The al-Reuters airstrike: More FAUXtography?

posted at 10:10 pm on August 27, 2006 by Bryan

Maybe. Maybe.

I’m half convinced that we’re looking at another Pallywood production.

Previous posts and columns on press photographic dishonesty in Lebanon:

Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?
The Worst Photoshop I’ve Ever Seen
The Reuterization of war journalism
Another fake Reuters photo from Lebanon
Fauxtography? Amazing new IAF missiles mimic sledgehammer damage
Green Helmet admits to pimping death
“Fauxtography” alert: NYTimes and USNews;
plus Time and Reuters’ Issam Kobeisi

Fauxtography: The media scandal continues

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Doesn’t look missiled to me…. Hopefully this will unfold more and FNC will give it at leat brief mention as they did with Zombie’s ambulance expose.

RightWinged on August 27, 2006 at 11:17 PM

It could have been a teenie, weenie missle?

Lamonte Thomas on August 27, 2006 at 11:21 PM

I believe this would show that not only does Reuters have a few employees altering a few photos, but Reuters, as an organization, seems to be actively participating in this war.

Gregor on August 27, 2006 at 11:31 PM

And it’s not just Reuters. It’s every news channel that insists on airing this crap, without first verifying it.

Gregor on August 27, 2006 at 11:33 PM

If it was hit by a missile, then there should be parts of the missile on the scene. One would also think that the point of missile impact would be scorched, at the very least. Anyone seen any pic of missile parts or evidence of a high temp event on the vehicle or on either of the occupants who were supposedly exiting the vehicle when it was hit?

That truck doesn’t look anything like the Pentagon did. (Yes, that is sarcasm) Armor may protect the occupants by it doesn’t extinguish fire.

Pablo on August 28, 2006 at 1:16 AM

Pablo, I know you were only saracastically refering to the Pentagon portion of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but whenever it’s brought up I feel the need to pass this link along, that I think has the most detailed debunking of that specific part of the conspiracy theories

RightWinged on August 28, 2006 at 1:21 AM


The Israelis probably did fire at SOMETHING, but it sure as hell was not that vehicle. I mean, this does not pass the straight face test, people. I can’t believe that so many people are ignorant of at least a rough approximation of what explosives do in confined spaces.

Like the previous vehicles, this vehicle looks like it was damaged either by hand or in some kind of accident.

The blood on the door is obviously hand-smeared, not splatter. I wouldn’t be suprised if it wasn’t even human blood.

kaltes on August 28, 2006 at 1:31 AM

Here’s a photo of the interior, which is apparently supposed to show that the missile penetrated the roof. Once again, no sign of fire.

Reuters got some ‘splaining to do.

Pablo on August 28, 2006 at 1:40 AM

Sure looks more like an impact from a very large rock or hunk of concrete falling from a goodly distance, or from a rollover on a sharp corner of the same to me as well..

Another possibility is from a small (non-shaped)explosive charge sitting on directly on the roof of the vehicle, or a poorly designed IED charge fired from somewhere above and fairly close.

Either of which make the Pallies the most likely culprits.

No way in hades it was a missile fired from an aircraft, not even a ‘dud’ one.

At first I was having trouble reconciling the two photos of the same spot, one looking grey and the other looking like two years worth of rust…. I guess it could be white balance differences from the flash photo at night and natural light for the daytime one, but the daytime one STILL looks like a couple of years worth of rust, while the flash looks like fresh damage.

LegendHasIt on August 28, 2006 at 2:16 AM

The way the hood of the vehicle is pushed to the side and the dented front fender is also consistent with a rollover/flip ….

The damage on the ‘jeep’ I flipped and rolled quite a few years ago is eerily VERY similar overall to the damage on the reuters vehicle, except I didn’t hit anything hard enough to penetrate, although I also did have a crack in the sheet metal right along the edge of the roof, just like the one in the photo.

LegendHasIt on August 28, 2006 at 2:29 AM

Let’s just say that if that’s a vehicle that was hit by two missiles, it’s time we started trading in our Humvees.

Pablo on August 28, 2006 at 2:31 AM

lol, that’s what I was thinking earlier Pablo… If a press vehicle like this can handle 2 Israeli missiles that well, we probably need to reconsider our military vehicles

as for your earlier comment:

Here’s a photo of the interior, which is apparently supposed to show that the missile penetrated the roof. Once again, no sign of fire…

Not only is there no sign of fire, but I don’t know if I’d call that interior much more than messy… Hell, I’ve ridden in cars that looked worse than that inside!

RightWinged on August 28, 2006 at 4:10 AM

It’s fascinating. Assuming that those Reuters people spent a normal life with an average consumption of action flicks where anything that gets hit by even the smallest caliber explodes spectacularly – why would they think that a real missile could inflict such little damage?

Niko on August 28, 2006 at 4:46 AM

Cheap shot.

Niko on August 28, 2006 at 5:11 AM

Maybe the IDF has taken to dropping cinder blocks on their targets. Upon further inspection of the interior shot, I don’t see any sign of whatever did the damage. No missile detrius, no concrete chunks, and no fire damage. But something hit that dashboard from the top, and presumably caused the winshield to shatter from the inside. Where is it?

Pablo on August 28, 2006 at 8:27 AM

As someone who works with explosives for a living, having conducted multiple post-blast investigations in Iraq, I can honestly say that it doesn’t resemble any munitions strike that I’ve seen.

Weapons leave traces – fragmentation from a warhead or artillery shell, telltale patterns from shaped charges, etc. These rockets would leave large sections of motor still intact (the fuel would be expended, leaving sections of the rocket with no explosive charges) Yet they’re not trotting out any parts alleged to be from the munition that hit the vehicle!

The hole certainly isn’t from a direct hit of any sort. A direct missle hit of any kind would leave the vehicle unrecognizable (all of them have a tendency to turn lightly armored vehicles inside-out, practically)

If it weren’t for past history, and the fact that Reuters has staged plenty of photographs before, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt and say they could have been near a chosen target and received a stray piece of fragmentation. Because of their habit of creating news where none exists, I’m highly skeptical that it was anything other than a faked scene.

RustMouse on August 28, 2006 at 9:40 AM

Niko, thanks for the “cheap shot.”

Bryan on August 28, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Sorry, but here is what a 20mm cannon and small 2.75″ rockets can do to a target. This was not hit by anything I’ve ever worked with in my 8 years as a weapons tech for US Air Force. This includes experimental weapons. This was not anywhere near a direact hit. If they were hit then it was indirectly. A tank with 8 inch thick armor would show more damge than this.

Egfrow on August 28, 2006 at 10:27 AM

Here is a video of different caliber bullets and different metal types. Compare.

Egfrow on August 28, 2006 at 10:37 AM

by the way, why are there no blown out windows?

RightWinged on August 29, 2006 at 4:04 AM