More pushback on Human Rights Watch’s ambulance hoax report

posted at 11:39 am on December 29, 2006 by Allahpundit

What’s wrong with this picture? Ragnar knows.

hrw.jpg

He’s also got analysis on SPIKE missiles and what they do — and don’t do — to vehicles they hit.

Even if these relatively small missiles were used, and the missiles’ warhesds didn’t detonate, there would still be approximately 70 pounds of mass striking the ambulances, and then the pavement underneath, at a velocity of over five hundred miles per hour.

Now, granted, this isn’t as much kinetic energy as a Hellfire missile, not to mention a Maverick, but it’s still a heck of a lot of energy. Roughly the amount of energy in a 3,000 lb. sedan traveling at 70 mph, if I didn’t screw up my calculations. Folks, that kind of energy doesn’t just disappear into thin air when it hits the ground. It goes places. It does things. Violent things.

I sent an e-mail to The Age newspaper in Australia yesterday asking them to put me in touch with Sarah Smiles. I want to know if she saw any holes in the floors of the ambulances when she re-investigated the incident in September.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wait now I see how the game is played.

Make a completely false report. When challenged make up something completely false yet more believeable (for the person making the false report to believe). When challenged again make up something else more plausible. Challenged again, make up something else…

…Thereby never having to admit the first report was completely false to begin with. I’ll call it the “MSM face saving gambit.”

Theworldisnotenough on December 29, 2006 at 11:48 AM

If at first you don’t succeed lie, lie again!

Right Tracker on December 29, 2006 at 12:02 PM

Let’s see, facts and hard evidence on the actual capabilities of weapons systems on the one hand, and unfounded, unproveable third-hand fabricated theories on the other. Who should I believe?

On the gripping hand, maybe they are both wrong (but I doubt it).

rmgraha on December 29, 2006 at 12:12 PM

Those pesky laws of physics…they get you every time, don’t they?

Bob's Kid on December 29, 2006 at 12:19 PM

I think we need an objective third opinion on this, someone to really mull over this information.

How about Jamil Hussein? He doesn’t seem to be too busy in Baghdad these days.

Right Tracker on December 29, 2006 at 12:31 PM

Right Tracker
Jamil? That’s who they shot at the ambulances.

Mazztek on December 29, 2006 at 1:05 PM

Allah,

Here are some more pixs if you haven’t seen them.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Lebanon_Red_Cross_Ambulance_Target_Israel_Air_Strike

Kokonut on December 29, 2006 at 1:28 PM

Was looking around to see something similar of an object smashing through a car and that would be the Peekskill meteorite impact on a car in 1992.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021118.html

click on picture for a close up view. You can see the wooden floorboard that was impacted, though not greatly, after the rock smashed through the rear end of the car and went through it completely.

Kokonut on December 29, 2006 at 1:56 PM

Correct link to beginning page of pictures of ambulance struck by a “missile”.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Lebanon_Red_Cross_Ambulance_Target_Israel_Air_Strike&page=1

Kokonut on December 29, 2006 at 2:09 PM

So it was an Israili meteorite? What will they think of next?

MamaAJ on December 29, 2006 at 2:26 PM

Folks, that kind of energy doesn’t just disappear into thin air when it hits the ground. It goes places. It does things. Violent things.

Ragnar…heh.

In light of this stunning presentation of common sense, I would like to offer an comparison/contrast of those photos with the damage to an automobile from a stupid deer.

Jaibones on December 29, 2006 at 5:55 PM

Ever since seeing a picture of the holes in the road yesterday, I’ve been wanting to see the underside of those ambulances. The “shrapnel” flying from an object impacting concrete or asphalt like that should leave a heck-of-a-lot of damage to the undercarriage.

Of course the other question is how you get such nice, clean impacts. I’ve seen workers busting up concrete and asphalt roads and sidewalks, and I’ve busted up sections of sidewalk myself. A hit hard enough to do that kind of damage shatters and cracks even asphalt (softer) around the impact point.

As stated above, that kind of energy doesn’t just disappear.

taznar on December 29, 2006 at 6:32 PM

It looks like someone climbed inside and by hand tore down the overhead panels and yanked off the interior side panels. They thought it looked cruddy enough, and it was probably tea time to quit so they took the photos. The stretchers are still very useable, probably don’t even have to change the cover to put them back into service. The seats are undamaged, even the padding. The interior paint on the metal panels is excellent, with no scorch marks whatsoever, and there is no warping of door or side panels. If any significant force was expended inside the vehicle – the panels would show an outward bulging, at least a few rivets would have popped – this is a cheapy European ambulance, not a Humvee – and the window frames would have warped. The rubber gaskets are out, but the window frames are as they were exit the factory. Side, and front exterior paint is excellent, apart from the roof, which shows a lot of rust. From the roof depression, someone could have simply climbed up on top and jumped a couple of times to enhance the sinking around the center hole, which is where the roof vent is supposed to be.
If the interior upholstery of the vehicle was torn asunder by the force of the “missle” why weren’t the cushions and padding of the stetchers and seats not similarly wrecked?
If there was enough force expended inside that vehicle to blow out all those windows evenly, how did anyone sitting inside survive? With eardrums intact, at a minimum?
I am sorry to repeat this, because surely others have noted all of it. The word remains: fraud. I prefer, stinking fraud.
Human Rights Watch should be delisted from whatever so-called humanitarian club they currently enjoy, and added to enemy collaborator. If they want to spend their political capital defending this pathetic piece of propaganda, they should discover there are consequences to perfidity.
There is no upshot to this slimy venture. The next dispicable hoax will be engineered more carefully to be sure that all these give-away elements do not reoccur. It will be harder to pick apart the evidence from photos. Can bloggers afford to field a top forensics squad to debunk these charades?
Zombie has done a great service, but the war is still on and the tactics will change.

naliaka on December 29, 2006 at 7:04 PM

There’s one thing that really bothers me about the supposed ‘missile’ strikes, and that is the fact that no missile I heard of travels straight downward, most strike a target at an angle if fired from an airborne platform such as a helicopters or drone. Some antitank and antiship missiles do strike ‘face on’ but they travel horizontal to the ground and do not strike a target from above. Most strike at an angle as this can add to the destructive force by adding a shear force. Even the ‘pop up’ antitank missiles always strike at an angle.

None of the photos submitted as proof show any evidence of an angled missile strike that would be expected if the missiles were fired from any known airborne platform, they show supposed evidence of a strike straight down from the top which isn’t even indicative of a gravity assisted bomb, let alone a powered missile strike. Even the photos of the supposed holes left in the pavement show evidence of a strike that was straight down. That just doesn’t happen with a missile attack.

No know missile platform is designed to fire straight downward. What were the authors of the report thinking, that a missile hangs pointing straight down from under the platform and can be fired downwards? No, they are hung horizontal and are fired outward as the trust from missile would effect the launching platform adversely if fired straight down. Think about it, what would the exhaust from a missile do to a drone if fired downward? It would most likely destroy the drone as the exhaust from a missile travels at a very high speed and is very hot.

I’ve sen advanced antitank missiles that do fire their warheads downward, but they do so by the use of high explosives firing an inert mass like metal downward as they pass over the target, they do not travel in a downward trajectory and they leave a hell of a lot of shrapnel laying around to be recovered. According to the HRW report, none of these missile types were used. Instead, some new type of inert missile was used, but one again, these missile would strike at an angle and not straight down from the top.

Also, any type of inert missile, whether it’s a SPIKE missile or any other type, would leave traces of metal and other compounds at and around the impact site, and this has not been found. So, all the report does is raise further questions, including the question of what research HRW used to determine what constitutes a missile strike and what knowledge the researchers actually have about the capabilities and restriction that a missile has and what effects it would cause on the target.

This is a very poor report and does not appear to be fully researched. It looks to me that HRW created this report with the prior belief that a missile strike occurred and then tried to provide evidence of such a strike by suggesting that an unknown type of missile was used. This shows a biased investigation whose sole purpose was to support and defend a preexisting conclusion. This is hardly an objective report and should not be considered as such.

RedinBlueCounty on December 30, 2006 at 1:33 PM

kinda reminds me of the “missile, NOT a missile” video.

heh.

One Angry Christian on December 31, 2006 at 12:04 PM

naliaka did a good job of covering several significant appearance facts that prove fraud, but there’s at least one more to add.

The rust on the roof. In a recent post by AP, an expert submitted information that said such rust could occur quickly in the aftermath of a munitions strike because of the removal of both paint and preparatory coatings on the metal. Now, look at this close-up of the ambulance roof. Notice where there is no rust? Yes, at the vent flange, where there is also NO PAINT OR OTHER COATING ON THE METAL. And everywhere there is rust is where there had been paint, but was damaged or pocked.

I believe now as I believed then, this ambulance rolled over or had some other accident, was taken out of service, and later the idea to use it in a fauxtography session came about. By then rust already covered the damaged areas on the roof, and all that was needed was to pull the vent to create a missile impact hole. But if that isn’t so, it’s still true that the vent was removed LONG AFTER the rest of the damage to the roof occured, else the unprotected metal of the vent flange would be covered with rust, and that metal is PRISTINE.

Fraud, stinking fraud.

Freelancer on January 1, 2007 at 6:31 AM