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.
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.
65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gazahttps://t.co/5P10AijNyh
— Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib (@afalkhatib) October 11, 2024
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.
The obvious bullet placed underneath an xray duping the New York Times shows the falloff of a once great publication. https://t.co/k1stIMwBwV
— Harry Kaplan (@HarryMKaplan) October 13, 2024
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.
.@nytimes’ Gaza piece featured X-ray images claiming to show 5.56 caliber bullets in children’s skulls, but weapons experts have debunked them. With no exit wounds or fractures, the claims don’t hold up. How did this slip through fact-checking?https://t.co/RRTvhrVqeW
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 13, 2024
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!
Another thing just hit me about the three X-ray photos in the @NYTimes.
— Elder of Ziyon 🇮🇱 (@elderofziyon) October 14, 2024
All of the bullets are perfectly perpendicular to the camera.
In real life, the head is 3-dimensional - a bullet could come any angle. It is highly unlikely that most bullets would enter exctly from the…
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.
As a former Law Enforcement Officer, Ret. Special Forces Soldier (Green Beret) and Sniper, I feel confident in saying I know the effects of 5.56 NATO (M855).
— Matt Tardio (@angertab) October 12, 2024
Conclusion:
The NYT lied or failed to verify the information presented to them. This is based on the MV and BC of the… pic.twitter.com/0gusGVtwHg
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.
A statement from the editor of New York Times Opinion in response to criticism of a recent guest essay. https://t.co/fs3X3ivadq pic.twitter.com/dnpEVFoxSG
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) October 15, 2024
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.
Alright, so for those of you keeping score, here's where we stand on the @nytimes op-ed accusing the IDF of intentionally shooting Gazan kids in the head:
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) October 13, 2024
1. The author of the piece is an anti-Israel fanatic who wrote for Electronic Intifada and whitewashes Hamas' crimes:… pic.twitter.com/M0D8nOMb61
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.
CBS News and Margaret Brennan (fresh off moderating a debate) cut out Johnson’s entire answer, making it seem as if he hadn’t provided evidence for his claim.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) October 15, 2024
This network is on another level. No Republican should appear on it. pic.twitter.com/PRP0Ce1yLc
This is regime media, folks. They live and die by hoaxes.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member