Did The New York Times Publish a Hoax?

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File

I am not a ballistics expert and don't play one on TV. I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express, so what I write here is based entirely on the analysis of others. 

Advertisement

But I am pretty sure they are right, given the balance of the evidence and the provenance of the opinion piece published by the New York Times. 

At issue is a piece published by the Times in which 65 medical personnel who have worked in Gaza during the Israeli operation accuse soldiers of deliberately targeting Gazan children, shooting them in the head. There are lurid stories and X-ray images that purport to show bullets lodged in the head and neck of children. 

Those X-rays appear to be--according to doctors and ballistics experts--totally fake. And even I, a layman, can call bulls**t on them due to obvious problems that a 10-year-old can spot. 

Look at the linked photos in the above tweet, and you will immediately notice a few things: there are no entry or exit wounds, despite the claim that a military rifle supposedly shot these children with a bullet designed to penetrate armor. The bullets show no deformation and appear to have been placed under the body. 

I could be wrong, but lots of people in the law enforcement, military, and forensics fields have pointed these facts out. People have also done experiments using the same weapon and bullets on models, and there is no way that any of these children would have survived as claimed or that images of the wounds would appear that way on any type of medical images. 

Advertisement

It's not one or two people who are trying to debunk the claims being made in the pages of the Times; it seems to be everybody with any knowledge of ballistics or gunshot wounds piling on. 

The Times begs to differ but offers nothing more than an assurance that their robust fact-checking operation didn't let anything get past them. They have "layers and layers" of fact-checkers, just like Dan Rather did, so nothing gets past them!

Snipers scoff at the images and the stories because they know the effects of military bullets striking heads. The bullets almost certainly would pass through the head, causing massive trauma in both the brain and the exit wound. 

Advertisement

I have been following this story in the background, waiting to see if the Times has any real defense of its story. The answer is "no," beyond an assurance that they are correct. They will not release the evidence to independent investigators and insist they are confident that the claims are credible. 

Years ago, I might have taken this statement at face value. These days, you can feel confident that the Times will stick to a Narrative no matter the evidence. They received a Pulitzer for the coverage of the Russia Russia Russia scandal, relying on the Steele Dossier for much of their reporting. They have never apologized for spreading lies. 

A simple look at WHO wrote the essay tells you everything you need to know: they are not credible. The lack of credibility does not mean they are lying, but they certainly have the motive to. Ad hominem arguments are not persuasive. The obvious fakery of the evidence, though, really is. This story is bunkum. 

Advertisement

The media is covering itself in glory these days. CBS is telling its reporters not to call Jerusalem a city in Israel and chastises a reporter for asking questions of a black writer. They deceptively edited interviews with Kamala Harris and Speaker Johnson, and ABC dismisses a "handful" of apartment complex takeovers as no big deal. 

This is regime media, folks. They live and die by hoaxes. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement