Fauxtography

Sorry, looks like this is more of the same ol’ fauxtography. I’m a bit behind the curve on this one; but, the guys at Powerline have picked up the slack. Even to the untrained eye, with the help of a littlte bit of reasoning, you can tell that Reuters has really dropped the ball on this one.

Here’s an example of the “terrible”damage done by the alleged rocket strike. Huh! This Landrover hasn’t been within a 100 yards of a real rocket attack.

A missile explosion, either on the van or inside, would have destroyed the vehicle (remember the photos of car swarms after other Israeli missile attacks? The cars are demolished). Anyone inside would have been shredded to bits in seconds. The antipersonnel version of the Hellfire has an 8.5lb warhead, and a blast kill radius of 10 meters - 30 feet. Any strike against a car like the Reuters van would have shown blast marks (not present), secondary penetrations from shrapnel, windows and doors blown off, and shredded upholstery scattered up to 5 meters (15 feet) away. The Reuters van was definitely not hit by a Hellfire, and probably not by any other missile used by Israeli helicopters or armored vehicles. The photos shown show a “blast pattern” that is more likely a dirt splatter from a piece of concrete or large rock, not by a missile. Even a tank round or other type of armored blast would show an entirely different blast pattern than what is seen in these photos.