Now that that’s settled, I wonder if people will suggest the wounds were self-inflicted and staged for propaganda purposes.

NPP on September 5, 2006 at 11:49 AM

Amazing what a little ketchup can do

Capitalist Infidel on September 5, 2006 at 11:57 AM

Mark Steyn always struck me as the kind of guy who would have an unhealthy interest in other people’s underwear…..

honora on September 5, 2006 at 12:23 PM

I think Bob has it right, and it’s still a very significant difference between knowingly targeting a press truck and hitting a structure near one in the course of an intense firefight.

see-dubya on September 5, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Good find AP, I thought from your previous post that the bloody hand pic was the OTHER guy in the car?

kaltes on September 5, 2006 at 4:03 PM

Let me reformat that quote:

Consider, for example, the bizarre behavior of Reuters, the once globally respected news agency now reduced to putting out laughably inept terrorist propaganda. A few days ago, it made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana. Shana was posed in an artful sprawl in a blood-spattered shirt. But it had ridden up and underneath his undershirt was spotlessly white, like a summer-stock Julius Caesar revealing the boxers under his toga.

It seems AP (and his little helper NPP) are becoming increasingly confused about the real topic of the controversy. It’s not the amount of blood splatter on the journalist’s t-shirt, but the claim that Israel intentionally fired on the van. The fauxtography is not in depicting Shana’s wounded body, but in alleging that their widely circulated van was hit by an Israeli rocket or missile. None of the newly unearthed photos supports the latter claim.

Just for the record.

Niko on September 5, 2006 at 6:09 PM

Bob,

I’m the guy who originally started with the 2.75 rocket theory and then put forward the UAV missile theory (which is now my primary theory). I won’t go into them again here, they are on the old threads.

You’re right about blast injuries if they were subjected to blast - but they were in an armored vehicle which deflected and absorbed most of the blast energy. If it was a direct hit, then it’s obvious from the pictues the majority of the blast didn’t get all the way through, so the injuries are consistent with fragmentation either from the weapon itself or flying bits of car from the breech that was made. If this had been an unarmored vehicle, then they would all be dead instead of injured. To give you another example, insurgents in Iraq are now using EFP’s in their IED’s to penetrate armored Hummers because the plate armor on them is so resistent to blast and fragmentation.

My weapon theory hinges on what the top skin of the van was made of. If it’s like the front, sides, and back of the vehicle, then it’s plate steel, probably 1/4″ or 3/8″ thick. If this is the case, then, in my view, it was probably hit with a weapon. If the top skin of the van was just that - a skin (with the armor either in the roof or inside, then there is no way it was a direct hit. A direct hit would have caused a LOT more damage to that skin. Based on a couple of virtually identical vehicles I’ve seen for sale on the internet, the top skin was likely 1/4″ steel.

Like I said in previous posts, I believe it would be hard for falling debris or shrapnel from anything explosion further than a few feet away to penetrate the top of the armored van and cause the damage we see, along with the injuries. I won’t say it’s impossible, but based on my knowledge of weapon effects I think it’s pretty unlikely. The composition of the armor in the roof again comes into play - in fact, that would answer a lot of questions.

NPP on September 5, 2006 at 6:12 PM

It seems you’re becoming increasingly confused about the fact that Mark Steyn shouldn’t be passing bad information, whether or not his larger point about the missile is correct or not.

I didn’t know that Mark Steyn assigned you the post of his personal warden who shall publicly decree where to put the stress in his writing. In any way, judging from the photographs that Reuters and other agencies sent around the world and which showed Mr Shana only from such an angle that one could only draw the conclusion that his t-shirt was in fact “spotlessly white” I don’t see how Mark Steyn passed any “bad information”. His interpretation was perfectly valid at that time. What is your demand? That Mark Steyn convert his writing to blog format, and employ staff to update the story once new information comes in?

By the way, have you contacted him to notify him on the error?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly happy with Mr Steyn receiving scrutiny. I just don’t see where you’re trying to go with this story.

Niko on September 5, 2006 at 6:26 PM

I have just one question and not sure if it is covered anywhere. When looking at the damage on the roof of the Reuters truck, there looks to be a damage track going back.Is this where someone walked and if so why is the cargo rack damaged/dented along this track? Was this person fat albert?

rojo on September 5, 2006 at 6:45 PM

NPP

I do believe he is referring to those above in the post. I could be wrong, but you seem to be confident enough to find your own links otherwise.

rojo on September 5, 2006 at 7:00 PM

The issue isn’t Steyn’s mistaking a partial fraud for a complete fraud. Just because Mr. Sham got a scratch and had a little blood to make his story seem real, doesn’t alter the fact that these people are inveterate liars.

And all you can worry about is Steyn making what may have been, at worst, an understandable error? Unbelieveable!

And, there are others besides Reuters, like these guys, and these.

In the above Jihadwatch link, the issue is clearly stated.

Hezbollah is nothing short of brilliant. The fraud that gets caught is tiny, compared with the fact that they decide what images get captured in Lebanon, lock stock and barrel. Essentially, all images coming out of Lebanon are at some level tainted. I personally want the BBC to mention a single instance of Israelis being killed, of the 1m Jews (and Arabs) who are hiding in bomb shelters. It’s as if only Lebanese suffering rates. What a sham of a media organization.

Also see here for more info on media perfidy.

yonaton on September 5, 2006 at 7:21 PM

oops should be ? after pictures.

rojo on September 5, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Thats the point!

these pics say nothing to the original questions. Can you answer my ? on the track that is plainly visible in the yahoo pictures pages.

no linkie but you know!

rojo on September 5, 2006 at 8:02 PM

Hi Niko!
He is all yours.
I just want an answer on my ?. be back later.
Adios

rojo on September 5, 2006 at 8:19 PM

So if in doubt - blame the IDF?

I don’t think you’re making a good case here for your profession.

Niko, you know nothing of my profession. This is not about blame; this is about analyzing the evidence we have to make an estimate of what happened. I emailed AP in response to his first post about the damage to the Reuters van. That analysis was based (as I’ve now said many times) primarily on the damage to the armored van. I looked at the Israeli inventory to determine what weapon(s) were consistent with the damage seen. Although the damage is consistent with a 2.75 rocket, I’ve said a few times now that it’s more likely from a missile off an Israeli UAV. We don’t know much about this missile except it’s designed for precision and low collateral damage. As I said before, low-collateral damage would mean a small warhead that isn’t armor-piercing and relies primarily on blast effects to kill in a small radius. That kind of warhead is consistent with the damage seen on the van. Notice I said consistent – I pick that word for a reason because we don’t know what actually damaged the van. We have to infer it based on what we know. Anyway, that’s the basic gist of my argument – there are many more details that support my theory I will not repeat again here. Read the previous threads if you need refreshing.

Now, here is the logic behind an Israeli attack:

1. The damage to the van, which I’ve noted above and elsewhere ad naseum. Palestinian insurgents don’t have a weapon that would create that kind of damage that we’re aware of – the Israeli’s have at least one and probably two.

2. The Israeli’s “claimed” responsibility. I understand it’s not clear if they actually claimed they attacked this vehicle or other vehicles nearby or both. In any case, they’ve said that targets in that same area at the same time were attacked from the air.

3. Witnesses report that the “rockets” or “missiles” came from the air. This is certainly consistent with damage to the roof and interior of the armored van. It’s not clear how many witnesses there were. The reports, not surprisingly, are inconsistent. Some indicated the van was stopped and a passenger was getting out. Some indicate the van was stopped but the doors were closed. Some indicate the van was moving at the time of the attack. Could this be evidence of fabrication? Yes. Could this be from differing perceptions and biases among witnesses? Yes.

4. Israel was using aircraft at that time in that area and there was ground combat about 1500 meters away.

Now, I’ve said before none of this is definitive or certain. It’s impossible to assess with 100% accuracy what occurred based on incomplete and contradictory information. Even so, the majority of evidence supports damage from some kind of air-to-ground ordnance from Israel. As I said in my original post, if this was the result of an Israeli attack, I don’t believe it was intentional. I said in the original post that paint schemes can’t be seen at night on NVG’s or IR targeting systems.

Could it be a Hamas attack as you’ve suggested? It’s possible (as I said before), but there is no evidence to support that theory and there is a lot to throw it in doubt. For Palestinian or other terrorists to be responsible they’d have to have a weapon that could do the damage (they don’t to our knowledge); make it appear the weapon came from the air to implicate the Israelis; attack the van at the exact same time other targets were attacked by the Israelis; know the van was coming and what route it would take; do all this without being seen by Israel ISR and exposed as a shame by Israel. So yes it’s possible. Another theory is that we, the United States, attacked the van – that’s also possible. Analysis is more than throwing out the theory you want to be true.

The sad fact is, after the Ambulance hoax, many in the blogosphere suddenly see conspiracy and hoax everywhere. This tendency is a result of human nature and not malfeasance. Cognitive psychologists have identified many human foibles – the ones that run rampant in comment threads and in many blogs are confirmation, disconfirmation, focusing and “Neglect of Probability” biases. I suggest you examine your own biases before impugning me on mine.

NPP on September 5, 2006 at 11:34 PM