As the originator of the Red Cross Ambulance story, I would urge the elements of the blogosphere still running with the story to at least slow down, if not back up. They are increasingly looking like the very drive by media against which we so often rant, running the risk of being exploited by propagandists on another side of an issue. And no matter how much many of us may support that side, propagandists on both sides do exist. For the record, I'm guilty, too.
The fact is ZombieTime's post does not do what it claims, proving the ambulance attack demonstrably false. And if they had operated the way bloggers should, by co-operating and communicating, instead of taking another's story and making it their own, perhaps they would have held back from making some of the unprovable claims they do. As I said, I am no innocent here. Most likely, being frustrated at how some have co-opted much of the work I did is certainly part of why I backed off and started to take a clearer view.
Sorry, but there is no excuse for lgf and Powerline to even be claiming a role in this story, or being cited by the Jerusalem Post as individuals actually in the know. And ZT's analysis really doesn't hold up. I doubt anyone related to those sites, excluding ZT, has done a fraction of the research which has been done. Much like a large media network relying on stringers, they are ultimately inflating their stature without having done the real work, or verifying the facts. And, frankly, it is time to end the show, which I intend to do right now.
As one can learn from Allah today, the rust factor, always a major factor in debunking the ambulance story, appears unreliable.
Finally, a word on rust. There’s been a lot of talk about rust, including comments on several blogs about the Reuters van. Let me assure you that it doesn’t take visible surface rust very long to form in the Lebanese climate. If you look up the weather data for Lebanon for the past few days, you’ll see it’s been hot with 70 - 80% humidity. In that environment, rust can form very fast.
ZombieTime asserts the ambulance driver, appearing in images a week later, couldn't have had the initial injuries claimed. That's false. If one had read all the stories, they'd know he was only ever claimed to have been superficially injured, kept overnight for observation, returning to work the very next day. He never had much more than a shaving cut on his face. And contrary to ZT's assertion, such a minor injury will indeed heal quickly, particularly on the face as it regenerates skin rather quickly as a result of being always exposed.
ZT asserts the image at right suggests that no one lost a leg while on that stretcher. Really? All I did was lighten it a touch and I would never make that claim. I reviewed that image a month ago and didn't include it, as it wasn't a challenge-able point. Shrapnel, small ordinance, or whatever, most likely did strike there precisely where a man's leg would have been.
As for the centerpiece of the ambulance, yes, clearly the air vent was removed. But how? The rivet holes are ripped and there's obviously a significant tear on the opposing edge of the circle where it had been, indicating something tore into the roof and most likely taking the vent with it.
How is it that someone sitting thousands of miles away can claim to know precisely what that something was or wasn't? Sorry, one can't. Once you take the rust out of the equation you have proof of nothing at all.
My posts are here and here and as I pointed out here, the license number of this vehicle is known and could be traced. My emails to Lebanon have gone unreturned. Are any of the new media all stars now running with this story even trying to get the facts? Not so far as I can tell.
There was some incredibly sloppy reporting by the MSM media around the ambulance incident. Kevin Sites claiming someone lost two legs comes most to mind. But what I was doing a month ago was asking for someone who could to follow up. Now it has become a larger news story with blogs asserting it never happened. Blogs do not know that to be true and haven't come close to proving it. Right now blogs run as much risk of damaging their credibility by acting as propagandists with this story as they do delivering a big scoop.
As I said, I'm not innocent. Today on my second anniversary, I have to cop to being as caught up as everyone else. While I moderated my posts, apparently some juvenile posting board member was impersonating S R Sidarth and, frankly, I got duped. Last night I went to jump into the Reuter's vehicle story against my better instincts and made a gaffe.
I'm celebrating my anniversary by taking a break and slowing down. I'd suggest some others consider the option as well. Frankly, many of us were stoked up over some real wins and have started looking no better than the MSM we often love to loathe.
Porkbusters and the Secret Hold - Greg Mitchell, those are stories we can and should tackle and do some good. And we absolutely need to continue to stay on the MSM and work to elevate their coverage. But let's not start insisting on the existence of potential half-truths of our own that even the best research simply doesn't support. That might get your name into print or onto TV, but is it really worth it if all you really accomplish is becoming part of another MSM charade?
I've learned some hard lessons in two years of blogging, obviously I haven't learned them all. But the past week or two has been one for the books, let me tell ya. Hopefully it'll only make me a better blogger in the end. Either that, or I'll eventually just quit.
Once I start seeing and believing what I want to believe, as opposed to the truth - I'll have become the beast I set out to battle when I took up the keyboard in the first place. And that isn't how I want this story, or blogging in general to end.
It isn't my intention to offend or alienate any fellow bloggers, but frankly, when it comes to the Red Cross ambulance story, we all need to get a grip.
I'm glad to see that you are acknowledging that it is difficult to write anything approaching a journalist’s report from a distance (esp. if you are using virtual information as your primary source), and I'm really glad that you are willing to acknowledge that a blog can easily turn into a platform for propaganda. But after seeing your particular version of a blogger’s mea culpa, I think the xoxo posters killed you, not your world affairs posts (two shots of dresses in Lebanon don’t work any better as a story than a picture of a piece of shredded fabric in Aruba IMO).
By excising comments from the Sidarth posts you made, you admitted that you didn't know what you were doing, and that your attempt to demonstrate that a 20-year-old political volunteer was no better than a politician who cast slurs at him was not working too well. And by not acknowledging that in a post until now, you’ve left us with the impression that naughty word bulletin board posters “pwn” you, as does The Forward for noting that George Allen might be (of all things!) an undercover Jewish carpetbagger from Palos Verdes. How could you not want to follow that one?
I have been reading your posts with obsessive wonder and confusion since then, and without wanting to bash you, I think this is far too little to late, and that you might as will start slotting new Terror Head Bin Rollin comics in between your other posts, as that will leave no doubt to new readers how you feel about world affairs and terrorist violence.
Posted by: caseyschenkofsky | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Look, you bloggers are the ORIGINAL "drive by media" - you are largely anonymous and accountable to NO ONE. So don't do a superior dance over the mainstream media, please.
Blogs are OPINIONS, which are loosely associated with facts. Smart people view blogs as entertainment, NOT "news."
And jeez - does the ENTIRE right wing have to be parrots for Limbaugh ("drive by media")??? Have some original thoughts, please! Or at least plagiarize someone clever!!
Posted by: jamie | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 07:29 PM
I think you've done an excellent job at uncovering issues that need to be looked at. While it is difficult for bloggers-- who are far away from the events-- to find out what really happened they really aren't all that different from the journalists who --for instance --weren't present and weren't even able to see the ambulance vehicles for themselves but had to rely on the footage from a "local cameraman" and eyewitness reports after the fact. The MSM had no problem running with a story that they couldn't verify and drawing some pretty strong conclusions of their own (witness the ITV report). Yes, everyone probably can use some cooling off and stepping back a bit but it is difficult to do when the MSM a)does not b)denies any wrong-doing at all and c)decides to blame israel for the slanted coverage. Hello??
You've done an excellent job and certainly earned my highest respect. I'm addicted to your blog now! :)
Posted by: Yael | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 07:53 PM
Your blog is one of the best, I enjoy the links that you share, on which you base your opinion on.
Realizing that we all in the free world have a right to have an opinion, and the fact that you share yours with us, does not make you responsible to get to the bottom of the story, only to call attention to it! and that you do well.
Keep up the good work, and don't slow down too much, there are too many of us that share your views and want to read your posts.
Posted by: Raul | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Pundita has been lazy about learning how to do trackback so in penance I am inserting in this comment section my blog on Dan's post sans the first paragraph of Dan's essay and the link to the essay:
This is how the blogosphere gets things done right
I'm glad I stopped by Riehl World View a second time today or I might have missed Dan's latest post. If you are new to the Ambulance story you might have trouble keeping up with the discussion [...] But following the twists and turns is worth the effort if you rely on the blogosphere to turn up news that the MSM overlook or get wrong.
The blogosphere as a self-correcting medium, and the microscopic analysis that the blogosphere excels at (note the discussion of rust ...), are both on display in I'd Advise The Blogosphere To Slow Down [...]
Other bloggers can always learn something when Riehl decides to search his blogger's soul, as he did today on his second anniversary as a blogger, and when he takes fellow bloggers to task.
Posted by: Pundita | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:09 PM
By excising comments from the Sidarth posts
I have no responsibility to maintain vulgar quotes from a bunch of foul mouthed adolescent college kids. I do not delete comments from people who disagree, I do it when they disagree in a vile manner. If you can't figure that out, go ruminate over something else.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Riehl --
zombie here. I didn't mean to "steal your thunder" as the saying goes. I did everything I could to acknowledge the two bloggers who first looked at the ambulance case (you, and Infinitives Unsplit.) In fact, right above where I start analyzing the evidence, I thank you specifically and give a link to your report. And then, throughout my essay, I scattered several links to your post again -- four or five times at least. I acknowledged and thanked you repeatedly. What else could I have done? It happens every day in the blogosphere that someone raises a question, then the next blogger looks at it some more, then the next blogger even more, and so on. That's standard procedure. No one along the way is required to "ask permission" to examine the case a little deeper. If they're courteous (as I was), they'll give a link to the blog that provided the starting point, and extend the analysis even further. We see this process every day.
Moe importantly, I am not responsible for the media coverage of this incident. I'm just one little person, with no special powers to manipulate the media to mention me. If they like what I posted, they mention it. If not, they don't. In the marketplace of ideas, things attract attention on their merits. Ten thousand blog posts were written on the day I wrote mine. Yet the vast majority of them were ignored by the media, whereas mine was noticed. Am I to blame for this? Could it be that mine was mentioned in the media because it merited mentioning? If I had made a weak case, then the story would most likely have been ignored just as most blog posts were ignored.
Furthermore, I can't control the reporters, and tell them to credit you as my predecessor. Sure, they should have mentioned you, but for the most part they unfortunately didn't. That's out of my control -- I did my best by mentioning you and linking to you repeatedly in my essay.
When I wrote my report, I had no idea what was going to happen. As far as I knew, it would have sunk like a stone and never been cited or referred to by anyone else. I was just as surprised as you when the publicity took off surrounding my essay.
As for the soundness of my arguments: well, as with any essay or argument or blog post, it will be severely tested out in the brutal blogosphere and mediasphere. If my debunking was weak and not true, then by all rights it should be and will be shredded by those who have more evidence or better debating skills.
If Brit Hume, Caroline Glick, the Foreign Minister of Australia and everyone else who cited my report thought it was unconvincing, then they simply would have ignored it. I don't have any power over these people. In their opinions, my arguments had merit, so they repeated the same arguments to the world.
I'm sorry you feel passed over in this media blitz, but circumstances often spin out of anyone's control. What else could I have done: not write my report at all, so as not to offend anyone?
I'm also a little confused by the thrust of your post: are you saying that you ought to have more recognition as one of the originators of this scandal; or that everyone -- you included -- should distance ourselves from the scandal entirely? If the evidence does NOT support a debunking of the ambulance attack, shouldn't you be GLAD that you aren't given credit for it?
Let the chips fall where they may. The story is out there, and it will rise or fall on its own merits.
Unfortunately, Hezbollah has by now had a month to manufacture whatever evidence they want in this case, so any new info that crops up -- barring a cockpit video from an Israeli aircraft showing the ambulance being hit -- will itself be suspect.
No hard feelings at all on my part: you did a good job, and it partly inspired me to look even deeper. I have absolutely no desire for personal credit -- you may notice that NOWHERE in my entire essay do I even say who I am, or say "by zombie" or anything like that. Sure, you deserved more credit than you were given by the media, but for that you should blame the media, not the blogosphere.
Posted by: zombie | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:18 PM
The most obvious fact you're eliding in this critique is that had either ambulance been struck a direct hit by a missile with an explosive warhead, such as a Hellfire, the wreckage would be twisted and charred and the objects in the interior of the vehicle would be nearly unrecognizable.
These vehicles were not struck by missiles!
Posted by: Dar ul Harb | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:23 PM
These vehicles were not struck by missiles!
I don't doubt that at all. As I said, there's very sloppy reporting that went on and I wish it had gotten to the truth. Likely it was another weapon, shrapnel, who knows? That's a far cry from saying it didn't take place, is it not?
Zombie, I realize you linked my work several times, never said you didn't. Did you ever ask the person who turned a lot of this up what they thought? Did you once email during your work? No you did not. You wound up in a tunnel with vision which allowed only one conclusion. And you can like it or not, the extremely short post above and Allah's bit on the rust takes your "absolute proof" apart.
Sorry, but if the credibility of bloggers making conclusions is going to rest on some "definitive" debunking of a story which isn't definitive at all, I am going to distance myself from that post, just as you went in the direction you did without once communicating during your work. By jumping to an unreasonable conclusion, you run the risk of undermining the credibility of every blogger. You have not definitively proved or disproved anything and, IMO, should have stuck to raising questions, which is what the blogosphere does best in cases like this.
Of course Glick is going to embrace it, it suits her purpose. And while she does some great work, you can't forget she has a dog in this fight, too. An independent media should not.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:33 PM
I'd also add it was this new damned Reuters story that started my concerns. That vehicle rusted almost overnight, something we had always assumed the ambulance did not. Then I read Allah's psot on the climate. If the rust issue is taken out of it due to the Reuters vehicle, which it now is, then our "debunking" starts to fall apart.
Do I think the story was over-hyped in terms of fire and explosions? Probably so. Was it a missile, fragmentation? I don't know, I wish we did. AT one point in Zombie's post she suggests what is obviously a hub cap may be the mysterious air vent missing turned upside down. I'm not saying this to embarass Z, but it points out how she was seeing what she wanted to see and nothihng else. I have been there myself, believe me. But if someone wants to support the "It never happened" angle, go for it. Please just address the issues in the post above. I don't believe any blogger can.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:48 PM
By jumping to an unreasonable conclusion, you [zombie] run the risk of undermining the credibility of every blogger. You have not definitively proved or disproved anything and, IMO, should have stuck to raising questions, which is what the blogosphere does best in cases like this.
"undermining the credibility of every blogger"? Exaggerating a bit? Everyone has their own reputation, last I checked.
I'll raise you another question, Mr. Riehl. What is the ICRC motivation for taking down the high resolution photo of the wreckage?
If the story could stand up to public scrutiny, I doubt they'd be hiding the evidence, don't you think?
Posted by: Dar ul Harb | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10:55 PM
What is the ICRC motivation for taking down the high resolution photo of the wreckage?
They rotate images there all the time. The fact is it was down weeks ago. Haven't you noticed that other images have changed, as well? Because they have. I have a copy of the 4mb image, as do plenty of others because "they'd" made it available. Listen, I am no friend of the ICRC given that they admit to helping enemy combatants the second they lay down their guns after being hurt. And I would support a boycoot on donations to the ICRC until that practice is stoppped. But I am not going to see a consipracy when a website graphioc is rotated without somehting else to hang my hat upon.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Dan --
Over the years, tens of thousands of blogs have posted essays or comments about my photo reports and investigative pieces. Do you know out of all of them, how many communicated with me ahead of time, or asked my permission? None. I didn't know it was a rule of blogs that someone writing a blog post must first consult with other bloggers to see if it's OK. No one ever asks what I think. And I get the feeling that 99% of the time, no blogger writes to the other blogger who inspired him or her and asked "what they thought" about an upcoming blog post. That would make everything into a slow-as-molasses game of curtsying and "please ma'am"ing. A zillion times, people have come to conclusions based on my photos that I myself would have never made. "Everyone in San Francisco is a commie-loving freak! I hope the next earthquake knocks the whole city into the Pacific," etc. I see that 20 times a day. I shrug it off.
And I didn't get into tunnel vision about the ambulance incident based on some unreasonable pre-conceived notion. It's just that the more I dug, the more evidence of a hoax I found. I reached my conclusion based on the evidence I found, not on prejudicial bias.
And, unlike almost every other scandal-raising blog post, I actually devoted a section to raising the most likely counter-arguments against my thesis. How often do you see that?
Look around at the blogosphere. Every day, hundreds of blogs made frantic, attention-seeking exposés of this or that. 99% of them are less well-researched, and less well-founded, than my essay. And as a result, most are pretty much ignored. This happens on the left and on the right. The only reason mine got attention more than yer typical blog post is that more people thought it contained good arguments. Am I to apologize for making a good case? And if my case is not good, then it will be itself debunked, and the world will go on.
The media presented its case without consulting anyone. And they repeated it as fact, ad infinitum. We demonstrate that they are lying, and suddenly we have to pussyfoot around and politely raise delicate "doubts"? I'm tired of that! The media would ignore such overly polite "questioning." I see nothing wrong with blasting them back. Let the media defend itself. In the process, we'll get closer to the truth than if we had let the media have an information monopoly.
You are perfectly free to think my arguments are weak -- more power to you! Poke holes in them all you want, and if the hole-poking is valid, then my arguments will be weakened. That's what the Grand Debate is all about.
Posted by: zombie | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 11:10 PM
Poke holes in them all you want
I already did, Z. Perhaps you didn't read the post. If your only respons eis that you want the "it never happened" story to be true so it is - fine. That there wasn't a huge explosion inside the ambulance was proved a month ago in my first post. That nothing at all happened hasn't been proven by anyone so far as I can tell. Maybe as your are anonymous, your comfortable standing on that. I am not anonymous, my name is on my posts. And I have made my position clear, I cannot support the conclusion that the ambulances were never struck at all based upon anything I have seen posted on the Internet. That doesn't mean I don't realize there is always propaganda associated with these events. There is. But, in the end, yours is simply more on another side of the issue and far from any conclusive truth.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 11:21 PM
Dan,
Congratualions on your second anniversary. I see you are starting to get the kind of attention and recognition you deserve.
Surprisingly, I don't know enough about the alleged missile attack on the ambulance to have an opinion but I do think you are being a little hard on yourself - and the blogosphere. Keep on, keep on trying.
Terry
Posted by: Terry Gain | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 11:24 PM
a little hard on yourself
Great to see you Terry. Just hope people understand I am being hard on myself as well. It's a learning process. IMO, it's as CLint said, a man's got to know his limitations" In the end, I think that advice bodes well for blogs for now, too. One day there will be people on the ground in Lebanon able to take thse kinds of issues on, often at great risk. But I do not want to be too cavelier with the truth over a broader issue in which innocents on both dies are actually dying and bleeding every day.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Dan, one detail.
The photos that I've seen of the Reuters armored SUV show even rusting across all of the metal that has been bared by whatever happened (a hit, fragmentation et cetera). That would make sense following your note on the high humidity. The photos of the ambulances do not show that same even rusting. Some of the metal has rust, and parts next to it show no rust. I would think that that would rule out oxidation by humidity, or any other natural factor that should apply evenly.
Posted by: Matt | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 12:41 AM
I would think that that would rule out oxidation by humidity, or any other natural factor that should apply evenly.
I'm not expert enough to comment, Matt. And basically that's my real point here. I think we can raise a great many important questions in and around reporting like this. But I also think we need to take responsibility when we say this or that isn't, or can't be true. We create a percetion of a reality we want to see and can make a convincing argument why that's so. But that is not the same thing as objective truth. And when propagandists of any stripe are willing to pick up things and run with them, it's ultimately us who can wind up with egg on our face as a credible medium.
Are there questions around this attack? Absolutely. Can any of us say for certain what happened? Not from what I have seen and read.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 01:43 AM
I still don't buy that rust theory. I live in this hot mediterenean climate of 75% humidity and never saw something rusting here that fast overnight. I live some 15 kilometers from the sea. People who live a kilometer from the sea however DO get rust very fast. It is not the humidity here, but the sea causing that rust.
Gaza is a small coastal strip. I can imagine the rust forming there faster because of the sea, but that doesn't say anything for the Lebanese ambulance.
The Reuters pressvehicle story is something totally different and I do believe it was hit by Israeli fire, maybe not a missile, but than for sure shrapnel of that missile hitting nearby. The ambulance story however is just stinking smelly with this report of a missile piercing that roof exactly in the middle of the red cross. I don't buy it and I still think you did right investigating it.
Posted by: Elisabeth | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 02:26 AM
There are quite obvious traces of an *recent* explosion on top of 782: unrusty marks sprayed all over the roof. But that does not contradict the theory that the damage was not caused by an impact on that day. It supports it, since there are very rusty damaged areas and completely unrusty areas.
Some forensics on that incident (8 pages):
http://www.eureferendum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2375&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Posted by: harris | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 06:18 AM
jamie climbs atop the soapbox:
"Look, you bloggers are the ORIGINAL "drive by media" - you are largely anonymous and accountable to NO ONE."
If "drive by media" means "anonymous" and "unaccountable" then it's roughly a couple generations removed from the origin. Used to be called yellow journalism. Now it's called "mainstream media".
"So don't do a superior dance over the mainstream media, please."
Ain't no one should be doing The Honor Of Journalism dance 'round here.
"Blogs are OPINIONS, which are loosely associated with facts."
So's the NYT, so's CNN, so's et cetera.
"Smart people view blogs as entertainment, NOT "news." "
And smart people view the mainstream media as self-righteous propoganda.
"And jeez - does the ENTIRE right wing have to be parrots for Limbaugh ("drive by media")???"
It's actually a clever phrase. I like it and can't stand Limbaugh. Does he use it?
As an aside, why is it that Limbaugh's detractors know everything about Limbaugh -- words, phrases, mannerisms, daily habits -- and those who supposedly pattern themselves after him do not? Exactly who is his audience, anyway?
"Have some original thoughts, please! Or at least plagiarize someone clever!!"
Oh, right, like "The Left" is some great big wad of neologizing independent thinkers. "The Left", which rose as a unitary cackle chorus to denounce Iraq as a "quagmire" -- right after MoveOn did -- even before there were 1,000 combat deaths. Hey, if it was good enough for Vietnam then it's good enough for Iraq. 5,000+ combat deaths per year compared with [at this rate] 5,000 combat deaths per decade. That's equivalent, right?
In a very real sense, religion is belief without proof. Doesn't matter what the belief is in. God, the beauty of your wife, the intelligence of your children, the superiority of your favorite baseball team, the sensibility of your political philosophies ... if you can't prove it, you are pushing religion. If you can't even support it without falling back to "in my opinion" or "...what I think is...", you're pushing religion.
The religion of politics knows no ideology, Reverend jamie.
If you cannot form your political beliefs into a valid, substance-based form, wherein you lay out your factual support for your beliefs and allow factual criticisms to be aired, then you are no better than any Chataqua Revival preacher.
In my experience, there are three types of "blogs" [proper blogs, i.e., daily or nearly daily collections in the form of a diary]:
1] hobbyists -- "read what happened in the last five minutes of my life!! :)"
2] superficial political blogs [of any/all partisanships]
2a] micro-superficial political blogs, with single-sentence, sometimes as much as single-paragraph, denunciations of "the other side"
2b] bloviated-superficial political blogs, wherein the denunciator uses every disingenuous sophist trick in the book to approximate rational argument building, but which boils ultimately down to "nuh-uh!!"
3] rational political blogs.
This is, for the most part, a rational political blog. Which is not to say that its position[s] is necessarily correct, or entirely supportible, or moral or right or gilded wisdom from on high. But for the most part it goes to the effort of laying out support for its position[s] rather than simply giving its position[s] as axiomatic.
Posted by: rwilymz | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 09:46 AM
But that does not contradict the theory ...
That's precisely my point. I have no issue with "theories." We can have as many as we want. But one doesn't draw conclusions on theories without objective facts to back them up.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Dan -- you're right about the self-appointed (me included) media-watch blogosphere. We need to be honest. The one about the supposed photoshoppped "Purrfect Angelz" (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/28/fauxphotography-the-nyt-cheesecake-shot-isnt-photoshopped) really took me aback and I almost said something about it... but it looks like the blogosphere actually self-corrected itself with the Ozcam argument, so I felt better.
But it doesn't mean we shouldn't caution ourselves about this kind of ... enthusiasm ... it and heed that caution. Don't want to be the black pot pointing at the kettle.
There will always be blogs that go overboard and reach too far. The honest ones are going to be the ones people trust and keep going to. I think (maybe just hope -- ) that this may be a self-weeding process for real thinkers, but unfortunately not for zealots of either persuasion.
That all being said, I seriously doubt the ambulance was struck by a missile. I also think that the rust on the bullet holes looks far too advanced to be anything less than weeks old, possibly months -- that's an opinion, but an opinion based on personal experience with rust. Still, there could be other explanations for the rust, I'll admit. But there's no explanation for an ambulance hit by a missile that wasn't twisted, blown apart, and otherwise thoroughly scorched. The fact that you could even see rusted bulletholes in the roof with no suit or burn marks -- much less paint -- after being struck by a missile is suspicious. After watching the Pallywood stuff at http://www.seconddraft.org and seeing the CNN Anderson Cooper ambulance story ... my bets are heavy on it being a fake to perpetuate the idea that Israel/US just want to kill innocent people. Malkin's recent Hot Air video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS2Cmvy4V6o) I think did a pretty good job collecting the evidence and presenting the case. I think it is more than enough of an indictment for the MSM to take notice and investigate it.
The blogosphere is doing a great service to the world by being media watchers..... but let's not get cocky.
Posted by: Phil | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 10:24 AM
I find both Zombie's original analysis and the questions Dan has raised about it to be both high-minded and compelling. This is a good debate, and you're both to be commended for conducting it as you have.
RE: the "rust argument"-- I've lived on the ocean in high-humidity environments, in the desert, and away from the ocean in a high-humidity environment, and I've never seen rust form that fast on steel. So the rust argument still seems compelling to me.
But I'm no expert. Maybe we could get this guy to do some pro bono work:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~burleigh/
Or maybe this guy:
http://www.intota.com/viewbio.asp?bioID=773647&perID=723181&strQuery=rust+prevention
Posted by: Just Some Guy | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 10:52 AM
If people are skeptical of the media it is the media's fault for being unreliable. Now the burden of proof is on the journalists and they need to offer proof before hand analyzing the type of damage etc.
When I was in elementry school, my family moved to a new city during the middle of the school year. Because my new school was new to me, I found myself observing it from an unusually objective viewpoint for a child. It was a fine school - a typical middle class suburban public school. What I noticed though was that the topic of conversation among the kids 99% of the time was about putting down someone else. Some one was dumb, or clumsy, or some such childish type of character assassination. The blogosphere is a very valuable development. It provides information that the traditional media doesn't. However the bloggers still need to recognize that because the world is full of fools doesn't make it correct for oneself to have an elementary school mentality.
Posted by: ajh251ljh1 | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Good advice to slow things down. Can I interpret this as remorse for dragging some UVA college student's name through the mud with completely unsubstantiated evidence? If so then Kudos.
XOXO is full of some immature potty mouths no doubt. It is also full of students and graduates from the top law schools in our country. The board is completely anonymous and unmoderated and embraces free speech. Thus the reader is forced to take the good with the bad.
Alongside information on clerkship placement for federal appelate circuits and top corporate law firms there are ridiculous posts that may offend. Thats free speech I suppose. Anyone who reads the board for more than a few minutes would quickly realize that its anonymous and that famous names in the news are often adopted in obvious parody...
Good luck with your future blogging. I can't inform your questionable motives (still don't understand why you would seek to defame Sidarth in the first place). But substantiating your evidence would go a long way towards earning credibility. HTH.
Posted by: Captain America | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 11:44 AM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20307128-7582,00.html
"There was not a sound in the sky before the explosions. And after that there was a battle for the next hour. We hid in a building nearby convinced we were going to die. It was only when George (Kettaneh) called me that we could leave safely."
Posted by: harris | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 11:55 AM
compare
(same author Mark Chulov)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19915049-2703,00.html
stationary or veering off road?
Apache or drone?
"The latest attack occurred on Sunday night near the small village of Quna, where two ambulances travelling in convoy were fired on by an Israeli Apache helicopter as they sped to the besieged port city of Tyre."
"He remembers nothing after the flash and bang of the missile then the crunch of the crash as his ambulance veered off road."
vs.
"The run sheets that night of the Lebanese Red Cross in Beirut and the International Committee for the Red Cross, who were working closely with them, show the two ambulances waited at the intersection just north of Qana for another ambulance carrying wounded from the village of Tibnin."
Posted by: harris | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 12:24 PM
MARTIN CHULOV !
Posted by: harris | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 12:26 PM
The drone theory / Martin Chulov again:
"Red Cross slams Downer's hoax claim"
August 30, 2006 12:00
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20298594-5006003,00.html
>>Ambulance driver Qassem Shalim was closing the doors of the ambulance when the vehicle was hit.
"I am sure the missile was fired from a drone. The blue light was flashing on our roof, the red cross was clear and there was a light on the Lebanese Red Cross flag above me. Everything I said happened did happen," he told The Australian in Beirut.<<
Good boy Qassem is always telling the appropriate things.
Posted by: harris | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 01:56 PM
Rwilymz,
"But for the most part it goes to the effort of laying out support for its position[s] rather than simply giving its position[s] as axiomatic."
One final note to your comment: In defense of Dan, in particular, those who blog daily, seven days a week, and often with mutiple posts each day, can hardly be expected to be 'right' 100% of the time. No mainstream journalist writes or researches that much. What is commendable about good bloggers is they update constantly and correct whatever information needs correcting.
People who lurk and never comment until something seems amiss? Jerks.
Posted by: Phoenix | Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 06:39 PM
Dan,
I live in Tel Aviv, one block from the ocean, and we have the same humidity levels as exist in Gaza in the areas right by the same ocean. I have a metal trashcan (from William Sonoma) that has quite a few big scratches and gashes in its paint covering that sits outside. It has been sitting outside exposed to the weather for nearly a year now. There is no rust on it except for one small spot up close to where the handle for the lid is. Things do not rust overnight here. Consider this: many people have outdoor balconies and some apartments have roof gardens. It is extremely common here for people to put their TVS and stereo systems out on their balconies/roof areas from May-early October without ever bringing them in so they can sit outside and enjoy them under a canvas canopy to block out the sun because there is no fear of rain falling to damage them. If the humidity level was high enough to cause this amazing rusting overnight one would think it would certainly be high enough to damage the electrical equipment left out for months but....
Posted by: Yaeli | Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 05:42 AM
Dan, the high resolution photograph of the ambulance 782 provides damning evidence of the fakery.
Note carefully several things:
(1) Dirty grey dust stains showing even footprints on the roof of the ambulance.
This is evidence that the vehicle has been stationary, out in the elements, for a considerable period of time, perhaps 6 months to a year. This is caused by acid rain, pollution, airborne dust particles condensing in dew. It only happens when a vehicle is stationary (i.e. broken)- no matter how dirty or unkept a moving vehicle is, the driving around stops dirt staining like this. Why? Simply the vibration and turbulence shakes off the particulates. The grey staining is a result of many, many nights and mornings of dew, that has accumulated on a non-moving vehicle.
(2) The grey staining follows the dints, creases and contours of the roof.
This is evidence that the roof damage has existed for a long period of time.
(3) There are horizontal rust stripes, outlining the metal roof reinforcing beams.
This is evidence that a heavy weight was placed on top of the ambulance at some stage, crushing the roof, and causing rust creases around the reinforcing. Perhaps another car body stacked on top of the ambulance in the wrecking yard?
(4) The rusty slashes on the roof.
This again is evidence that a car body may have been stacked on top of the ambulance at some stage in a wrecking yard, and parts of the body above scraped into the roof when it was placed or moved.
(5) The speed of the rusting.
I live in a high humidity, coastal area. One of my hobbies is (very amateurish) auto restoration. I have seen a film of surface rust appear within 30 seconds of honing a cylinder bore. I also have driven my 4WD through sea-water, with a small area of bare sanded metal. Surface rust appeared on the patch over a week later. This was minor surface rust, easily removed with a swipe of sandpaper.
The rust on the ambulance is OLD. No doubt whatsoever. The metal surface has been corrupted by the rust (steel typically rusts in an 80:1 ratio, i.e. 1mm plate will reduce to an 80mm wide oxidised mess, if undisturbed). The rust has pitted the metal on the roof of the ambulance. I am by no means an expert, but in my experience, the rust has all the appearance of being at least six months old.
Indeed, just look at the hi-res photograph. The holes for the roof-top vent have been ripped out, as if the vent were levered off. There is little or no rust on the bright metal where the vent was placed. The only possible conclusion is that the vent was removed at a later date than when the rest of the damage was done.
In my view, this ambulance has been in a wrecking yard or similar, and was trundled out for an orchestrated disinformation campaign, with the full complicity of the Red Cross workers involved.
Disgraceful.
Posted by: Kaboom | Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 07:33 PM
Dan, the claim that the photo's represents a hoax stands up to scrutiny.
1) It is claimed by eyewitnesses that a missile hit the ambulance, not some other ordinance.
2) The photo's are inconsitant with the claims made by the eyewitnesses
3) The eyewitnesses attest that the ambulance in the photo is the one hit by the missile.
The central claim, that the ambulance in the photos was hit by the missile, is untrue and the falsness of the claim is uncontested. If another ambulance was hit why aren't we seeing photo's of that ambulance?
In sum, the accusation that these photos are evidence that Israel targeted red cross ambulances in their performance of their intended duty is false and a hoax. This says nothing of the possibility that some other ambulance was hit, although where is the evidence that that is the case.
Posted by: Joe | Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 08:14 PM
See my top post where I linked to Tim Blair's combination of news stories. Frankly, it's in the reporting where I always thought the thing was the weakest. I'm not going to argue over photographic interpretations. The problem with that is people can interpret them differently, unfortunately. We don't know what flash was used, which van it is alleged to be, etc. But by looking at the actual reports, it is much easier to address the issue. IMO
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/08/tim_blair_on_th.html
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 08:36 PM
Dan, you are really being pedantic in my opinion.
You cannot tar zombie's entire detailed analysis with one brush. He made several valid points. Those points were not about how events must have transpired. They simply raised doubts about the media's description of how they transpired.
How can you say it is only "sloppy reporting" when the media clearly concocted the missile strike description ? The media haven't just presented photographs and accounts and then given their analysis in an editorial, they have the audacity to report this nonsense as a headline story. You just admitted you do not agree with the possibility of a missile strike.
Yet when it comes to zombie putting together an opinion, in an analysis piece which links to all known facts, reports and photographs, and the subject of his piece is the conflict between them, you are really annoyed by him forming an opinion ?
I don't think Allah's description of rust forming is sufficient to invalidate every single one of zombies points. Together, they still paint a picture of widespread media dishonesty.
Posted by: Jono | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 12:24 AM
Jono - As I understand it, Zombie is a "she" for starters. Second, I am not tarring Zombie. What I said and will continue to say is that "no one" can reach an undisputed image of the event based on pictures. There are too many variables. If you can't accept the fact that some of the most bizarre pictures turn out to have rational explanations, we'll just have to disagree. What I want to know, as I just posted yet again on this, is why the facts are so confusing, forget about pictures which are always going to be open to interpretation.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/09/more_on_alleged.html
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 04:16 AM
Dan,
Please don't lose confidence on the basis of the rust argument. I live in North Queensland, Aust - where it is also hot and humid on the coast. Rust does not form as quickly as has been suggested by the nay sayers. It just doesn't. The rust on the ambulance took weeks to form (if not longer). Yaeli (a commenter, above) is absolutely correct. Please don't take our word for it. Speak to wreckers or car dealers who have their businesses in hot, humid, coastal locations. Be guided by what they say.
Just one more thing. Perhaps you should have waited 24 hours before posting the above article. I'm sorry to say that it does you little credit.
Posted by: ralph | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 04:30 AM
Wrecked cars are normally not hit by a heat producing missile.
Note my poste above: There is a pattern of not rusty marks around the hole.
It seems to me that there is a overlay of two damage patterns.
Posted by: harris | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 05:40 AM
>>I'm not going to argue over photographic interpretations.
I'm a little confused. I thought the basis for your dismissal of zombie's case, or the debunking of the hoax claims, was 'the rust'. Whislt you seem to have latched onto Allah's commentary on rust, you conveniently ignore the above post from Kaboom. And at the same time, this lynch-pin of the argument can only observe via the 4mb photograph, which you now say you don't want to analyse and discuss?
If not by the photograph and expert opinion on the rate of rust-formation based on observations of said photograph and knowledge of the climate, pray tell *what* are you going by to debunk the hoax claim?
Posted by: Kyanne | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 09:58 AM
"Ambulance attack victim's anger at hoax allegations"
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ambulance-attack-victims-anger-at-hoax-allegations/2006/09/01/1156817099100.html
"But a Red Cross volunteer who was in the same ambulance as Mr Fawaz, 41, said he bled onto his stretcher, but not excessively as his leg had been cauterised."
"They could not reach Mr Fawaz with rockets from drones hitting around the ambulance and the building they were in."
Posted by: harris | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Dan: first, I am not "claiming a role" in this story. I've covered it like many other blogs. Like zombie, I don't control who the media recognizes, and I've also linked to lots of other blogs on this story.
Second, the high resolution image at the ICRC site was not "rotated." It was deleted from their server, shortly after zombie's piece was posted, while other images on the same page were not.
Posted by: Charles Johnson | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Dan, some of your detractors on other blogs have ascribed your motives for making this blog entry to 'jealousy' over not getting proper credit. I'm afraid I have to raise another possibility - that the idea of helping to dent the credibility of the established media, accusing them of making or reporting hoaxed has caused your nerve to fail. That's what I get from your haste to loudly denounce Zombie and others for the benefit of the MSM, who have done effectively nothing more than call Zombie a liar and declare that the stories about missiles are totally true despite evidence to the contrary. That's all they did, yet it seems to be enough to cause you to take fright.
Nothing that has been offered by the MSM has been sufficient to discredit anyone who has raised questions over what happened to these two ambulances. I think you've made a mistake in not having confidence in your own blogging, and also in broadcasting this crisis of confidence to the world, because amongst other things it comes across as you pounding on bloggers because they're not as 'mighty' as the MSM.
I dare say your panicked decision to go back on your word is more likely to undermine the credibility of bloggers than anything the Zombies of the world could have done. After all, you have just given the MSM a very convenient means of dismissing requests for further scrutiny on this matter. Why would they bother to go over the photographs, or do anything to further explain their case rigorously and properly, when they can just say, 'um, the guy who first said the ambulances were not struck by missiles now says he was mistaken!!' And that'll be your everlasting contribution to this controversy. Because it'll be all the MSM will let you hear about.
Posted by: The Happy Rampager | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 01:42 PM
accusing them of making or reporting hoaxed NEWS has caused your nerve to fail
Posted by: The Happy Rampager | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 01:46 PM
HR - You make absolutely no sense. And are grossly misinterpreting my position.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 02:32 PM
Old rust?
>>Army 2nd Lt. David Swisher, a platoon leader with the 612th Engineer Battalion, points out damage from an improvised-explosive-device detonation on the side of a “mine protective clearance vehicle,”...<<
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2005/20050415113253_buffalo.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2005/20050415_621.html
Posted by: harris | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 03:05 PM
Okay, harris, I'll bite.
The links you provided do not say how long the damage has been there, in order to rust to that extent. Could have been a day, could have been two weeks or two months, before Donald Rumsfeld was photographed inspecting the damage.
However, I will clarify my previous comment at http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/08/id_advise_the_b.html#comment-21805982 regarding my experience with rusting in a humid, coastal environment.
If a motor vehicle is set on fire, or the panels are affected by heat by welding, cutting, etc., then surface rust can be seen to occur much earlier than by simple exposure to the elements.
I have absolutely no experience in shooting at a motor vehicle, but by corollary I would expect that the indentations from shooting (i.e. stretching of the metal from the bullet or shot impact) would be a heat inducing event.
The application of heat to vehicle body steel appears to lessen its resistance to oxidization, perhaps by exposing the Fe+ ions on the surface, which would normally be part of a carbon bond destroyed by the application of heat. I don't know, I am not a metallurgist.
I am prepared to concede that where there is a heat inducing event, such as from fire, welding, a bullet, shotgun blast or missile shrapnel, that surface rust may appear within days. Possibly even overnight.
This does not alter the evidence of pitting of the surface metal around the "missile entry hole" in the middle of the Red Cross. Surface rust can appear as a thin film, but when it starts eating into the surface, that takes time.
However, the most important thing to remember is that our host Dan has apparently discarded Zombie's analysis (or at least expressed reservations with respect thereto) on the basis of the rust issue alone.
The major issue is whether Israeli Defence Force ordnance (1) was used on this occasion to cause the injuries alleged, and (2) whether this use of ordnance was deliberate or negligent.
There is absolutely no evidence that a missile has struck ambulance 782.
There is absolutely no evidence that an IDF missile has struck ambulance 782, causing (1) a driver to lose an arm; (2) a patient to lose his right (or left?) leg; (3) right ear or chin injuries to the "driver" of ambulance 782, or (4) any of the other injuries attributed to same.
I'm afraid that this has all the hallmarks of the historical ambulance/blood libel propaganda against Israel.
However, I'm prepared to concede that if someone had poured several shotgun blasts into the roof of ambulance 782, then those shot indentations could well have rusted to the extent shown in the hi-res photograph, within days of the shooting.
However, my point about the particulate/acid rain dew staining is unassailable.
Posted by: Kaboom | Friday, September 01, 2006 at 11:07 PM
@kaboom
I agree with you. And I certainly do not know how much time the APC had to rust. I stumbled on this image and I think that it is worth thinking about.
Here is an alternative scenario:
Take two ambulances from the scrapyard and position them in a deserted village in southern Lebanon (both effortless available).
Remove vents / create holes in the roofs (little effort)
Take some hand grenades and dtonate them on top those ambulance roofs (small effort)
Prepair the cars furthermore with a hammer and an used stretcher (effortless)
Dispatch am emergency call for authenticity (effortless)
Drive two or three unconscious patients wounded in a real airstrike to hospital (available in wartime in that area)
Put a small bandage on your chin.
Give a nice interview.
---
Six persons need to be involved in this story (The patients have no idea). No one gets hurt in that incident. No valuable things are destroyed except the hand grenades and the truth.
I can't prove that. It's just a theory.
By the way: Why is there appearantly not a single photo of the second (777) ambulance except the frames in the 'amateur video'?
Posted by: harris | Saturday, September 02, 2006 at 03:58 AM
I put my thoughts on the whole ambulance story into a blog now too:
http://factsfictionmiddleeast.blogspot.com/2006/09/attack-on-ambulances-on-july-13th.html
There, I explain why it is not unlikely that the damage indeed can have been caused by an israeli helicopter gunship.
Posted by: SK | Saturday, September 02, 2006 at 08:07 PM
Hi SK
"Personally, I suspect the ambulances were attacked by the IDF, a sad thing that happens in wars, especially when the enemy uses civilians (and maybe ambulances) as shields the way Hezbollah did. I´d expect the ambulances (and the occupants) to have been much more severed, were it a Hezbollah propaganda coup."
The problem with your speculations about the involvement of the Hezbollah is, that the impression of an authentic 'attack' on red cross vehicles protected by international law, needs the involvement of red cross personal. And that personal might be interested in creating the impression of an evil breach of the rules of war, but it is a long way from that intention to intentionally hurting or killing themselves or patients. And that's what would be needed to create such an impression.
Posted by: harris | Sunday, September 03, 2006 at 04:44 AM