(Watching the Palestinian man being shot in the leg, and the ambulance pulling up)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
We see three men, apparently under fire, drag the wounded man roughly across the pavement, toward the back of the ambulance. But if they were under fire, why did the ambulence stop so far short of the man forcing the others to drag him back, rather than move forward to protect him from fire? And if he were injured, is this a way to evacuate an injured man?
|
Well they're not in suburbia, for one. When under fire, an ambulance is never meant to be used as a shield. The ambulance probably was moved close enough to get the man loaded, but not so close that it could get fired upon. An ambulance full of holes isn't much use to anyone, after all. Why drag the man? Well that's pretty simple. Why not move an injured man from an area of more danger to an area of less danger as quickly as possible? Had they patiently picked up the man and slowly moved him, he was likely to be hit again. They dragged the man to safety.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
BUT WAIT! He was supposedly hit on the right side of the right leg, presumabally by a bullet, and yet as they load him on the stretcher, we see no trace of blood on that side of his right leg, and then the medics load him on the supposedly injured leg without sign of protest from the casualty himself.
|
The man was apparently hit in the right leg. I can clearly see blood on his left leg (probably splattered from the initianl impact), and some blood on his right leg. The video is very lowe quality, so I can't see if there is or isn't blood on his hands or on the ground. As for being loaded on the injured area, again this is a situation where they are under fire. Even thought the video is obviousloy slowed down, it is easy to see that the medical workers are moving frantically, so as to get the man out of there as soon as possible. Having been shot in the leg myself, I can tell you that I lost all feeling around the wound very quickly, leading me to think that the lack of protest from the man is due to the severety of the wound, not a lack there of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
Could this scene have been staged?
|
Anything is possible, but I see no evidence that it was staged. All I see is really poor guesswork and innuendo. When you use words like 'supposedly', 'aparently' and 'presumabally' enough, I guess anything can look staged. Still, this is making for a very weak introduction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
Could the immediate appearance of the ambulance hbeen on que?
|
I see no evidence of that. I'll bet an ambulance was called immediatally as soon as firhgting broke out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
The media assumed it was real, and made it news
|
...beacuse there is no evidence that it is fake, yes. I'm starting to wonder if I'll be wasing my next 18 minutes on propoganda.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
Let us consider another battle scene filmed that day or possibly the day after. A Palestinian gunmen firing into a hole in the wall. It looks like a tense moment of house-to-house fighting. We would assume he's firing at the Israelis. He is firing in their direction, but he can't be firing at them. Here he is, on the far side of the factory building...completly out of range from the Israeli position. Are Israeli soldiers inside the factory? All whitnesses concour, they never left their fortified position. Earlier footage gives us a look inside the hole in the wall. The street fighter is conversing with hisw comrades inside the room he will soon be spraying with gunfire. A large crowd, mostly civilians and a few men in military garb, mills (?) around as Paletinian soldiers climb in and out of the hole in the wall. Note the civilians givin orders to a military man. Does this look like a war zone? Orders come to clear the area. Military men line up as if they're taking cover, from what? Not Israeli bullets. And now the man runs up to the hole in the wall and fires into the empty room. The raw footage clearly indicates a staged scene. A 'site-bite' became news.
|
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! So because this narrator interprets target practice as being intended to show some sort of exchange of gunfire, it's a massive conspiracy to fool the rest of the world? Wow. Just, wow.
1) This is not one long role of film. We do not know the date and time of the footage, nor do we know the timeline.
2) The narrator incorrectly labels the scene a 'gun fight' in the beginning of the monologue, in order to establish some sort of intention on the part of the camera men. The narrator has never met any of the people on or making this video, so how can he possilby speak to the nature of their intent? Why would we assume he's firing at Israelis? Are there Israelis in the video? No.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence of a fake battle. What strikes me the most is that Ustwo, a pecimist of the 9/11 conspiracy theory because (according to him) the evidence doesn't stand up to scruteny, is so quick to accept the unsupported word of a narrator. This video is a sham. There is NO evidence of a coverup whatsoever. And yet here we are, saying that Israel is a massive victim and that Palestine is an evil conspirator with our news organizations out to fool the world!!
Bottom line: this video is obviously poorly researched, and done by those who already knew what they wanted to find long before they started looking. It has no credibility, the conclusions are absurd, and there is no context to the footage besides a partison narrator who doesn't seem to know his ars from his elbow. Have we found...the anti-Michael Moore?