look at the time code
Was the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza hit by an Israeli airstrike or PIJ rocket?
- Thread starter Psychic
- Start date
deirdre
Senior Member.
what? i said earlier 'how come the al jeezer vid doesnt show the barrage.' but i was wrong, it does. I dont care if you call it airstrike.
thats not what im calling the al jazeera video. it wasnt filmed by al jazeera like the one taken from gaza
deirdre
Senior Member.
oh. well that's the one al jazeera is using to "prove it's case". i'm never going to remember bam yat or that "H" name. from now on ill say "the tel-aviv camera". cool?
AdmiralKird
New Member
I had been waiting for a thread on this to pop up here. I have hoped Mick does a piece on this since it seems more important than UFO videos, but I'm not sure he wants to touch something so heated.
Using the two camera angles of that errant rocket/missile, you can do at least partial trigonometry on it while the West-Gaza Al Jazeera camera is zoomed out, maybe all of it if there's enough camera data to superimpose the zoomed footage onto a zoomed out freeze frame. The camera itself wasn't in motion so it might be doable just based on camera motion blur.
It seems like if that rocket/missile caused the hospital explosion, it would have had to have suffered a partial disintegration before the much more visible failure event in the sky. I don't think there is enough time for the rocket debris from that air explosion event to impact the ground at the time of the hospital explosion. It's possible the rocket could have broken up before this. It's not like Gazan rockets are designed for erratic manuevers and 180 degree course changes midflight. They're designed to go up at 45 degrees and come down around 45 degrees in a parabolic arc. Any major course change could rip them apart. So its possible the rockets already broken up into thirds before the alight section explodes in the sky. If we had a plot of the flight path of the rocket it might help clear this up, although rocket failures are by nature very unpredictable.
Using the two camera angles of that errant rocket/missile, you can do at least partial trigonometry on it while the West-Gaza Al Jazeera camera is zoomed out, maybe all of it if there's enough camera data to superimpose the zoomed footage onto a zoomed out freeze frame. The camera itself wasn't in motion so it might be doable just based on camera motion blur.
It seems like if that rocket/missile caused the hospital explosion, it would have had to have suffered a partial disintegration before the much more visible failure event in the sky. I don't think there is enough time for the rocket debris from that air explosion event to impact the ground at the time of the hospital explosion. It's possible the rocket could have broken up before this. It's not like Gazan rockets are designed for erratic manuevers and 180 degree course changes midflight. They're designed to go up at 45 degrees and come down around 45 degrees in a parabolic arc. Any major course change could rip them apart. So its possible the rockets already broken up into thirds before the alight section explodes in the sky. If we had a plot of the flight path of the rocket it might help clear this up, although rocket failures are by nature very unpredictable.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
That's an unsupported allegation from a state sponsored news outlet: aka, state sponsored disinformation.
I'm not going to do any detailed analysis of your problems with the videos/launch site.
These are some things I suspect may be a problem with your analysis.
-Misidentifying camera positions.
-A problem with interpreting 2D images. See this: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...ured-by-photographer.13182/page-3#post-302869
-Your assumption that the Gaza Strip was completely dark - no electric lights - on October 14 may well be wrong. I think we see the lights of the Al Zahra and Al Mughraqa municipalities in the background. I think you've misidentified those areas.
Thank you, I really appreciate your comments; I'd like to try really hard to knock this down. Another possible thing I'm worried about is that some of the lights of Ashdod may be obscured by terrain. Although it on a coastal plane, and the camera looks quite high. I've lived in Israel, but i didn't spend much time south of tel aviv so dont have a great sense of the topography. Also parts of Ashdod that appear to be populated with houses and other structures may not actually be very bright.
To your first point "misidentifying camera position". I literally dont know where the Bat Yam camera is -- i think it's on a drone. But i'm quite confident i've identified the buildings in the foreground. So on the scale of tens of miles, I think it's safe to use that as a vertex. Lmk if you disagree
Your last point "Your assumption that the Gaza Strip was completely dark - no electric lights - on October 14 may well be wrong. ".... I don't actually need this at all. All I need is the electricity to be on in Ashdod and Ashkelon. That forces the line to the "rocket" to the east and away from the gaza strip.
Your second point i will look into more.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
That was an early speculation. Maybe based on the intercepted conversation.
This is the updated version. But I'm not certain if this is an accurate version or just an artist's concept:
Last edited:
But this is just immediately falsified by the Bat Yam video. If you believe the faulty rocket theory. For that matter, it's falsified by the al jazeera video itself.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Are you basing that on the "Human Rights Investigators" analysis jazz?
That was DOA.
If I have time I'll do an analysis of that.
Quickly:
-This group has no professional standing.
-Their audio analysis is invalid. Problems. Cell phone audio is not accurate. Only two sources of recording when 3 is minimum. Can't do this in urban environment with sound blocked and echoes.
-Their analysis of the crater is invalid. Too many unknown variables. Exact warhead unknown. State of warhead unknown. Was rocket body tumbling at the moment of contact? Did it hit flat or go straight in like a javelin? Because of the nature of the crude detonator these rockets typically have, I suspect it was going straight in, but that's an assumption. Pavement type and ground underneath would have an effect. Kinetic energy of rocket body might have carried warhead into ground before detonation. At what depth in the ground did detonation occur? Can't evaluate from a photo. Direction of approach based on (assumed) shrapnel marks left on pavement is not valid. They are confounding kinetic energy with explosive energy.
-The rocket body was unstable. We don't know which way it may have been coming from. It could have been launched from the SW but approached from a different compass point.
-The explosion is omnidirectional (or partially contained by the soil and pavement) but the unburned rocket fuel would have continued in the same direction the rocket was traveling due to inertia. My best guess is that it was traveling due East (coming from due West), because of where we see the burned cars. On the other hand, there's no evidence of any fire in the area to the SW of the crater. The buildings in that direction would have been been splashed with burning rocket fuel.
An answer to that last point is that the cars may not have been set on fire by rocket fuel. Instead, the cars may have had fuel tanks ruptured by shrapnel. Maybe there was no rocket fuel in this fragment. That's one notion.
That was DOA.
If I have time I'll do an analysis of that.
Quickly:
-This group has no professional standing.
-Their audio analysis is invalid. Problems. Cell phone audio is not accurate. Only two sources of recording when 3 is minimum. Can't do this in urban environment with sound blocked and echoes.
-Their analysis of the crater is invalid. Too many unknown variables. Exact warhead unknown. State of warhead unknown. Was rocket body tumbling at the moment of contact? Did it hit flat or go straight in like a javelin? Because of the nature of the crude detonator these rockets typically have, I suspect it was going straight in, but that's an assumption. Pavement type and ground underneath would have an effect. Kinetic energy of rocket body might have carried warhead into ground before detonation. At what depth in the ground did detonation occur? Can't evaluate from a photo. Direction of approach based on (assumed) shrapnel marks left on pavement is not valid. They are confounding kinetic energy with explosive energy.
-The rocket body was unstable. We don't know which way it may have been coming from. It could have been launched from the SW but approached from a different compass point.
-The explosion is omnidirectional (or partially contained by the soil and pavement) but the unburned rocket fuel would have continued in the same direction the rocket was traveling due to inertia. My best guess is that it was traveling due East (coming from due West), because of where we see the burned cars. On the other hand, there's no evidence of any fire in the area to the SW of the crater. The buildings in that direction would have been been splashed with burning rocket fuel.
An answer to that last point is that the cars may not have been set on fire by rocket fuel. Instead, the cars may have had fuel tanks ruptured by shrapnel. Maybe there was no rocket fuel in this fragment. That's one notion.
Last edited:
i was, yes. ok good to know that has flaws. But then what is the actual evidence the object that struck the hospital parking lot, amid a series of israeli airstrikes in the area, originated from gaza?
deirdre
Senior Member.
your video in post #72 al jazeer says themselves that the rocket in the tel-aviv cam came from gaza. (but then they say that isnt the rocket that hit the hospital car park.)
they also show in the WSjournal vid you linked that the rocket first comes up from right to left and then turns back west once the "engine blew up" (paraphrase). they use the same tel aviv vid to show this and i do see what they mean...although i seee what youre saying regarding camera angle (esp if it launched from as far west as ZWs post shows)
i dont know how far jihad missiles can fly but from contrail threads we know planes coming mostly at us can look deceptive to people on the ground. (or in this case in a drone(?) )
i dont see any camera on the street posts in june this year..and to see the front of the big building we do have to be pretty much on the water (vs a building on ohter side of street).. so yea maybe a drone...
deirdre
Senior Member.
i imagine that most cars had gas cans in their boots too. i would if my area was at war.
the explosion seems really fast and really big all at once though. if cars i would think a series of smaller booms mixed in. no?
deirdre
Senior Member.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
The fireball was (probably) caused by the rocket fuel.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Gasoline doesn't explode unless it's atomized. And I'm guessing that uncontained gasoline would produce a pretty low velocity explosion. (Or combustion?)
These small rockets have a small warhead and a limited number of ball bearings. I can see the relatively low velocity shrapnel puncturing a gas tank, but not blowing it apart like a bullet through a water bottle. They don't have enough kinetic energy to do that. So leaking gas tanks, maybe. But blown apart gas tanks and a cloud of gasoline mist? Fiddle-dee-dee.
These small rockets have a small warhead and a limited number of ball bearings. I can see the relatively low velocity shrapnel puncturing a gas tank, but not blowing it apart like a bullet through a water bottle. They don't have enough kinetic energy to do that. So leaking gas tanks, maybe. But blown apart gas tanks and a cloud of gasoline mist? Fiddle-dee-dee.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
It's apparent that people on this thread have chosen sides by seeing what they want to see, but in the midst of an active war zone, isn't it too much to ask that the event be thoroughly studied immediately? Might this discussion of "whodunit" best take place after there's actual evidence that might shed some light on the event?
One thing that CAN be stated with confidence is that Israeli civilians are suffering due to the attack from Hamas, and Palestinian civilians are suffering even more due to the retaliation by Israeli forces. And that retaliation consists of more than rocket attacks: cutting off water and electricity to civilians in Gaza is also killing people, will kill more, and may well fall into the category of war crimes. I have no answers except the fruitless comment that this should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and I refer to the events of the past three-quarters of a century, not the last two weeks.
One thing that CAN be stated with confidence is that Israeli civilians are suffering due to the attack from Hamas, and Palestinian civilians are suffering even more due to the retaliation by Israeli forces. And that retaliation consists of more than rocket attacks: cutting off water and electricity to civilians in Gaza is also killing people, will kill more, and may well fall into the category of war crimes. I have no answers except the fruitless comment that this should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and I refer to the events of the past three-quarters of a century, not the last two weeks.
John J.
Senior Member.
The projectile would've been high explosive. The primary shrapnel from even small HE devices can puncture gas tanks and ignite the contents.
kasparovitch
Active Member
Moment of explosion at al-Ahli Hospital taken on spot.
qed
Senior Member
Do you have a link/reference?
kasparovitch
Active Member
deirdre
Senior Member.
John J.
Senior Member.
Although not giving us any new information to examine, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated yesterday (from 15:38 local time, Monday 23/10/23) that his government believes the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was "likely" hit by a missile or parts of a missile fired from within Gaza.
Quoted from Hansard, Israel and Gaza debate (Hansard is the official record of what's said in the UK parliament)
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...6AB-5D91-48D7-9809-19A03E54125A/IsraelAndGaza
Brief video of the relevant bit of Rishi Sunak's speech here (BBC News- not sure if it's viewable "overseas"?)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-67196861
Quoted from Hansard, Israel and Gaza debate (Hansard is the official record of what's said in the UK parliament)
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...6AB-5D91-48D7-9809-19A03E54125A/IsraelAndGaza
The remarks "we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone", and about misreporting, are almost certainly aimed at the BBC, whose initial reports seemed to assume that the incident was due to an Israeli air strike.I also want to say a word about the tone of the debate. When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone. The reaction to the horrific explosion at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was a case in point. As I indicated last week, we have taken care to look at all the evidence currently available, and I can now share our assessment with the House. On the basis of the deep knowledge and analysis of our intelligence and weapons experts, the British Government judge that the explosion was likely caused by a missile, or part of one, that was launched from within Gaza towards Israel. The misreporting of that incident had a negative effect in the region, including on a vital US diplomatic effort, and on tensions here at home. We need to learn the lessons and ensure that in future there is no rush to judgment.
Brief video of the relevant bit of Rishi Sunak's speech here (BBC News- not sure if it's viewable "overseas"?)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-67196861
deirdre
Senior Member.
i can see it, but not sure if its a 4 free views thing. Googling the guys name his speech is on Reuters, youtube, twitter etc. if other people want to hear the accent and tone.
channel 4 has also done honest reporting on this, so he probably has them in mind too
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I give official statements from the British government, in particular on matters regarding the middle east, no weight at all, because of their source. I'm left wondering whether they've stopped using teenagers' high school essays as credible "intelligence" by now, but I'm glad he mentioned the word, such that a direct comparison could be made to previous such statements.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I hear something under powered flight rather than something merely in freefall before the explosion.
kasparovitch
Active Member
You're right. Simply the blast isn't that great as expected.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
OK...here is something that truly puzzles me. This is the biggest clue of all...which I don't think anyone spotted. A bit of geometry....
In the OP we see an IDF video of the rocket...travelling to the left. This can only mean the video must have been filmed from Ashkelon or somewhere to the 'left' ( looking at the rocket path on map ) of the rocket path...otherwise you would see the rocket travelling to the right.
Fine....but hold on. In that video we can actually see the hospital below, before it is hit, as the rocket rises. The rocket rises up and is well to the left of the hospital long before it has its mishap.
But that makes it physically impossible for the rocket to have hit the hospital....as the only way the rocket could ever be further to the left than the hospital in the video field of view would be if it had already passed over the hospital.
This is basic geometry. If the path of the rocket passes over the hospital, as claimed, then no matter what the perspective...once the rocket has passed a visual point vertically over the hospital then it has flown past the hospital on its flight. It cannot then perform the remarkable feat of flying backwards to hit a point it already passed.
In the OP we see an IDF video of the rocket...travelling to the left. This can only mean the video must have been filmed from Ashkelon or somewhere to the 'left' ( looking at the rocket path on map ) of the rocket path...otherwise you would see the rocket travelling to the right.
Fine....but hold on. In that video we can actually see the hospital below, before it is hit, as the rocket rises. The rocket rises up and is well to the left of the hospital long before it has its mishap.
But that makes it physically impossible for the rocket to have hit the hospital....as the only way the rocket could ever be further to the left than the hospital in the video field of view would be if it had already passed over the hospital.
This is basic geometry. If the path of the rocket passes over the hospital, as claimed, then no matter what the perspective...once the rocket has passed a visual point vertically over the hospital then it has flown past the hospital on its flight. It cannot then perform the remarkable feat of flying backwards to hit a point it already passed.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
why? the wall street journal vids earlier in thread (post 72?) says the location of that film is here [camera 3]
a big building at that location says bank of palestine..but i cant really confirm the view due to height and no google car access.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/T...0852999!4d34.7817676!16zL20vMDdxenY?entry=ttu
edit add: ok based on the big tree and the direction of the solar panels, the direction the camera 3 is from is correct (unless they flipped the film..but the fire is behind the tree so i dont think they did. ?)
Last edited:
The claim is that it turned around because of the malfunction. You can actually see it change course, so that's presumably why they went with that explanation. Interestingly there are two other videos that would have captured the object from different angles, but the only publicly available versions end a couple seconds before it would appear.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Doesn't affect my argument at all. I did say 'or somewhere to the left'....which is precisely where your Cam 3 is.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
But it would have had to not simply 'change course' but completely reverse course. We were told that the path of the rocket went pretty much straight over the hospital. Now if you imagine the whole thing geometrically ( darn....I wish I could do a diagram of it )....if any moving object that is passing over an object passes a line vertically above that object then by definition it has flown past it at that point. When the rocket malfunctions it is waaaaay past that vertical point. The rocket would have to literally turn around and go back the way it came to hit the hospital.
dont gotta tell me. it's a preposterous story. besides that, it is nowhere near the hospital at *any* point in its ascent
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
sorry, thought that would make it to the right.
John J.
Senior Member.
From approx. 6 to 10 seconds into the OP video, the aerial object seems to eject vapour in a direction away what we might expect, given its apparent line of flight (not 180 degrees opposite by any means, but counter to its intended course).
I got the impression (seconds 7-8) from the "vapour" that was visible that the object might be spinning in the vertical plane.
Might a chaotically cartwheeling rocket radically change direction?
Edited to add: Maybe I was being too circumspect. Yes, a cartwheeling rocket can end up moving in an opposite direction to that intended.
I got the impression (seconds 7-8) from the "vapour" that was visible that the object might be spinning in the vertical plane.
Might a chaotically cartwheeling rocket radically change direction?
Edited to add: Maybe I was being too circumspect. Yes, a cartwheeling rocket can end up moving in an opposite direction to that intended.
deirdre
Senior Member.
when things blow up dont the pieces all go in random directions too? either way whether launched from israel or from gaza, missiles dont magically change direction that fast even if they are heat seeking, right? < that's a legit "right?" as i dont really know.
Latest posts
-
Family claim Amber Alert ruptured son's eardrums, file lawsuit against Apple
- Latest: serpentdebunker
-
-
-
