The "Bradley Video"
A friend sent me this video posted on Iraqi Slogger of a Bradley being blown up in Anbar by a Jihadi who sneaks under the vehicle, which is apparently unguarded and plants a bomb under it. While I'm not a hundred percent certain, there are certain aspects of this video which are extremely suspicious. Three come readily to mind.
There are no track marks in the soft muddy path leading into the vehicle driveway. The Bradley must have backed into the driveway and around the obstacles shown in the video. But there are no track marks. Two, if you look at the blast pattern starting at 3:28, there is very little in the way of a horizontal blast wave that roils the placid water, which BTW remains mirror placid throughout the explosion. Also note the pebbles falling on the water from a high trajectory, not the low angle fragments you would expect. How did they rise to an apex and fall so fast as to beat the horizontal fragments? Third, look at the transition at 4:21 where the smokelike mist disappears to be replaced by a sudden black plume rising high into the sky. Freeze frame it and you'll see it.
Update: FWIW Iraq Slogger is reporting that "US military sources in Baghdad say they have examined the video closely but say they have no record of such an attack on a Bradley in Iraq. Some bloggers who are analyzing the video frame by frame say they are convinced the video is a fake. Other bloggers who have looked at the video believe it might be authentic. We'd welcome and appreciate further input from US military analysts and experts in determining the authenticity of video ... The Belmont Club blog is among those raising doubts about the video's authenticity and includes comments from doubters and believers."
posted by wretchardthecat at 3/19/2007 04:43:00 PM
53 Comments:
I don't know about the lack of track marks. There are some, I think (or tire tracks), fairly close to the obstacles, and the glistening mud was perhaps too wet for tracks to show up in most of it. Your other points are fairly persuasive. I would add that the camera stays in place a suspiciously long time after the explosion, apparently in the open, despite gunfire and the prospect of other forms of attack.
How come the overpressure doesn't even ruffle the date palms? They sit there gently swaying in the breeze the whole time. FAKE!
I am not sure it is fake. You can see the ripples in the pond. Also, as soon as the wind blows the trees the smoke begins to blow away.
I dunno. Looks real to me. I see tracks in the mud whenever the camera pulls all the way back. They go around the barriers in the front.
I can see reflections of the man in the water and of the vehicle in the water. It seems that they both are really there at the same time.
I think that the second thing that the man places under the vehicle is a gas can. The first is the real explosive. Most of the flames and smoke probably come from the gas. I see the transition at 4:21 that you mention. Probably it's just to take out some time when there's not enough smoke. They also edit at the time of the explosion making it appear that it occurs three times.
Do you see the dog? It appears on the left at about the position of the third telephone pole at about time 3:35. It looks at the explosion and then turns and runs along the wall towards the camera and out of the picture in the gap between the wall and the left barrier. The dog may be limping but obviously it wasn't dead. The explosion was contained under the vehicle quite well. I think there was more smoke than anything else. It's possible that the sound is completely added.
Could AQ steal one of these vehicles to make this video?
Catchy tune, eh?
A reader writes:
I've looked at a lot of war footage, test range footage, and used to be a pro still photographer (I can water your eyes with Photoshop). I don't think the Bradey video was faked. The plume changing from misty to sooty black often happens with a flash fuel fire. The high- speed blast vented visibly to the left in the frame. All the high- speed effects are going to be gone within one or two frames -- think 10,000 fps detonation speed. You'll mainly see the the lower-speed stuff such as the orange internal fireball caused by fuel ignition in the Bradley. Catching shock waves depends on the lighting and the camera speed. Tracks don't show when there is a thin layer of water, as seen here. Thin layers like that also don't stay disturbed very long.
The only thing I see out of the ordinary is leaving a Bradley un- guarded.
Explosion real maybe; Attack UTTERLY FAKED.
I've been working with animation, 3D animation, video editing, etc. for over 3 decades. For 3 years I was on staff in a large midwest video production studio doing broadcast TV spots and industruial programs using state-of-the-art digital effects. Throughout the 90's I worked in Silicon Valley doing computer animation.
I think that has given me some heightened awareness of the artifacts to look for, but I can still be fooled.
The thing that leaps out at me is the multiple flashes marking what is supposed to be the detonation. I've looked at the sequence a number of times, and You don't even have to be viewing in slow motion to see these. There are a few frames of flash, then a few frames of the undamaged Bradley, then another few frames of flash, and then another glimpse of the vehicle. Those flashes are unquestionably doctored.
The terrorists are themselves unlikely to include experienced special effects people, but Al-Jazeera certainly has well-funded equipment and staff with experience in the most sophisticated studios around the world.
Doesn't mean there was no explosion. It just seems to be symptomatic of a culture that makes no distinction between propaganda and journalism (Hey! They really *are* just like us...) They just *HAD* to make it more flashy than reality.
The rest of the explosion is convincing enough that I have a difficult time thinking that they faked the explosion.
But most likely, they got a Bradley from an Iraqi deserter/ double agent, and staged the event.
I absolutely refuse to believe that any US crew would have been so completely oblivious to such an attack by someone not even bothering to be sneaky, in broad daylight.
Bazz- Fazz..
The other thing is that the explosion has a LOT more flame than I would expect from HE. Looks a lot more like a Hollywood-style pyrotechnic bit --- Black powder dispersing and igniting a charge of sawdust and gasoline.
But it would be nice to hear from someone who actually knows a lot about munitions and military.
This looks like someone placed a fuel container under a piece of cardboard. Where is the debris? Shouldn't there be some traveling in all directions, including at the camera? Where's the burning hulk of the vehicle? Why is there a white flag next to the wall?
I've played enough Close Combat to recognize that those gunshot sounds at the end are fake. The only thing missing are the cries of DAS BLUT! and NICHT SCHIEßEN! from the Germans as they crap in their pants.
First, I think that the track marks near the vehicle would have been covered over by the water – it appears to have rained - so their lack may not indicate anything.
As for the explosion itself, I guess I could make some guesses as to explosive type and yield and plus some numbers into our blast analysis software here at work, but even without doing that, some things are obvious. On the video the explosion itself has been done in slow motion and copied multiple times to stretch it out and make it look worse. This masks the blast effect on the trees, since they are moving in slow motion as well. Aside from that, almost everything is protected from the explosion by the vehicle itself. As for the water, it looks a little funny but the fact that we are seeing things in slow motion makes that difficult to assess.
Also, there is considerable fire. When high explosives go off there is almost no fire to be seen. It appears that the terrorist hauled a fuel can under the vehicle and that is the cause of the fire and black plume of smoke, rather than the vehicle itself igniting. This was done for pure Hollywood-style special effects; they use lots of fire in the movies and on TV for dramatic effect and people expect to see it. Addition of fuel to an explosion is only useful for incendiary effects and adds to the blast only if it is confined, such as in a cave. It is a waste of time against and armored vehicle unless you add a LOT of it, such as in a Napalm bomb; even then it is of limited effectiveness
The high angle impacts in the water do not appear to be major parts of the vehicle splashing down; the splashes are too small and the distance thrown too short for that to be the case. It has been common practice for years to attach all sorts of personal gear and makeshift armor to the outside vehicles and that may be what is splashing down.
So, I would say that the explosion is real, but that there is real doubt whether the vehicle was destroyed or even needs much more than a coat of paint. It did probably knock the mud off of it.
Wow... over 2 minutes to set off an explosion supposedly taking out a "US Army Tank" (guess the AP can't tell the difference between a "tank" and a "personnel carrier"). Over 2 minutes of sneaking around a completely unguarded vehicle that may or may not have been rendered inoperable after the explosion.
One single Bradley, over two minutes, unguarded, not in service.... how many Brad's in a mechanized brigade?
Color me unimpressed. I completely believe this video is real, but I also believe it underscores the Jihadist's inability to fight. They have to sneak around and take out unguarded equipment. Hardly an indictment of the US military; in fact, the exact opposite. Let me know when they're able to do more than just sneak up on unguarded or abandoned equipment, or set off roadside or vehicle borne IEDs.
Look at the real time explosion and you'll see that the branches in the right top corner fade into the explosion from the image of the tank. So the tank was infact there, but it probably didn't explode. It was probably removed before the explosion took place and them edited it together.
Obviously fake.
The so called "live fire" wich errupts after explossion is absolutly dubbed btw!!
What cinched it for me is how he handled the ~50 liter gas can that should weigh around 75 pounds full or at the very least slosh around if containing enough to bother with. It is very Hollywood. First he is given it by someone off camera stage right and he lifts it almost to the top of his head. Then he tiptoes with his arm bent in a crouch. Most people would be lugging the thing with their opposite arm way out in an attempt to balance the weight. Of course I forgot - Jihadis are supermen inspired by visions of virgins.
What is the red circle supposed to be highlighting?
The events are real! Just edited. Wether or not the gascan weighs 75 pounds or not doesn't matter. It is a SET UP to scare people into the NWO.
Proven to be a fake, so who did it? That is what it's about! And it's clearly not a terrorist attack because they would have actualy blown up that tank without editing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If I was making a propaganda piece, the burned out hulk of the Bradley would be the most important shot. Where in the video is the shot of the Bradley completely destroyed?
Isn't the point of the video to show the Jihadi's completely destroying the Bradley.
We get to see a lot of smoke and with that sheen of water on the ground...mirrors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's evident that they have access to decent video software. But sophistication of the people producing the video is second-rate. As others have noted, the lack of effect on the surrounding vegetation is suspicious. Any blast that would rock a Bradley should at least cause a twitch in the surrounding trees
I'm also wondering who would be stupid enough to park a Bradley where that vehicle is supposedly parked?
Scott M. evidently being a proficient moonbat (and veteran headshaker) and able to insert his "sureness" in place of actual facts or experience.
God, but tripping over these professional Berkeley non-believers in ANYthing starts to become wearisome.
The Bradley height is about 10 feet, from ground to top of turret. This would make the bomb planter about three foot tall.
Whether the video is "real" or not would depend on what it claims to portray. It seems fairly clear that they found an unguarded (possibly broken down) Bradley, placed some explosives and fuel under it and set the explosives off producing a showy -- but possibly not that damaging -- explosion. There is a credible amount of high-velocity detritus impact immediately after the explosion. This is most likely rocks and stuff that bounced off the bottom of the Bradley and splashed in the water nearby. There are a few lower-velocity, high angle impacts later but nothing big (like a Bradley turret) so it is likely the Vehicle survived the explosion largely intact.
There was a small fuel fire visible to the left of the vehicle after the explosion, then a video fade leading to a larger, smokier fire. This could be the result of editing the video for time while the fire gradually grew from leaking fuel... or it could be the result of editing out the part where the insurgents came back and dumped a bunch of extra diesel oil on the fire to make it more impressive.
The sequence where the guy was placing the explosives was shot with a hand-held camera but the camera was clearly on a tripod for the explosion -- another video fade. This could be prudence on the part of the cameraman (I wouldn't want to stand and film that explosion) but it also makes it easier to manipulate the video.
It seems likely that quite a bit of time passed between the placement of the explosives and the detonation. There is a white flag hanging by the road -- on the left by a telephone pole. (Could it have been left by the guys when the Bradley broke down?) During the hand-held part the flag is flapping in the wind but in the tripod-mounted sequence leading up to the explosion it is either gone or at least still.) The palm trees on the left continue to move from the wind but the flag is no longer flapping and the portion of the image near the Bradley is oddly motionless. The fixed camera position would make it easier to manipulate the image. It does look like a composite to me. The center of the frame and the lower right side seem to be in slow-motion but the palms near the buildings on the left are moving in the wind normally until the dust cloud reaches them. Possibly the slow-motion is what suppressed the flapping of the flag.
I also am not sure I buy the behavior of the insurgent placing the explosives. I don't buy the Elmer Fudd tip-toe sneak. It also strikes me that the fuel can has to be mostly empty for him to lift it like he does.
None of this means the video is "fake" if by "real" one means that the insurgents found a piece of broken down US hardware and tried to blow it up before the tow truck could come pick it up.
Is that supposed to be an American soldier outlined in the red circle at 2:48? Funny the jihadis don't provide a date for this "action".
FWIW,
Iraqi slogger is reporting that "US Mil. Sources Say No Record of Such an Attack on Bradley, Bloggers Cry Fraud"
The video is an obvious fake.
The actual height of Bradley vehicles is about ten feet.
Now take a re-look at the video with this in mind; the man who is planting the bomb, even if he stood straight up would be no taller than the height of the bradley headlights; 3-4 feet.
OK, I have a couple of comments. First, it looked real to me in the sense that it probably happened. Yes, the explosion was repeated. It looked as if the sequence of the explosion itself was looped (like the old Purina cat chow commercials). Here I would guess the intent was to exaggerate the effect of the explosion, and dramatize the event. The whole video is overlaid with that silly music in Arabic, no doubt lauding the "heroic" act and the great victory.
As to the explosion itself, its effect on the surrounding area, etc.? Explosions do funny things. The amount of flame could have been the result of what the explosive was. When the guy returns for a second package before the explosion, that second package looked (to me) like it was a gasoline container, or something. That would have generated a lot of flame. And the ripples in the water, the trees nearby? It looks as if the force of the explosion was directed *upwards* which would leave those things relatively unruffled.
So let's summarize what we have here, then. An Iraqi guy can find one Bradley crew who are lazy enough that they aren't guarding their vehicle properly. Perhaps it was being serviced or something, perhaps they were elsewhere, who knows? He can sneak up to the vehicle and blow it up. Wow! At this rate, in 1000 years the army will still have the same number of Bradleys and tanks it has now. Whether this is fake or not is beside the point: destroying one empty Infantry Fighting Vehicle doesn't win a war, a battle, or even a skirmish. It just provides more cheesy propaganda.
It probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things, but the sneak attack on the Bradley is being reported as news even in the Washington Post.
Now as I said, I'm not a hundred percent certain about this particular video, but if it is fake, then we're likely to see others in the same vein. Maybe this is just the way things are today, with video and image editing software so available.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Let me ask you, if you were an Iraqi fighting off an invader of your country (which is how they see it from thier side), what would YOU do?"
Given that this isn't an invasion to steal their oil or land, but to depose the dictator known as Saddam, I'd thank them for their trouble. As have the Kurds.
Since when are we fighting the general Iraqi populace, Scott? All reports I read, see, and hear are that most of the populace is peaceful, and it's mostly the disgruntled Sunnis and foreign jihadists we're fighting. And given that only the Sunni insurgency had any numbers that were part of the original Iraqi army or government, the fact that they were "bombed into the middle ages" doesn't matter, does it? Only a portion of the insurgency we're fighting now ever had access to any of the old Baath regime's resources. Everything else is imported.
Color me unimpressed, but this time by your rhetoric. Read. Study. Get a clue. And yes, I'm still unimpressed by the jihadists ability to strike at the US. Which is why they seem to concentrate on striking at their own people. Unarmed civillians. Somehow that doesn't seem to disgust you, huh? Or are you only here to blame the US for the Jihadist's incompetencies?
Call me stupid all you want, but you're the one lacking in reality.
PS: Drop the friend thing. You want to call me an idiot, go right ahead. I'll call you one back, but minus the patronizing tone. Except I'll be the more accurate one. And it's my pleasure to disgust you. You've earned it.
Stop! Read! Listen!
The height of all Bradley vehicles is ten feet.
The terrorist planting the bomb is about 1/3 the height of the proposed Bradley in the video.
Simply assume that there are no Leprechauns in Iraq, and the conclusion is that the Bradley image was inserted into the rest of the video, but done so out of proportion.
This video is all the more powerful if it WAS faked. A "fake" video of this quality (meaning where there is DEBATE as to authenticity) shows a level of sofistication in propaganda that should scare the hell out of our war planners.
Has there ever been another time in history when the propaganda of insurgents was being viewed this widely by the domestic population of the imperial power?
You better believe that this will not be the last insurgent video reaching the US, and I'd bet that within the next few months, they will start turning up in English or with English subtitles.
We've lost this one, let's leave sooner rather than later.
"US military sources in Baghdad say they have examined the video closely but say they have no record of such an attack on a Bradley in Iraq."
That doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen, Wretchard. There's an awful lot of detail to keep track of, and the source for that assertion may simply have not had updated or accurate information. Plus, I'm reminded of a story out of David Hackworth's book About Face where he helped out a retiring Airborne sergeant spend his last day doing jumps from a helocopter. Things were arranged so informally and unofficially that there was no "command" knowledge of the jumps. During that time, his commanding officer was called by another General and asked if anyone from his unit was doing parachute jumps nearby, and that officer told him in total earnest that there was no one from his brigade involved. Of course, there were: Hackworth, the retiring sergeant, folks packing the multiple parachutes, and whomever was complicit in allowing the helicopter to be used (pilot, maintenance guys, etc.).
My point is merely that a source saying that they have "no record of such an attack" might simply be lacking information and not be aware of the fact they're lacking it.
------
Let's also be careful about drawing too many conclusions from mere video analysis. That's what folks who believe conspiracy fantasies about 9/11 do; they look at videos of the Twin Towers collapsing and draw on the least little details and what they believe to be relevant minutiae to support their assertion that the WTC buildings were brought down by government planted explosives. The fact remains that without knowledge of many things, such as focal length of the lens, distance of the camera from the event, etc., it's dangerous to draw definite conclusions from simple video, especially at the resolutions commonly used on websites.
In other words: Let's not be so willing to cry "Fake!!" so quickly. That might, in the end, turn out to be the truth, but there's simply not enough evidence in just one video to draw any conclusions from.
I think the Planners have made some drastic adjustments to their overall agenda and perhaps a little too drastically. The internet is being flooded with lots of new videos and theories about 911 and today's Iraq and I feel it's solely to muddy the waters more than they have been recently. Kind of like an army of psychological warriors who know how and when to use information to their advantage. "Building 7 smoke is really building 5 smoke" and the like. About the video:
The track issue is too obvious and would be known to be the first thing the average netgoer would be looking for. Then the shape outline perimeter. Then reflections etc... While I don't know if it's legitimate or not, you should ask whether or not it's possible for a tank like that to be left unattended? Of course. Is it possible for the Americans to have given a bit too much trust to some 'trusted' Iraqi employee to the point where his presence doesn't raise an alarm to anyone in the 'secure zone'? Of course. And that's the key. LISTEN FOLKS: When you see a video like this, you have to analyze the perspective of the one doing the recording. Check this out:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=047_1173785574
Notice the locale (open area, no structures around), the speed of the vehicle (fast; not ready for immediate split-second engagement a.k.a. longer getaway time),and the distance between the hapless victims and the videomaker. The posted link is clearly authentic. Here's another example of authentic bombings.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6eb_1173547098
Note the clear distance between vehicle and video maker.
When you see a video like the tank one, with such close shots, realize or consider that it has to be people who are allowed to be where they are. And who are those people? Guess.
Tomy said...
Stop! Read! Listen!
The height of all Bradley vehicles is ten feet.
The terrorist planting the bomb is about 1/3 the height of the proposed Bradley in the video.
Simply assume that there are no Leprechauns in Iraq,"
Tony, take a look at the pictures at that link you posted and I guess we'll need assume that the US military is also populated by Leprechauns.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-022_29.jpg
and the Army fact sheet puts the height of the Bradley at 11'8"
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/bradley/images/bradley_tank.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/bradley/index.html&h=239&w=311&sz=13&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=ueb0vb0mN3zEAM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbradley%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
In addition, matting in a Bradley in such shaky cam footage would be a very very difficult task. Once the camera is locked off special effects are much easier to achieve.
The first thing that stuck out for me was the lack of movement by any of the palms or other surrounding items. For an explosion that powerful, it would have to impact the surrounding vegetation at least a little.
It also seems like a dissolve from the smoke to fire transition. It looks like the fire is suddenly visible rather than being revealed.
Finally, if it turns out that this is real, which I highly doubt, then I'd like to know how somebody could have such easy access. He could have dismantled the damn thing with a good set of wrenches.
D. Nicholas, the force of the explosion would be deflected at the beginning so a certain amount of disruption of the water should be expected.
ash,
Nice try. The height of 11'8" is with the tow missile launcher raised, and it is not raised in the video.
The photo you referenced, with the American soldier and a Bradley, shows a soldier of about six feet. He is not 3-4 feet, as would be the bomber in the faked video. The soldier, even though farther away from the Bradley than the bomber, reaches a much higher point on the Bradley than the bomber.
Try this. Ground clearance of the Bradley is 18". Does the video look like he is working with only 18" of headroom?
Tomy
No, idiot, the 600,000 figure was debunked. Try using accurate sources.
And: "By your standards, the original patriots of this country would be terrorists."
:::shakes his head:::: Scott M is just plain stupid. Try studying history. Your ignorance is showing so plainly. For the second time, the US isn't fighting the Iraqi population at large. Read. Get informed. Educate yourself. By my standards, the original patriots of this country would not be terrorists, because they did not indulge in the depredations that the current terrorists do. Such as terror campaigns against their own people. Or do you not understand that the majority of Jihadist bombs are targeted against other Iraqis? It would behoove you to not buy into the Michael Moore Jihadists-as-Minutemen thing; at least it might improve your perspective. If you think Jihadists are fighting for Iraqi freedom, you are so sadly misinformed. For example, explain to me what Al-Qaeda in the Anbar province is fighting for. Oh, and while you're at it, explain to me why tribes in that area have been siding with the US in fighting them. That's even acknowledged by the BBC, hardly a friend of Bush or an extension of Fox. You are actively working to maintain your ignorance, which is a sad statement about you. Ignorance is sad, but deliberate ignorance is plain stupid behavior.
"When you say read, study, do your research, you mean read the trash that you read that is filtered through xenophobic racist hate-spewing mouhts."
As opposed to the idiotic, misinformed, fantasy-land that still thinks the 600,000 dead figure is accurate? Google for the reality; I've done enough work for you.
And try reading Omar at Iraq the Model. I'd tell you to read Ahmad's blog "Iraqi Expat", but he was chased off the net by ignorant idiots like you, so that source is gone. Read fellows like Michael Totten. Tell me how "xenophobic" and "racist" he is. And try reading Wretchard's work here. But try to comprehend while you're doing it. You seem to only superficially read, and clutch convenient facts, not analyze.
It helps to inform yourself. Try doing so.
"And why do so many Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam?"
Which poll are you leaning on? The recent ABC one that measured 61% of Shia and 80+% of Kurds saying their local security situation as "good"? The one where over half of both the Shia and Kurds expect their life to be better in a year, and around 30% of each believe it will merely stay the same, leaving only <20% thinking it'll get worse? The one that had 70% of Shia (remember they're the majority of the population) and 83% of the Kurds saying that the Coalition was right to invade and depose Saddam? Yes, the Sunni's replied 98% "No", but again, the Shia are the majority, plus the sect that falls out of power is of course going to look down on the event that ejected them. Or how about the question "When do you want the US to leave Iraq" in that poll? Yes, 35% say "now", but isn't it striking that the 2/3rds majority want the US to stay until the security situation is improved?
Or were you relying on the Opinion Research Business poll, where 26 percent did indeed say what you're claiming they said? But where, when you dig deeper, you realize that 66 percent of the Shia say the opposite, that life is better now? And that even a large majority - 49% - of Sunni say that life was not preferable under Saddam?
So many? True. But so many more say the opposite.
This is what I mean by getting informed. You shouldn't hang onto canards and context less information. That's what makes you an idiot. And being one at 33 years old... that's shameful. You haven't learned a thing in those 33 years, have you? BTW, I'm older than you, so try not using sophomoric insults like "After you hit puberty". I hit it well before you did.
Anyway, Scott, feel free to condescend to someone else. This is the last I'll even acknowledge you. All this stuff you can discover on your own, and you didn't, so you're the one who's in need of getting education. And this is the only free lesson you're getting from me. Maybe we'll talk again when you grow up, but I don't see that happening. You growing up, that is.
I am not a video analyst by trade nor am I a photographer or have had any experience in T.V or Video production, but there are a couple of things that I noticed to be "out of place". When The "terrorist" comes back into the frame with the gas canister he appears to be able to manuever around with little trouble. I work as a mechanic and I know that carrying a jarry can half that size fully filled is it difficult enough, needless to say doing it while trying to sneak around what is supposed to be an occupied U.S forces military fighting vehicle. I also noticed that when the planted explosives go off under the tank there also appears to be another explosion at the very same time which goes of on the other side of the fence to right of the tank. When the bomb goes off under the tank the smoke ash and fireball are propelled upwards so how can the same explosion propel smoke ash debris and another fireball at an angle going over the top of the tank. I have seen alot of footage of EUI attacks on U.S Forces and all of the footage seems to be taken from a "safe" distance from the explosion and any other military forces that come to investigate. The bomber or bombers appear to be in plain view right out in the open with no cover or escape route.
When the cut to the explosion part of the video happens, watch the top of the foreground left-hand barricade. There's a man behind it, and judging from what I can see of him, he's probably the one who detonated the explosives.
He ducks just as the explosion starts, then stands up, clearly not fearing an American reprisal, and starts to bob his head up and down as if in celebration.
Clearly one of the "Producers" of this video accidently appeared in the explosion scene.
re the "catchy" tune, here are the correct lyrics to be played back to the AQ's:
I am not your kuffar
& I am not your dhimmie
your culture still s*cks,
& your "religion" is worse...
AQ men are gay,
thats why they beat their women,
our dogs have more class
and they do AQ in the *ss
when we kill AQ
we wrap you in pork,
and to make sure you're done
we check you with a fork
I am not your kuffar
& I am not your dhimmie
your culture still s*cks,
& your "religion" is worse...
When we're through with you
we'll take care of the rest
because AQ are scum
& the U.S. is the best...
"In Shiite-controlled eastern Baghdad, a U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb Saturday evening, set afire and destroyed, said spokesman Maj. Steven Lamb. There were no casualties." - AP, 21 March 2007
Appears the video may be real, just out of context... Though overcast, the lighting suggests the film has been edited and actually transpired over a couple hours rather than the 3-5 minutes suggested.
Interesting that the IraqiSlogger website captions the video with an attribution to AQ, and places it in Anbar. Doesn't jive with the Major's location.
I rarely saw such a repelling video. Disgusting. Unbelievable this kind of people.
Peaceful greeting, Frilo (Branchen)
Traditionally, Belmont Club is not a Bicker Blog.
This article is from www.iraqbodycount.org, which appears to be an anti-war group.
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Concluding remarks
Could five such shocking implications be true? If they were true, they would need
to be the result of a combination of the following factors:
- incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
- bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
- the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
- an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
We would hope that, before accepting such extreme notions, serious consideration is
given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling
methodology such that violent deaths were vastly over-represented in the sample.
The precise potential nature of such bias is not clear at this point (it could, for example, involve problems in the application of a statistical method originally
designed for studying the spread of disease in a population to direct and ongoing violence-related phenomena). But to dismiss the possibility of such bias out of
hand is surely both irresponsible and unwise.
Thank you, Tony.
I'd also like to point out that Donald Berry, Chairman of the Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center also voiced skepticism about the count. Reluctantly, as he's voiced his opposition to Bush's conduct of Iraq.
"...The last thing I want to do is agree with Bush, especially on something dealing with Iraq. But I think 'unreliable' is apt. (I just heard Bush say 'not credible.' 'Unreliable' is better. There is a certain amount of credibility in the study, but they exaggerate the reliability of their estimate.)"
Source: Chicago Tribune newsblog
The UN's count, which relies on reports from the Iraqi Health Ministry, is also much lower than the 600,000 figure.
None of the above are right wing blogs.
John Schulien, It's not a person, it's the dog that I mentioned upthread. When he moves towards the camera with his head bobbing you can see his ears flop. He first appears then looks at the fire. Then he turns and moves towards the camera. He eventually moves out of the frame and you can see him doing this in the gap between the barrier and the left lower corner of the image. The barrier is about three feet high and the dog's head is about the same height.
I disagree with the statements that the terrorist is out of proportion to the vehicle. There is 18" or so clearance under the vehicle and the man crawls in there. He fits but there isn't that much extra room.
I think everything up to the explosion is real, in the sense of not being fauxtography. You can see the reflection of the man in the water and of the vehicle. The sunlight comes from the upper left and highlights on the vehicle and the man both seem to match the sun coming from the same place.
Once the explosion occurs it's very difficult to see the vehicle and it might not be there. There is definitely something there about the size of the Bradley but the smoke obscures it. It's conceivable that there is a wooden replica or something else that is really burning. However, if the part of the film up to the explosion is real then there's no reason why the explosion and burning wouldn't be real.
The camera isn't very close to the explosion. Easily 50 yards away. You can see the distance when the camera zooms out. Probably it was inside a van, possibly filming through a window. During part of the film you can hear a voice saying allahuakbar repeatedly. There was a similar film released a few years ago in which a "film crew" was inside a van filming a sniper attack. The terrorist sniper hit an American serviceman and then the American responded by shooting into the van. During that film you could also hear the "film crew" repeating allahuakbar. I guess it's like cheering on the home team or other superstitious remarks.
The intended audience of this film is obviously arabic speakers who are supportive of the terrorists. It's a kind of jihadi porn. It doesn't matter to them if the penetration is real or simulated.
Everyone, I hate to bring this up again, but some of the conclusions here seem to put far to much weight on unmeasurable aspects of the video. Again, this is exactly the same trap 9/11 deniers fall into. We are unaware of all the environmental factors affecting the event, we don't know what explosive was used, we don't know the scale because we don't know the exact distance from the camera to the Bradley, we don't see enough of the aftereffects... we just don't know enough here. Basing conclusions on some of the premises made here is asking too much of the info contained in the video. Fact is, nearly any web video, even a decently sized and resolutioned one like this one, normally doesn't contain enough information on which we can conclusively judge whether an event was a fake or not. Only really obvious cases can be identified, and I don't think this one here is a really obvious case.
As an example of overanalysis of a video, go to any 9/11 "Truth" site and read or listen to what they pull out of the news footage of the events on 911. They see evidence of everything from "the planes were fake":
(one example: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread228192/pg1)
... to "video shows explosives were used to topple the towers"
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html).
... And all of this was done by selective misinterpretation of minute details and erroneous analysis.
Now, I'm not saying you guys calling this video "debunked" are selectively misinterpreting details, or are dumb in any way at all. On the contrary, folks commenting on the video have shown a remarkable and laudatory breadth of knowledge which leaves me impressed, and the issues all have raised here are worth noting. Nor am I saying you guys are definitely, without-a-shadow of a doubt wrong in calling the video "fake". It may indeed be a sham. All I'm saying is that we cannot definitively say the video was faked simply from the information in the video itself. Too much must be assumed or extrapolated for those conclusions to be undeniable.
Atch-way Out-way, Olks-fay.
It's clear there are some Olls-tray among us.
I'm suprised that a brain capable of working out the “word verification” puzzle to enable posting can’t recognize leftist catechism as pure intestinal filler.
On the other hand, it does seem a healthy thing occasionally to have to defend and support your most fundamental beliefs. The most amazing thing about this and just a handful of other sites is the civility of the commenters, even those who strongly disagree with Wretchard’s essays and admirers.
People coming here for the first time might want to consider whether they want to persuade by thoughtful argument, or just piss people off by infantile name calling and quoting some utterly discredited lying cheap propaganda rag like the NYT.
I wouldn’t trust the NYT to accurately track J-Lo’s butt size.
(Hey, no bias in *me!*)
You're right, Fiddler. Most people at least make stabs at constructing arguments. I shouldn't have gotten into mud flinging with someone who obviously enjoys that rather than attempting to debate in a civil fashion. It's just that it's hard to refrain from answering empty charges and lousy rhetoric; I saw that, in another subject - 9/11 denial - not responding to mistruths was mistaken for acquiescence or vindication. So 9/11 conspiracy fantasists would make their arguments in the rudest manner possible, so that when others tried to take the high road, they'd brag that they "got someone to shut up", or that they argued them into silence. Cheap, rhetorical tactics. Unfortunately, I carried that bull-nosed attitude into a more civil forum and got baited into responding in kind with the most obvious cheap tactics of the information deprived. And it's hard for me to keep my promise to not respond when I see logic abused in favor of emotion, like in comments above. I mean, how can someone think that arguing articles "had to have been stored away in someone's favorites" is some kind of refutation of the knowledge and experience of the subjects being quoted? And that 100 returns in Google reflects anything other than an inability to research, as if the rankings reflected knowledge and experience, and not hits and key term relevance? But, obviously, someone's making that argument.
I do need to stop, though. Sorry, Wretchard, for sullying your blog with responses to the troll. I need to remember the adage about never wrestling with a pig (i.e. you both get dirty, but only the pig enjoys it).
Its sad to see a troll so infantile pleasuring his undeveloped mind this way. But its also encouraging to note that he really, really likes himself and even admires his own smug certainties. So his attitudes and retorts speak to the "success" of a modern liberal education. Except that he's never learned to think for himself. Just to 'parrot' what he's been taught by his 'betters', I guess. Sad.
Reminds me of the Death Star exploding in the unretouched Star Wars. Poof without equivalent mass. Photoshop amd Premier used to theatric effect... with a mound wooden crates and 6 old tires.
Theatrics made easy.
In a practical sense, it makes none. I've parked my 92 Rodeo with more care. And a Bradley asleep as shown is less effective than that red Isuzu. It would be the Navy equivalent of parking floating a lone Taffy without even a destroyer escort. The crew of the Johnston would be justly offended.
I have done a bit of fairly simple frame-by-frame analysis, including screen grabs of most of the features discussed here.
See http://teleoscope.blogspot.com/2007/03/al-qaeda-in-iraq-video-is-manipulated.html
Jesus, the unhinged never stop, do they?
My eyes are open, Scott. Try using something other than hyperbole in your arguments; many of us, Wretchard specifically, myself included, have a better understanding of what real dictators are like than you obviously have, and this government isn't close to being one.
Try gaining some perspective. And try using rational arguments; if you don't like the criticism made of the Lancet study, then answer the criticisms. Blindly grasping a figure because it brings you comfort is not the act of an educated person. If you want to impress, answer the criticisms. Trying to insult folks by calling them "Republicans" (Gasp! What an insult!!) is the act of a child trying to satisfy his own anger, not the act of an educated person trying to prove a point.
Do better. You fancy yourself as an informed person, now live up to that image.
The M2 Bradley IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and M3 Bradley CFV (Cavalry Fighting Vehicle) are American infantry fighting vehicles manufactured by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, (formerly United Defense, originally FMC). As with other infantry fighting vehicles, the Bradley is designed to transport infantry offering, sportsbook, at least some armored protection while providing fire cover to dismounted troops and suppressing enemy tanks and armored vehicles. The M2 holds a crew of three: a commander, a gunner and a driver; as well as six fully equipped soldiers. The M3 mainly conducts scout missions and carrying only two scouts in addition to the regular crew of three. http://www.enterbet.com
Post a Comment
<< Home