by missiles. The “evidence” presented by them makes that claim laughable. Rather than admit they screwed up, they’ve been shifting their story—often in ways that contradict both the earlier claims and their new claims.

    Is it possible those ambulances were damaged by a weapon?

    Sure. But that doesn’t matter; that’s not the issue. The issue is the willingness of the press to spread—and defend—lies.

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 04 at 07:06 PM • permalink

  104. MEDIA WATCH DEAL WITH HOAXERS!

    Got your attention.
    1. Hoax One: Does Nicole Kidman really have a ‘bun in the oven’?
    2. Hoax Two: Did Tom Cruise win a sexist award for a remark that he didn’t make?

    Good grief.  And they have the absolute gall to refer to the ABC online gossip section called The Shallow End.

    Surely this is their last year…

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 09 04 at 07:12 PM • permalink

  105. StefanK: We´re very far from any proof for any theory, so looking in all directions makes sense.

    Wrong twice, Stefan.  The hoax theory is only ‘far from proven’ to the MSM and yourself, not good company to keep in this badly-reported war.

    Looking in all directions is what a desperate man does when getting shot at from all sides [appropriate metaphor]

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 09 04 at 07:18 PM • permalink

  106. Sure. But that doesn’t matter; that’s not the issue. The issue is the willingness of the press to spread—and defend—lies.

    Well that willingness has been established pretty firmly by now.
    To me (and some other people) what really happened also remains an issue though, this is what most of my posts are about.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 07:23 PM • permalink

  107. Hand grenade or mortar dropping drone or F16?
    Geez I knew they were hard up for munitions but this….

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 04 at 07:29 PM • permalink

  108. Wrong twice, Stefan.  The hoax theory is only ‘far from proven’ to the MSM and yourself, not good company to keep in this badly-reported war.

    To me it rather looks like the hoax theory is only proven to some “hardcore believers” who are willing to accept many assertions as “fact”.

    Looking in all directions is what a desperate man does when getting shot at from all sides

    I´d say a desperate man would rather hit the deck or get the **** outta the place he´s in, but nice metaphor nevertheless ;)

    Hand grenade or mortar dropping drone or F16?
    Geez I knew they were hard up for munitions but this..

    The scenarios involving handgrenades of mortar attacks obviously describes deliberate bombings of the ambulance by Hezbollah or someone else, e.g. an “inside job” (or very strange accidents).


    g´nite btw :)

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 04 at 07:37 PM • permalink

  109. StephenK, just because others are positing theories based on the assertions of doesn’t mean that you must come up with one of your own.  There is difference between saying that something happened in the midst of battle, and disputing those assertions and demanding actual evidence.  The point of the entire exercise is to show that there is nothing that can be validated as evidence of anything, much less a war crime.  It makes no difference that you are on the side of Israel in this, any more than if you were on the side of terrorists.  A lack of verifiable evidence is a lack of verifiable evidence, no matter which side you are on.  All we have are the ever changing and suspect stories of the enemy, the ICRC (who is suspect because of their own, long-standing attitudes and practices in the region), and a demonstrably biased, gullible, and ignorant media. 

    I do not attempt to refute your contentions because they are not evidence of anything.  That they were supposedly missile hits isn’t something that anyone refuting the stories made up.  That IS the story; that it is a deliberate policy of “the pious” of Israel to target ambulances IS the story.  If it were not, there wouldn’t have been a story in the first place.

    You may have the best intentions in the world, as you see it.  But there is a fundamental difference between positing what may have happened, and debunking a hoax—which is saying that nothing happened.  When there is a question of something as serious as a war crime involved, you must abide by strict standards of evidence.  Saying that a hand-grenade might have been used (by whom?), when the story is that a missile was deliberately fired at an ambulance in an instance of a war crime, doesn’t add to the discussion, but merely confuses the issue.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 04 at 07:41 PM • permalink

  110. Excuse me, harris? Why have you signed up using my last name when your email indicates that you are from Germany, and your syntax indicates that English is not your native tongue? “Harris” is not a German name. You’ve started out here by breaking the code of the page—I had to fix it—and using ethnic slurs to insult people (unless you didn’t know that “hillbilly” is considered an insult in America). So right away I am suspicious of you. Answer, please.

    That are really suspicious moments. First I buggered the code of a link…Did my apology make it even more suspicious? :-)

    I don’t see a reason for justifying my choice of the screenname. But I can assure you that it is not related to your name.

    I’m pretty aware of the fact that ‘hillbilly’ is an insult. As well as ‘Hinterwäldler’ in German. Do you think that I did not use it appropriately in this case?

    And finally: Why are you publishing details of my registration? You are not entitled to do that, as far as I can see.

    Detachment is a valuable achievement.
    And soemhow it seems to be really missing in this forum.

    Posted by harris on 2006 09 04 at 07:49 PM • permalink

  111. Andrea: “No, I’m not an expert, just someone with eyes.”

    Touché.

    What we have in Big Media are not people with eyes but people with agendas.  Who prefer to get the “story” from people with similar agendas.

    When the second lot tell the first lot a pack of lies, they KNOW they won’t be cross-examined.  And they’re getting very good at knowing just the kind of lies to tell. 

    When the lies change, the stories change.  Anyone can see that the ambulances exhibited in videos and photos were not struck by missiles or rockets (a burst of automatic fire for effect, maybe—see the footprints visible on the roof dust at zombie).  They were not “entirely destroyed” or “mangled,” and no “fire” or “explosion” occurred inside either of them (or any of them, since it’s quite possible we’ve been shown three or more ambulances).

    The only thing all the constantly re-tailored stories have in common is: Israel deliberately (or maybe accidentally, but still evilly) hit one or was it two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances.

    i.e. Israel commits war crimes.

    What the eyes see don’t matter—the MSM serve a higher god, the god of truthiness.  And he HATES Israel.

    Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 09 04 at 08:06 PM • permalink

  112. I am prepared to cut StefanK a little slack (although ‘harris’ is just cruising for a bruising).

    What has happened here is what often happens to young trial lawyers.  He has fallen in love with his theory and is reacting to (justifiable) criticism in the same way a young man reacts to people who call his new girlfriend homely.

    StefanK appears to have reached his conclusion by assuming that the witnesses were merely mistaken and not dishonest.  So from that starting point he has taken the obvious point that if the ambulances were in fact hit by a missile they would be toast and gone looking for an possible munition which could have caused the damage claimed.

    He alights on his favourite round and if I understand his argument comes to this conclusion by comparing a photograph on the manufacturers website with one of the ambulance photographs.  Now this is IMHO a particularly dangerous leap of faith because i. I seriously doubt that the hole shown on the manufacturers website was of vehicle sheet metal (armour piercing rounds should you know be shown piercing armour) and ii. The hole in the ambulance was where a ventilator was and which would logically be less resistant to any projectile/explosive hitting it than the surrounding sheet metal.

    However he then has to still account for the missing leg and that is where his argument gets silly.  As someone has already commented the Warren Commission could have done with StefanK’s talents.  The conflicting stories given as to how many victims where and when they were injured are now legion. Clearly the bloke without a leg got hit by something sometime and like as not that something was fired by the IDF however that does not make the IDF war criminals. 

    What I think StefanK has missed is that whilst criticism has been levelled at the reporters involved with this story for being stupid or willing dupes,  there has never been an accusation that it was they who made up the story.  If there is a problem with the story then it must be from some or all of the “eye-witnesses”.  StefanK clearly assumes that we should believe those parts of their stories which are not contradicted by the physical evidence.

    StefanK unfortunately is like the black knight “tis but a flesh wound, come back and fight you coward”’.  I do not think that he is a troll or malicious but simply launched his theory without double checking all of his assumptions.  And I must admit it was a nice theory and at first blush a very attractive one, but not one that stands up to much scrutiny.

    Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 09 04 at 08:14 PM • permalink

  113. This ambulance hoax is more than just an incident in the Israeli Lebanon War. It is certainly going to be part of the case against Israel being run by the Human Rights Council of the UN. The “new” Council has already instituted 2 special inquiries, first Palestine, and now Lebanon. Israeli (no Hizbollah) war crimes, including the respecting of medical assistance. The upside of this is that the ambulance driver (note same chap again in Age’s photo, Mr Shalan?) also claims that he was turned back two times by deliberate attacks by the Israeli airforce from getting to the wounded at Qana. That is they were deliberately stopping aid going to the victims of Qana, not just randomly attacking ambulances. Hence he claims some who died were killed by Israel stopping rescuers getting there until 9 am. So the questions about the late arrival at Qana are answered with, because of Israel, not Hezbollah. His testimony is going to be far less persuasive now.

    This article in the Asia Times seems to say all that is necessary about the relationship between the international press and Hezbollah. And UNIFIL.

    “Naqqoura [the southernmost Lebanese city on the Mediterranean coast before Israel and a major UN base] and Israel, but until the Israelis tell us they don’t want him and allow us to bring him back, there’s nothing we can do,” said an Indian United Nations peacekeeper.

    Next to a UN jeep, the Hezbollah intelligence men had parked their aging white Mercedes. One of them had flattened himself behind the chassis and was watching the Israeli side through binoculars.

    “If you come with me, we’ll go in and get that m*********r back,” another Hezbollah man told a member of the international press. “They won’t shoot at a journalist,” he whispered in an aside in Arabic to his colleague.

    With Hezbollah and the UN men having overheard the Lebanese man conversing with the Israelis in Hebrew, they were almost certain that he was an agent of the Jewish state trying to escape the wrath of a victorious Shi’ite political party that claims to have routed Israel over 34 days of conflict.”

    Hezbollah going after opponents

    And

    “A Shi’ite source with good connections to Hezbollah and local knowledge said that only the houses of Hezbollah members were destroyed in his southeastern village of Blaat”

    So where did I read this in our press, as it proves what the Israelis said, they only went after Hezbollah.

    And Hezbollah ministers in Lebanon are initiating legal action against Israel for war crimes and speaking to the international press about testifying against Israel. Again, they have a very high level of confidence in the support that the international press has for their aims and actions.

    Mr Chulov will be testifying?

    Posted by Ros on 2006 09 04 at 08:22 PM • permalink

  114. To me (and some other people) what really happened also remains an issue though, this is what most of my posts are about.

    Not really. I know what didn’t happen; that’s sufficient in this instance.

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 04 at 08:56 PM • permalink

  115. Detachment is a valuable achievement.
    And soemhow it seems to be really missing in this forum.

    Funny, people not being detached when the subject is the defence of civilization.

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 04 at 08:57 PM • permalink

  116. harris, in well under eight posts (total) you’ve managed to get under my skin, and I am one of the more patient folk hereabouts.

    You don’t like the blog? Take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, pal.

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 04 at 09:45 PM • permalink

  117. Oh this is good.  Harris’ response to our Beloved but Thoroughly Feared Administratrix:

    I don’t see a reason for justifying my choice of the screenname. But I can assure you that it is not related to your name.

    Keep in mind, this is being directed to Andrea Harris, the one and only.

    I’m pretty aware of the fact that ‘hillbilly’ is an insult. As well as ‘Hinterwäldler’ in German. Do you think that I did not use it appropriately in this case?

    Yeah, that’s right.  Talk tough, let her know who’s boss here.  And that’s got to be the German.  Nothing quite like replying to a legitimate question with another question dripping with German condescension.

    And finally: Why are you publishing details of my registration? You are not entitled to do that, as far as I can see.

    Yeah, that’s it harris.  The best defense is an offense.  Andrea, not entitled, on her own administered blog site.  For some reason, that never seemed to have occurred to me.  Until now.

    Oh, here’s the piece de resistance.  A parting flick of superiority.

    Detachment is a valuable achievement.
    And soemhow it seems to be really missing in this forum.

    (watches Andrea unlocking armory, pulling out very large paddle, could it be, might it be, Big Bertha?)

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 04 at 09:47 PM • permalink

  118. harris, wenn Sie in jemandes Haus eintreten, sollten Sie Ihre Füße wischen, Ihren Hut wegnehmen und sich bis eingeladen, nicht setzen, um so zu tun.

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 04 at 10:00 PM • permalink

  119. not… Big Bertha. Whoah boy. Someone’s in for a thumping. I’m hiding behind the furniture.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 04 at 10:05 PM • permalink

  120. I’m pretty aware of the fact that ‘hillbilly’ is an insult. As well as ‘Hinterwäldler’ in German. Do you think that I did not use it appropriately in this case?

    It’s not just an insult, harris, it’s an ethnic slur.  I’m sure that you already knew it, especially from this comment.  It bespeaks of a certain arrogance and bigotry on your part.  Which other people have already commented on (such as wronwright), so I won’t elaborate, enough has been said about a sad sack such as you.

    JABL, you make a good case for StefanK being inexperienced and naive.  But he started his campaign 2-3 threads back, and has passed being merely obsessive.  He could be focusing on this silly explanation of his merely to distract and divert this thread.  Another oh-so-polite troll, in other words.  StefanK has ignored virtually every single counterpoint offered to him—excluding mine, I should note, and including some really telling ones.  But your explanation fits as well.

    My advice to all—ignore Stefank.  At best, he’s just clamoring for attention, like the family dog during dinner.  At worst, a clever troll.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 04 at 10:29 PM • permalink

  121. Mein lieber Herr “harris,” bist du von dieser Web site für Sein ein offiziöser, arroganter Dummkopf verboten worden.

    And yes, I used “du bist” deliberately.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 10:37 PM • permalink

  122. StefanK,

    I think it is fair to say that the missile story is now a proven hoax. I have just checked Janes and the Israeli’s don’t use Hellfire missiles they use the NT Spike LR which is 1.2 m long carrying a 3kg High Explosive Anti Tank Warhead.  There is no chance that the ambulance would survive such a strike.  A ‘blind’ or warhead that failed to explode would slam through the floor and be stuck in the road somewhere. 

    You are now trying to argue that the damage inflicted was from either a 30mm M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) round from the M230 Cannon fitted to an Apache Helicopter, a 60mm Mortar or a Hand Grenade. 

    The hand grenade is clearly a ridiculous argument because someone would have had to throw the grenade so it had to be delivered from a maximum range of about 25m.  It is almost impossible that it would have caused a neat hole through the roof and if it did all those inside would have suffered multiple fragmentation (shrapnel) wounds.  The lethal radius is 5m (ie everyone in the vehicle would have almost certainly been killed) and it has a casualty radius of 15m and individual fragments can travel about 250m.  Needless to say all the windows would have been broken and blown out and there would be a total shredding of most of the internal upholstery.  This argument is ludicrous. 

    The mortar story.  According to Jane’s, Israel fields the IMI 52mm light mortar.  This weapon has a range of 130-420m (ie less than half a kilometre).  It is equally ludicrous as there were no reports of Israeli troops being within a few hundred metres of the ambulance and at that range you would have heard the thing firing.  Equally mortars are area weapons (except for the larger 120mm types that have some guided munitions which would have totally destroyed the ambulance or tore a massive hole through the roof and floor if it didn’t go off).  This means that a mortar round is fired and will fall anywhere in a box depending on the size of the round.  For example and from memory I think a Russian 60mm mortar will land anywhere inside a box of about 75m x 75m.  On the Israeli 52mm mortar there is no sight, it is aimed by aligning a white line on the barrel with the target.  Additionally a mortar needs to be adjusted into the target zone using target grid procedure which adjusts the fire from the observed fall of shot or impact of an initial adjusting round.  This means you fire a round, adjust left or right or up or down and then repeat the process until you get close to the target.  You then fire a number of rounds from a number of mortars to saturate the target area.  This is known as fire for effect, and the effect is suppression of the enemy – that is they are forced to keep there heads down allowing an infantry assault to close in on the target.  The chances of a single first round direct strike on a van using an area weapon is probably less than winning lotto.  The chances of doing it twice would almost certainly be statistically impossible.  The mortar story is equally false due to the proximity of Israeli forces and the chances of hitting two targets without adjusting shots. 

    Finally the only credible story is the M789 HEDP.  The M789 is the main combat round of the Apache mounted 30mm Cannon and it contains 27g of high explosive charge within a heat treated steel body and a fluted copper shaped charge liner. Shaped charges direct the explosive blast of a warhead in a specific way.  Thus the warhead will penetrate the metal and funnel most of the explosive force past the metal it initially struck to generate most effect inside. This would cause significant internal blast damage within the vehicle including burning, scalding and fragmentation that would blow out windows and the like.  As Jane’s notes ‘This (the M789) has a point detonating fuze and provides good armour penetration with blast fragmentation effects.’  Something with good armour penetration is going to go straight through the roof of a thin skinned vehicle like the ambulance.  Once again the story doesn’t match the facts. 

    Downer and Blair are right and the Australian, Age and ABC absolutely wrong.  The ABC’s failure to mention the increasingly small chance that the ambulance damage was caused by Israel is in contravention of the ABC Code of Practice for news and current affairs sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.  The way the ABC has reported this story and then neglected the continuing controversy is in breach of its
    Code of Practice.

    Posted by platey mates on 2006 09 04 at 10:59 PM • permalink

  123. Since StefanK appears to have gone to bed, let me add to his suggestions. The problem with these airborne weapons is all that pesky kinetic energy, which can mess up the interior real bad. So if the plan is to tow the vehicle back to Israel and have it on a Tel Aviv used car lot next week, some ingenuity is needed. Here’s some possibilities.

    1. The Para-Mine. Dead simple. A large magnet with attached explosive charge dropped by parachute. Naturally homes in on car roofs. The occupents hear nothing until Clump!, then Bang!

    2. The Hang Grenade. This an ordinary hand grenade, suspended under a miniature hang glider. Silent but deadly as it swoops in under radio control.

    And most diabolical of all.

    3. The Suicide Pigeon. Trained from birth to home in on large red crosses. Wearing a tiny bomb belt, it is detonated by its callous controllers upon landing.

    Knowing those Israelis, I’d say 3 is by far the most likely. In which case not only the UN, but also the RSPCA needs to be alerted.

    Posted by dipole on 2006 09 04 at 11:37 PM • permalink

  124. The left will never admit defeat on this, never.many of them are actually claiming this as a victory. In any case, this whole story has slipped into the realm of conspiracy theory( this was confirmed when someone started talking about camera angles). Don’t get me wrong, I know it was a piece of agitprop and so do you but this is starting to smell like the freakin’ Kennedy hit. Does anyone else see this?.

    Posted by Daniel San on 2006 09 05 at 01:09 AM • permalink

  125. #124 It depends on if anyone high-profile takes the ball from here and runs with it. The battle is basically over in the blog world: it’s a hoax. When I say someone high-profile taking the ball, I mean a network TV station, or a Western military official, or the Israeli government, that kind of high profile. For some reason, Downer’s claims didn’t get traction.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 05 at 01:18 AM • permalink

  126. #108 StefanK: only proven to some “hardcore believers” who are willing to accept many assertions as “fact”.

    Let’s not get hard-core about this.  YOU said ‘FAR from proven’, I say ‘a virtually proven hoax’.
    What is lacking is real scepticism on your part about what the Lebanese have been claiming and doing with their mountain of contradicting lies and cunning use of stupid Western media, and old wrecked ambulances.
    All this we knew before July.

    I only need one Lebanese liar to turn evidence for the prosecution. 
    BUT Will the MSM even try to turn one?

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 09 05 at 01:27 AM • permalink

  127. I’ve done it…. I’ve found the mystery weapon… it all makes sence now.

    500 Pound Rubber Band Ball vs. Car


    just skip the stupid ad at the begining
    :-)

    Posted by Mospact on 2006 09 05 at 01:45 AM • permalink

  128. Here is the Neverdock link. The one above is broken.
    Neverdock

    Posted by LeftyApostate on 2006 09 05 at 03:07 AM • permalink

  129. StefanK appears to have reached his conclusion by assuming that the witnesses were merely mistaken and not dishonest.

    We always have to remember that what all we know of the eyewitnesses is filtered by the media, who have proven to be very inaccurate.
    Therefore, I tend to cut the eyewitnesses some slack. The basic tenor common to all reports is that the ambulances were attacked by “something”, this is my base assumption, not more. Of course, if this is a lie, my theory is wrong. We don´t know if it´s a lie though (we generally know not too much), so it remains a possibility.
    But even if we completely disregard the eyewitness and media reports, the fact that a war was going on, that the IDF searched for targets in the area, and the damage pattern looks consistent with an air attack, suggests that we can´t rule out an air attack with the available data.

    Now this is IMHO a particularly dangerous leap of faith because i. I seriously doubt that the hole shown on the manufacturers website was of vehicle sheet metal (armour piercing rounds should you know be shown piercing armour)

    The images obviously show thin metal, with 2 images showing aircraft sheet metal, which is much closer to car sheet metal than to anything armored. Hits on armor look a bit different, like this: http://www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver/sld031r.htm

    However he then has to still account for the missing leg and that is where his argument gets silly.

    Actually the missing leg is one of the “beauties” of the HEDP-theory, as the shaped charge jet of such a projectile explains the locally existent severe damage inside the ambulance (the torched stretcher and the man´s severed leg).

    I think it is fair to say that the missile story is now a proven hoax. I have just checked Janes and the Israeli’s don’t use Hellfire missiles they use the NT Spike LR which is 1.2 m long carrying a 3kg High Explosive Anti Tank Warhead.  There is no chance that the ambulance would survive such a strike.  A ‘blind’ or warhead that failed to explode would slam through the floor and be stuck in the road somewhere.

    Of course the “missile” theory is a hoax, but I didn´t get worked up about it in the first place, because I know everything travelling through the air is a missile to the media.
    The Spike LR is not used by the IDF so far AFAIK, but offered for export. Israeli Apaches at least regulary feature Hellfires, who have been bought together with the aircraft.

    The hand grenade is clearly a ridiculous argument because someone would have had to throw the grenade so it had to be delivered from a maximum range of about 25m.

    In the case of a handgrenade we´re looking at an inside job anyways, so someone taped it to the roof, pulled the pin and ran away. Similar argument for the mortar story.

    ’ Something with good armour penetration is going to go straight through the roof of a thin skinned vehicle like the ambulance.

    Nope, this is a misconception. For kinetic-energy rounds, who rely on their own kinetic energy to penetrate armor (e.g. PGU-14 used by the A-10 or M829A2 used by the Abrams) this is obviously true. For chemical-energy rounds using a shaped charge liner this is not necessarily true, but depends on the fuze used. The problem with shaped charge liners is that they have to be fuzed at the right distance to the target, otherwise the liner might get crushed/deformed when hitting armor before being fuzed, resulting in it functioning properly no more. HEDP rounds tend to fuze also against thin metal for this reason, as shown in the 4 manufacturer´s images I posted in my blog entry.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 05 at 04:15 AM • permalink

  130. Ok now I am ready to apologise to TRJS and admit this is a troll.  Leaving aside the cutting the witness some slack BS, which I shouldn’t have to explain as a retarded rhesus monkey could grasp the point I made about their versions. 

    Lets look at StefanK’s own link shall we?. First take a quick look at slides 31v and 31w which show a wall and a vehicle hit by this munition.  And then, the winner, slide 31n which states that this round “ensures a large lethal area of blast concussion and fragmentation”  couple this with the previous point that apparently the IDF do not have a weapon capable of shooting a single round at a time (shit loads at once sure) and the fact that the helecopter would have had to be pointing the weapon at angle of better than 88 degrees in order to make the hole and strike the leg of the man lying in the ambulance, I call bullshit on this theory.

    Funny at the link provided I could find no selling point that it can penetrate light vehicles and do no more than amputate limbs with the added customer service of self cauterising wounds.

    Like I said at first blush nice theory but for fuck’s sake give it up.

    Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 09 05 at 04:59 AM • permalink

  131. First of all, I see that I have been misspelling StefanK’s name and for that I apologize. 

    We always have to remember that what all we know of the eyewitnesses is filtered by the media, who have proven to be very inaccurate.  Therefore, I tend to cut the eyewitnesses some slack. The basic tenor common to all reports is that the ambulances were attacked by “something”, this is my base assumption, not more. Of course, if this is a lie, my theory is wrong. We don´t know if it´s a lie though (we generally know not too much), so it remains a possibility.

    No, it does not remain a possibility.  When you don’t know something, you don’t know it.  If you then assert something, it is an assertion only and has no epistemological status at all.  Anything after that is nothing but pure speculation based on assumptions and contains nothing “possible”. 

    You cannot logically say that anything whatsoever is possible.  The Law of Identity denies you that position.  There must be positive evidence for a position before you can claim even a possibility of it being true.  The word of combatants on one side of a battle, who have already shown that they lie to the useful idiots for propaganda purposes, are not to be used as evidence, barring corroborative physical evidence.  You are assuming that those ambulances were on the battlefield in the first place, when there is nothing that says they were but the word of these same people.  Remember that they are saying this to push allegations of a war crime.  You are playing with very serious charges by continuing to posit theories which are based on uncorroborated testimony.

    But even if we completely disregard the eyewitness and media reports, the fact that a war was going on, that the IDF searched for targets in the area, and the damage pattern looks consistent with an air attack, suggests that we can´t rule out an air attack with the available data.  [Emphasis mine.]

    But the so-called damage pattern isn’t consistent with a single one of the published reports, so it doesn’t suggest anything.  You are just making up a situation that may satisfy you, but doesn’t satisfy the most basic demands of logical inference.  The fact that a battle was going on says absolutely nothing about what may or may not have happened, and using that as your starting point simply reverses the same faulty logic you used in your argument based on media and eyewitness reports. 

    In order to have the crime that has been alleged, one must have the evidence of vehicles hit by some kind of missile.  It wasn’t just the media that calls anything that flys through the air a missile who said this, but it is the specific testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses.  No matter how you look at the evidence, the story doesn’t wash.  Making up one out of whole cloth may satisfy you, but is nothing more than epistemological masterbation and should not be offered as a theory of anything.

    This isn’t a game.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 05 at 05:37 AM • permalink

  132. No, it does not remain a possibility.  When you don’t know something, you don’t know it.

    Ok, then please tell the same to all the people who strongly defend the “it all was a hoax” scenario too and let´s arrive at these two conclusions:
    -The media did some very biased reporting about the alleged incident.
    -We don´t know what really happened, the existing data is not enough to draw any conclusion about that.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 05 at 06:01 AM • permalink

  133. StefanK says: “the damage pattern looks consistent with an air attack”

    Good Grief, he still believes that??
    Not only does the ambulance ‘pattern’ for any of three ambulances show nothing that anyone else thinks resembles what StafanK believes, but the human ‘damage pattern’ revealed by the various alleged wounded victims, their odd ‘memories’ about conditions of the alleged attacks and the aftermath [more ‘rockets’ landing around these ‘destroyed’ lightly-damaged ambulances, as well as ‘direct hits’ on them by ???] - that NOTHING ADDS UP AT ALL to a mature person..

    I conclude that StefanK is incorrigibly naive about all these conflicting ‘witness accounts’ from people well known to produce ‘ambulance propaganda’ for Hezbollah. 

    I rest my case.

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 09 05 at 06:30 AM • permalink

  134. I have seven useless pieces of information to contribute:

    1.  I have scrapped a few cars for parts in my time.  I have pulled out the interior roof lining of a sedan before removing the roof in order to make a cheap “soft top” (if you’ve seen the end of “Animal House”, you’ll know what I mean).  The ambulance looks a lot like the results of my amateur wrecking methods.  It also reminds me of what Clyde the orangutang did to cars in “Any which way but loose” etc.  If you’v ever dismantled a car, you’ll know how quickly it can go from “neat and tidy” to looking like an absolute wreck. 

    2. I have actually thrown hand grenades on the range.  It was drilled into us again and again and again that the lethal blast radius was 5 metres.  If one went off on the roof, everyone inside should be dead.  From shrapnel wounds.  ie, lots of holes punched all over the body.  The only way that I can think of one removing a leg is if the grenade detonated under or close to the leg of the casualty.  In that case, there’d be lots of bits of leg and bone and blood all over the interior.  It would be a mess.  How does a grenade get into an ambulance?  Well, someone would have to have carried it in.  Like a patient who dropped it?  You’d also see holes all over the place - every panel would have a hole in it.  Or lots of holes.  Let’s stop talking about grenades.  Or charges the size of a grenade. 

    3. I’ve fired two reasonable sized anti-armour rockets - the M72 and the Carl Gustav 84mm recoiless thingy.  Funnily enough, when we were practicing with the Carl Gustav, there was a VM Combi van on the range that had been setup as a target.  I missed.  So did a lot of other guys.  One bloke finally hit it and…. boom.  End of combi.  If a missile of a reasonable size hits an unarmoured civilian vehicle - well, it’s goodbye vehicle and hello scattered bits of panel.  I state this because if the ambulance had been hit by a missile, then it would not be largely intact with just a few minor holes in it.  It would be ripped and shredded and cooked - burnt.  It would look like a cheese grater that had been run over by a truck.  Think of the pictures of burning humvees in Iraq that have been hit by RPG’s. 

    4. Explosions against metal leave blast and scorch marks behind.  You don’t just have a nicely shaped hole - you have an oddly shaped rip with lots of black around it.  Or white, depending on what metal has been hit and by what.  Whatever.  I don’t think you get rust.  Remember that explosions are hot.  Heat scorches things and melts stuff.  People who survive a close encounter with something that goes bang often seem to suffer from burns as well.  If something went bang on the roof, I’d expect to see everyone involved suffering from scorches around the face etc.  Again, see the pictures of wounded civilians from Iraq - they always seem to have burns.

    5.  Without wanting to set ASIO off on a wild goose chase, I was witness in the 1980’s to a few cars being blown up for fun.  You take a very big paddock on a farm in the middle of nowhere, a clapped out car and some people who spend part of their time using explosives to clear rocks and trees from said paddocks and you end up with, well, a car in about a thousand bits spread over a very wide area. 

    6.  Why aren’t the tyres flat?  An explosive round detonating on the roof would probably throw shrapnel through a few tyres.  Before driving the ambulance anywhere, it would need to have some tyres changed.  And the fuel tank sealed.  And lots of wiring replaced that had been severed. 

    7. Weapons are designed to kill.  Any weapon that can detonate on a soft-skinned target and produce minimal casualties is an incompetent, embarassment of a weapon.  It should be retired forthwith.  We need to find out what this weapon was and scrap it and upgrade to something with more juice.

    Posted by mr creosote on 2006 09 05 at 06:52 AM • permalink

  135. StefanK:“We don´t know what really happened, the existing data is not enough to draw any conclusion about that.”

    We don’t care what really happened, we just know that was said to have happened didn’t.

    Finito la musica, passata la fiesta, terma.

    Posted by saint on 2006 09 05 at 06:59 AM • permalink

  136. #132, StefanK,

    Ok, then please tell the same to all the people who strongly defend the “it all was a hoax” scenario….
    -We don´t know what really happened, the existing data is not enough to draw any conclusion about that. [Ellipsis added]

    But Stefan, there is positive evidence that this was a hoax.  The very things, the “existing data” that call the reports into question in the first place, constitute positive evidence that those reports are manufactured nonsense.

    And that is all for me, folks.  It’s been real.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 05 at 02:01 PM • permalink

  137. I did not do that!

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 05 at 02:02 PM • permalink

  138. Whew!  Fixed.  Boy, that was close.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 05 at 02:03 PM • permalink

  139. But Stefan, there is positive evidence that this was a hoax.

    Yes, there is positive evidence that no missile in the sense reported by the media struck the vehicle (e.g. Hellfire or similar).

    The very things, the “existing data” that call the reports into question in the first place, constitute positive evidence that those reports are manufactured nonsense.

    Of course, it is obvious that the media reports are largely manufactured/exaggerated and/or biased nonsense. However, the media reports being largely nonsense doesn´t automatically mean that the ambulances were “sledgehammered”. It just means that the media talked BS, what really happened is still unknown, and sadly will probably stay that way.

    Posted by StefanK on 2006 09 05 at 02:57 PM • permalink

  140. Apologies I think that was me. Thanks saltydog.

    Posted by saint on 2006 09 05 at 06:18 PM • permalink

  141. There are three possibilities.

    1. It was collateral damage inflicted by either side. The ambulance crew are not lying and whoever hit the ambulance did not do so deliberately.

    2. It is a hoax. The ambulance crew are either lying or set up by Hezbolla.

    3. The Israelis deliberately targeted the ambulances knowing what they were. They have committed a war crime.

    In the absence of evidence to the contrary one normally would assume the first to be the most likely. One does have to have reason to do so before accusing people of either lying or war crimes. Arab groups have a history of making fraudulent atrocity claims. The Israelis have a history of trying to avoid hitting civilians. The evidence required to justify accusations of a hoax is much less than what would be required to justify an accusation of a war crime.

    If the ambulance was hit in combat it was either possibility 1 or 3 the presumption is possibility 1, collateral damage unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. There isn’t any.

    But the damage is much easier to explain if it was a hoax than if it was hit in combat. Stefan’s speculation was an attempt to find a scenario compatible with collateral damage. After criticism here it looks rather unlikely though not quite impossible. I think he should reconsider his suggestion and admit this. And some people here have misrepresented what he wrote. He never suggested that Israel had committed war crimes, only that they might have made a mistake in combat.

    Like Stefan I would rather believe that it was collateral damage than that it was a hoax. However I recognize that the evidence makes that look unlikely. I can easily misinterpret what people mean over the internet but some some people here come across as wanting to believe it was a hoax and not willing to consider the possibility that it might have been an error in the heat of battle.

    Posted by Lloyd Flack on 2006 09 05 at 08:17 PM • permalink

  142. wow… this argument has been very civilised. I’m surprised and impressed.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 05 at 09:46 PM • permalink

  143. Ok now I am ready to apologise to TRJS and admit this is a troll.

    No need to apologize for being gracious, JABL.  StefanK is the one who needs to apologize for being a jerk.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 05 at 10:03 PM • permalink

  144. Enjoy the rocket ride folks.

    Posted by saint on 2006 09 06 at 05:45 AM • permalink

  145. Oh saint!  I’m so glad I dropped in again.  I don’t usually come back to threads after this long, but I thought I’d just check in.  Besides, Tim is gone and I was lonesome.  If I wasn’t so pathetic, I’d have missed it.

    Thank you so much for that link!

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 07 at 03:22 AM • permalink


  146. [rolls eyes, snickers, and then leaves thread]

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 07 at 06:28 PM • permalink

  147. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.