Chilly Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 lolz http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 lolz http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ 750687[/snapback] What exactly is "zombietime"? Is it an unbiased organisation? I looked for an "about us" link but couldn't find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 What exactly is "zombietime"? Is it an unbiased organisation? I looked for an "about us" link but couldn't find one. 750729[/snapback] Right-wing bloggerish person I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 lolz http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ 750687[/snapback] But...but...but...missiles always punch perfectly round, flanged holes in sheet metal! Seriously, though...the damage looks generally consistent (I'm not an authority) with a small explosion above the vehicle...which most helicopter-launched munitions could cause. It's not inconceivable that an Israeli helicopter launched a Hellfire (or TOW, or whatever they use) at a vehicle a couple miles away that exploded above the vehicle, peppered it with fragments, and ripped off the roof dome...and hysterical eyewitness accounts of such are more than enough to account for the bogus reporting. And there's no such thing as a clearly marked anything on the battlefield. Even a great big Red Cross painted on top of a white van can be missed if viewed at an oblique angle from two miles away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 But...but...but...missiles always punch perfectly round, flanged holes in sheet metal! Seriously, though...the damage looks generally consistent (I'm not an authority) with a small explosion above the vehicle...which most helicopter-launched munitions could cause. It's not inconceivable that an Israeli helicopter launched a Hellfire (or TOW, or whatever they use) at a vehicle a couple miles away that exploded above the vehicle, peppered it with fragments, and ripped off the roof dome...and hysterical eyewitness accounts of such are more than enough to account for the bogus reporting. And there's no such thing as a clearly marked anything on the battlefield. Even a great big Red Cross painted on top of a white van can be missed if viewed at an oblique angle from two miles away... 750737[/snapback] But then how do you account for the rust around the holes? Is accelerated oxidation a side-effect of such attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 But then how do you account for the rust around the holes? Is accelerated oxidation a side-effect of such attacks? 750738[/snapback] Can be. Explosive residue can be corrosive. And even beyond that...go key your car, and see how long it takes for the scratches to rust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Can be. Explosive residue can be corrosive. And even beyond that...go key your car, and see how long it takes for the scratches to rust. 750745[/snapback] Then why aren't all exposed metal areas rusted? Especially the tiny "shrapnel" scars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Then why aren't all exposed metal areas rusted? Especially the tiny "shrapnel" scars? 750756[/snapback] A latter missile strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It's pretty obvious that whole thing was propaganda. But hey kids, believe what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 It's pretty obvious that whole thing was propaganda. But hey kids, believe what you want. 750783[/snapback] Which thing, the link or the rockets? Not sure which one you are saying is propoganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Well the whole...I'm ok, but then several hours later I need my head bandaged thing is pretty fishy.....that ambulance wasn't struck with a missile, even a half pound of high explosives would have ripped that vehicle open, much less a missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Which thing, the link or the rockets? Not sure which one you are saying is propoganda. 750787[/snapback] The rocket/missle incident, obviously. You can call the guy a right-winger if you want, but that doesn't invalidate his arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 The rocket/missle incident, obviously. You can call the guy a right-winger if you want, but that doesn't invalidate his arguments. 751392[/snapback] I have no problem with his arguments, not sure where you got that from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 It's not surprising that the terrorists understand propaganda and how to manipulate the media. What is surprising is how quick the western media is to believe everything they say. There was an even funnier example of fake/staged pictures (actually there were tons) - in one picture two guys are standing on top of some rubble in Lebanon. In another picture it's the same two guys in the same rubble but this time one is pretending to be dead and the other is pretending to pull the "body" from the rubble. I'll try to find the link. EDIT: Here's the link about the guy who "played dead." It's also from Zombie Time but the pictures speak for themselves. You don't need to read anything, just check out the pictures about 2/3 of the way down the page about the NYT August 8 edition. Reuters Photo Fraud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 The rocket/missle incident, obviously. You can call the guy a right-winger if you want, but that doesn't invalidate his arguments. 751392[/snapback] It doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments but I find it harder to accept things at face value when the author is so obviously biased (just check out some of the other stories on zombie.com). I'm no expert on damage caused by missiles so how should I know whether or not it's impossible that the damage to the ambulance was caused by a missile or not? Is every single vehicle hit by a missile totalled as suggested by the other photos the site displays, or does the damage vary? Because of the inherent bias of the site it is quite possible that he has just cherry picked photos to back up his case and left out ones that might cast doubt upon it. And who is the author anyway? Does he/she have any expertise in this area or is it some teenage geek writing from their bedroom? The monkey has suggested a few alternate theories, maybe there are others. Maybe the whole thing was a hoax - I don't know. I'd just like to see some analysis done by someone without an obvious axe to grind before making a judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Maybe the whole thing was a hoax - I don't know. I'd just like to see some analysis done by someone without an obvious axe to grind before making a judgement. 751433[/snapback] So you didn't immediately condemn the Israelis when the story of the ambulance attack first broke, for the same reasons? Did you read the stories and immediately think to yourself "Gee, there has to be another side to the story..."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 So you didn't immediately condemn the Israelis when the story of the ambulance attack first broke, for the same reasons? Did you read the stories and immediately think to yourself "Gee, there has to be another side to the story..."? 751458[/snapback] I (perhaps naively) believed the multiple media reports of the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I (perhaps naively) believed the multiple media reports of the incident. 751493[/snapback] Because they fit your own skewed political views of the region? And that makes you different from the cited website's author how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Because they fit your own skewed political views of the region? And that makes you different from the cited website's author how? 751501[/snapback] Because AP & Reuters are staffed with honest reporters with no biases or axes to grind. There is absolutely no reason in the world they should make stuff up, nor use a dubious original story to fabricate a snowball news event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Because they fit your own skewed political views of the region? And that makes you different from the cited website's author how? 751501[/snapback] Because I haven't got an article on a website to analyze the incident in minute detail and am not being quoted (to the best of my knowledge) as evidence by other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts