• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why HRW is untrustworthy

How do you know this?
He doesn’t - he believes it.

More importantly, LP focuses on a minor detail of a larger terrible story yo deflect from the reality that the IDF killed civilian adults and children.

It goes to credibility. I'm focusing on a detail that shows the account is false. You just assume it's true despite it containing an impossibility.
I have no idea if it is true. I have read that blast winds can throw people through the air. Maybe the victim is exagerrating, maybe not. Maybe the victim is using the wrong words to describe what happened, maybe not. Whether that happened to this person as he said or not, I don't know and I don't really care because in the overall picture, it really doesn't matter. But you focus on some minor detail and claim it is false to obscure what does matter: the overwhelming evidence that the actions of the IDFwhen killed children and adult civilians .

I find your priorities here morally depraved.
 
Emphasis added.

Human Rights Watch also included Israeli government's narrative and includes their part of the story, though the Israeli government only went so far in their explanation, which is a problem.

First, if they were using ground penetrating bombs they wouldn't have exploded 1 meter above ground.

The soldier could have lied or they could be defective. Another possibility is that the munition moves and explodes so quickly that the human eye has trouble keeping up. So a munition that explodes 1 meter underground may appear like a mental photo frame above ground, explode below microseconds later, but the mind recalls above ground then explosion. This then also explains better why he'd feel like he was moving upward as the force would have more upward direction. In any case, THE DETAIL DOESN'T MATTER.

There were explosions. There were casualties.

Second, look at the pictures. You can see places where the street has collapsed into the ground. That couldn't happen if there hadn't been hollow space underneath.

MAJD1079-1024x683.jpg
 
How do you know this?
He doesn’t - he believes it.

More importantly, LP focuses on a minor detail of a larger terrible story yo deflect from the reality that the IDF killed civilian adults and children.

It goes to credibility. I'm focusing on a detail that shows the account is false. You just assume it's true despite it containing an impossibility.

Again, how do you know it's impossible?
 
It goes to credibility. I'm focusing on a detail that shows the account is false. You just assume it's true despite it containing an impossibility.

Again, how do you know it's impossible?

I agree in most cases, being physically picked up, moved through the air horizontally for a significant distance, and not dying from all that is a stretch.

But as I keep saying, the impossibility of the events does not preclude the impossibility of the experience. You would need to be fairly well educated in physics, human psychology, human reaction, and a number of other things just to iron out the realities that the experience encoded.

This person is a lay observer, not an expert. All any such first hand account can say is "I was there, and something bad happened; I was made to experience injury, observe death, be a part of chaos", no more or less
 
When I first saw it, it was high in the air. Then it gradually descended as it came in our direction. It exploded about one meter from the ground. Something hit me in the eye, the abdomen, and legs. I flew into the air and landed on the ground. I didn’t lose consciousness.

To me it is plausible.

There are skydivers who service main and backup parachute failures and walk away. Recently there was a nes report of someone who fell several stories ad walked away with minor injuries. All depends on circumstances.

Sounds possibly like a version of 'flash bang' or stun grenade. Designed to disorient and put somebody on the ground with concussion.

The shock can cause a muscular reaction that sends you backwards.

When I was young and stupd I got it into a fight. I caught the guy on the jaw and it sent him back a few feet against a wall.
 
It's interesting that you specially call out Palestinians for being human.
Are you denying that palestinians do often lie and ridiculously/excessively so?
All these staged videos?
I find this particular case unremarkable compared to other cases. Not worthy of bringing it up.
 
It's interesting that you specially call out Palestinians for being human.
Are you denying that palestinians do often lie and ridiculously/excessively so?
All these staged videos?
I find this particular case unremarkable compared to other cases. Not worthy of bringing it up.

There is propaganda on both sides. The long running Netanyahu administration expertly played Israel as the innocent victim to American conservative Christians. Over here any sustained substantive criticism of Israel is political suicide.

Obama went so far as to openly and strongly condemn the settlements, unusual for a president. Biden is more nuted.

There is a Chrtian prophesy over here regarding the Second Coming. There is a belief that the restorationo f Israel, rebuilding of the temple, and restoration of temple ritual is a precursor to the return of Jesus.
 
There is a Chrtian prophesy over here regarding the Second Coming. There is a belief that the restorationo f Israel, rebuilding of the temple, and restoration of temple ritual is a precursor to the return of Jesus.
I suspect that most people, particularly non-theist non-American people, don't realize how strong this belief is here. Many millions of people really do believe this.

People really do believe that unqualified support for Israel is supporting God. This belief correlates strongly with "Trump supporting, creationist, antivaxxers", and there are literally millions of them. Israel can do no wrong, in their eyes.

And they vote, as all politicians are aware.

I'm confident that there are more Zionists in Texas than Israel.
Tom
 
The soldier could have lied or they could be defective. Another possibility is that the munition moves and explodes so quickly that the human eye has trouble keeping up. So a munition that explodes 1 meter underground may appear like a mental photo frame above ground, explode below microseconds later, but the mind recalls above ground then explosion. This then also explains better why he'd feel like he was moving upward as the force would have more upward direction. In any case, THE DETAIL DOESN'T MATTER.

There were explosions. There were casualties.

Second, look at the pictures. You can see places where the street has collapsed into the ground. That couldn't happen if there hadn't been hollow space underneath.

View attachment 34663

From the Washington Post:

(Sorry, the board won't inline it) --FIXED
View attachment Road collapse in Gaza.webp

That sort of damage only happens when there's a hollow underneath.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It goes to credibility. I'm focusing on a detail that shows the account is false. You just assume it's true despite it containing an impossibility.

Again, how do you know it's impossible?

I agree in most cases, being physically picked up, moved through the air horizontally for a significant distance, and not dying from all that is a stretch.

But as I keep saying, the impossibility of the events does not preclude the impossibility of the experience. You would need to be fairly well educated in physics, human psychology, human reaction, and a number of other things just to iron out the realities that the experience encoded.

This person is a lay observer, not an expert. All any such first hand account can say is "I was there, and something bad happened; I was made to experience injury, observe death, be a part of chaos", no more or less

It's not "most cases", it's that the energy to throw someone with a blast wave is far above the energy to kill.

Did you not notice this post: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-untrustworthy&p=924139&viewfull=1#post924139

Look at the last line. That's what actually happens.
 
I agree in most cases, being physically picked up, moved through the air horizontally for a significant distance, and not dying from all that is a stretch.

But as I keep saying, the impossibility of the events does not preclude the impossibility of the experience. You would need to be fairly well educated in physics, human psychology, human reaction, and a number of other things just to iron out the realities that the experience encoded.

This person is a lay observer, not an expert. All any such first hand account can say is "I was there, and something bad happened; I was made to experience injury, observe death, be a part of chaos", no more or less

It's not "most cases", it's that the energy to throw someone with a blast wave is far above the energy to kill.

Did you not notice this post: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-untrustworthy&p=924139&viewfull=1#post924139

Look at the last line. That's what actually happens.

That is not true. The fact is that the shockwave will have a different shape than the blowout of the blast. Often, they can even be inverted. It all depends on what side tamping exists on, versus what side clear air is on, and how the explosive is distributed and even what shapes the rocks underground where the shell makes contact. A claymore is a bunch of HE, and you can stand practically right behind the thing...

Are you really going to die on this hill discussing the dynamics of high explosives with a combat engineer?
 
I agree in most cases, being physically picked up, moved through the air horizontally for a significant distance, and not dying from all that is a stretch.

But as I keep saying, the impossibility of the events does not preclude the impossibility of the experience. You would need to be fairly well educated in physics, human psychology, human reaction, and a number of other things just to iron out the realities that the experience encoded.

This person is a lay observer, not an expert. All any such first hand account can say is "I was there, and something bad happened; I was made to experience injury, observe death, be a part of chaos", no more or less

It's not "most cases", it's that the energy to throw someone with a blast wave is far above the energy to kill.

Did you not notice this post: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-untrustworthy&p=924139&viewfull=1#post924139

Look at the last line. That's what actually happens.

That is not true. The fact is that the shockwave will have a different shape than the blowout of the blast. Often, they can even be inverted. It all depends on what side tamping exists on, versus what side clear air is on, and how the explosive is distributed and even what shapes the rocks underground where the shell makes contact. A claymore is a bunch of HE, and you can stand practically right behind the thing...

Are you really going to die on this hill discussing the dynamics of high explosives with a combat engineer?

I think you will die attacking his hill.
He is right pointing out that Hollywood depicture of explosions where everyone gets thrown out intact is utterly incorrect.
To get thrown (intact) you need to be subjected to relatively small force for extended period of time. But that's not how military ordinance normally explodes. It detonates and creates violent shockwave with very short wavefront. It does not throw stuff around it just shreds it when it passes.
It can throw you a little, but you will be in small pisses.

Now, if you mix air with flammable gas or aerosole and ignite it then it will produce basically a wind which can throw you more less intact. But that's not detonation.
 
That is not true. The fact is that the shockwave will have a different shape than the blowout of the blast. Often, they can even be inverted. It all depends on what side tamping exists on, versus what side clear air is on, and how the explosive is distributed and even what shapes the rocks underground where the shell makes contact. A claymore is a bunch of HE, and you can stand practically right behind the thing...

Are you really going to die on this hill discussing the dynamics of high explosives with a combat engineer?

I think you will die attacking his hill.
He is right pointing out that Hollywood depicture of explosions where everyone gets thrown out intact is utterly incorrect.
To get thrown (intact) you need to be subjected to relatively small force for extended period of time. But that's not how military ordinance normally explodes. It detonates and creates violent shockwave with very short wavefront. It does not throw stuff around it just shreds it when it passes.
It can throw you a little, but you will be in small pisses.

Now, if you mix air with flammable gas or aerosole and ignite it then it will produce basically a wind which can throw you more less intact. But that's not detonation.

See that's your problem. You don't understand explosives very well either I guess. Actual explosives do two things. They put out a shockwave, yes, but that shockwave is created by expanding gas. When the wavefront passes, there's decompression and that part actually drags shit behind it, a negative pressure zone behind an expanding ball of gas, so you get hit by a wall, and then pulled behind it, and then you will end up getting pushed like a sail.

But the shockwave does not always pop out in a sphere. Depending on available cavities, the shape of the charge, or the surfaces it explodes against/inside, different shapes of both shock wave and gas will happen.

EFPs combine a mass with an explosive that, in the timeframe of the detonation, deforms the shockwave and fires it, the shockwave, and all the hot gas behind it like a bullet fired from Satan's own asshole. You can be practically behind the thing though and not get hurt.

It's the same principle behind a claymore's safe region relatively close. Or, if you like, cup your hand behind your phone and listen to the fact the sound isn't uniform. There are quiet zones, though they may ricochet some of the force from shockwave to air blast.

The point is, you are going to fight on this with someone who got a professional education on how to use explosives, and actually has the mental wherewithal to think deeply about it?

I wanted to learn the art of using explosives. I loved learning it. I loved watching chunks of dirt bigger than a man's body rain down in front of my own eyes, even through a thick lens, and the dynamics that make that happen correctly.

I loved learning how to use tamping to cause a tiny explosive to throw a huge mass.

I loved learning exactly how to attenuate an explosive to blast a saline bag through a door -- if you don't put a second saline bag behind it, the explosive just splatters saline everywhere; the explosion needs to be forced to go somewhere other than just out.

I admittedly forgot how much detcord gets you through a wall or tree. 1 for drywall, 2 for siding, 3 for metal, 5 or 6 will do concrete? And I'm a little fuzzy on detcord to wood and concrete for chopping. You know, they teach you how detcord cuts itself, so that you can keep it from detaching rather than propagating? I remember that but not how much to use.

If an explosive detonates in a cup shaped depression, the shockwave will reflect against the rough parabola of it and go mostly straight up, some down but not much. I'm pretty sure this is what sends the big vertical dust pillar most explosives shoot up. That part is real. Just a massive conical smoke cloud that isn't there one instant and is there the next.

Then anyone across a more conical region will get blasted with the dirt that formed the rim of the depression. The more sand content in the dirt, the less deadly shrapnel. It'll slam someone, but at a much lower speed than the shockwave because of the same reason you knock a quarter with a dime, the quarter goes slower, and less far. And because it's objects moving through air rather than air moving against air creating a force wave, it is subject to terminal velocity, causing more throw and heat, and less shredding the everything.

Everyone behind that will get buffeted, maybe shot through with the odd bit of rock or casing shrapnel.

At any rate, we don't know what exactly the IDF was firing at them.

At any rate, stop trying to tell me how ordinance does or doesn't explode.
 
How do you know this?
He doesn’t - he believes it.

More importantly, LP focuses on a minor detail of a larger terrible story yo deflect from the reality that the IDF killed civilian adults and children.

It goes to credibility. I'm focusing on a detail that shows the account is false. You just assume it's true despite it containing an impossibility.

It is not impossible, it is improbable, there is a distinct difference.

Further, you are arguing that point with no less than three people in this thread who have direct experience handling explosives and/or military munitions. Perhaps you should come up with something other than "It is impossible because I know it is impossible."
 
It goes to credibility. I'm focusing on a detail that shows the account is false. You just assume it's true despite it containing an impossibility.

It is not impossible, it is improbable, there is a distinct difference.

Further, you are arguing that point with no less than three people in this thread who have direct experience handling explosives and/or military munitions. Perhaps you should come up with something other than "It is impossible because I know it is impossible."

Not to mention the sheer volume of stories you hear from soldiers whose dynamics ARE clearly impossible but they experienced it anyway, and have the wounds to prove the reality of having experienced something, perhaps not exactly what their memories encoded and recall.

It's just so fucking stupid. Explosives are chaotic, and anything that you think is impossible just *isn't*.

I would have thought it impossible to get knocked literally out of your shoes being hit by a car, by that's how my best friend's dad died while I was in highschool.

You just can't take a chaotic, highly randomized event like an explosive and say definitely what can or cannot happen.

I think the myth busters painting with explosives episode could be helpful for the amateurs in the room? The fact that the paint isn't consistent is the whole point here: even a nearly perfect application of paint around the charge still results in a chaotic, unreliable result most times.

It took decades of engineering, and very special shaped charge design to just figure out how to uniformly implode a sphere.
 
Loren and Barbos appear to be 'lifting themselves on their own petard'.
 
That is not true. The fact is that the shockwave will have a different shape than the blowout of the blast. Often, they can even be inverted. It all depends on what side tamping exists on, versus what side clear air is on, and how the explosive is distributed and even what shapes the rocks underground where the shell makes contact. A claymore is a bunch of HE, and you can stand practically right behind the thing...

Are you really going to die on this hill discussing the dynamics of high explosives with a combat engineer?

I think you will die attacking his hill.
He is right pointing out that Hollywood depicture of explosions where everyone gets thrown out intact is utterly incorrect.
To get thrown (intact) you need to be subjected to relatively small force for extended period of time. But that's not how military ordinance normally explodes. It detonates and creates violent shockwave with very short wavefront. It does not throw stuff around it just shreds it when it passes.
It can throw you a little, but you will be in small pisses.

Now, if you mix air with flammable gas or aerosole and ignite it then it will produce basically a wind which can throw you more less intact. But that's not detonation.

See that's your problem. You don't understand explosives very well either I guess. Actual explosives do two things. They put out a shockwave, yes, but that shockwave is created by expanding gas. When the wavefront passes, there's decompression and that part actually drags shit behind it, a negative pressure zone behind an expanding ball of gas, so you get hit by a wall, and then pulled behind it, and then you will end up getting pushed like a sail.

But the shockwave does not always pop out in a sphere. Depending on available cavities, the shape of the charge, or the surfaces it explodes against/inside, different shapes of both shock wave and gas will happen.

Which says nothing about whether you can be pushed by the wind without first being killed by the shockwave. He saw the detonation, that shockwave was coming straight at him.
 
See that's your problem. You don't understand explosives very well either I guess. Actual explosives do two things. They put out a shockwave, yes, but that shockwave is created by expanding gas. When the wavefront passes, there's decompression and that part actually drags shit behind it, a negative pressure zone behind an expanding ball of gas, so you get hit by a wall, and then pulled behind it, and then you will end up getting pushed like a sail.

But the shockwave does not always pop out in a sphere. Depending on available cavities, the shape of the charge, or the surfaces it explodes against/inside, different shapes of both shock wave and gas will happen.

Which says nothing about whether you can be pushed by the wind without first being killed by the shockwave. He saw the detonation, that shockwave was coming straight at him.

Because you always have 100% cover, thus obscuring your sight, or you have not cover at all. Gotcha.
 
See that's your problem. You don't understand explosives very well either I guess. Actual explosives do two things. They put out a shockwave, yes, but that shockwave is created by expanding gas. When the wavefront passes, there's decompression and that part actually drags shit behind it, a negative pressure zone behind an expanding ball of gas, so you get hit by a wall, and then pulled behind it, and then you will end up getting pushed like a sail.

But the shockwave does not always pop out in a sphere. Depending on available cavities, the shape of the charge, or the surfaces it explodes against/inside, different shapes of both shock wave and gas will happen.

Which says nothing about whether you can be pushed by the wind without first being killed by the shockwave. He saw the detonation, that shockwave was coming straight at him.

He saw what he thought was the detonation. It happened in a time frame that the human eye doesn't have the bandwidth to differentiate the events of.

If you agree he saw a detonation, then you can't really claim he was lying about being in an IDF attack, at any rate.
 
Back
Top Bottom