Posted on 01/17/2006 6:54:45 AM PST by OPS4
N.Y. Times caught in photo fakery Pakistanis shown with 'missile' allegedly fired by U.S.
Posted: January 16, 2006 8:18 p.m. Eastern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com The New York Times is accused of running a staged photograph of beleaguered Pakistanis standing with a missile in the midst of their damaged home after a U.S. predator-drone attack aimed at al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The problem, say analysts, is the "missile" actually is an old, unexploded artillery shell, possibly with its fuse intact.
But on its website, the Times captioned the photo by Agence France-Presse this way: "Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border."
The photograph adds fuel to the anti-American protests by Islamic groups over the purported CIA airstrike Saturday, which Pakistan claims killed innocent civilians. Investigators are trying to determine if Zawahiri was among at least 17 people killed in the attack, which destroyed three houses in the Pashtun town of Damadola.
The Times corrected the photo caption after Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of The American Thinker brought attention to it.
The photo can be seen here, with a new caption saying, "A picture caption on Saturday with an article about a U.S. airstrike on a village in Pakistan misidentified an unexploded ordinance. It was not the remains of a missile fired at a house."
Lifson says the old artillery shell "must have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible readers of the New York Times."
Ned Barnett, an expert on military technology and frequent contributor to The History Channel, told Lifson that based on his extensive experience in researching military technology, "I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell – unfired – and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish."
Barnett said the Times' "claim that it was the remains of a rocket is nonsense. Rockets are frail, light-weight, flimsy things (for obvious reasons). Artillery shells are robust, mostly cast steel (the explosive weight is really rather small considering the overall weight of the shell), again for obvious reasons."
God BLess America! OPS4
Looks like a dud that was brought in from the Afgan front.
It sure was not fired from a drone.
OPs4 God Bless America!
I am sure the readers here would really trust the NY TIMES.
LOL!
OPS4 GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Yup. You can see the grooves in the rotating band.
Where do you go to see the picture, anyway?
What struck me as odd was that the old guy modeling with the shell was wearing a large turban (India-like) rather than those small caps (OBL-style) like everyone else in the photo.
What's more is that I don't think that the NYT/Getty photo was of 'a house' or 'the house' that was hit by the missle.
This is supposedly (according to CNN/AP) 'the house' struck by the missle. This photo is quite different from the NYT/ Getty image (which doesn't even appear to be 'a house'--no evidence of a roof or roof supports.)
You'll have to find it on another site as Getty will sue FR (but not other websites) if anyone posts their images here.
Link to NYT photo: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/01/14/international/worldspecial/14cnd-afghan.ready.html
It's a 155.
"The Times corrected the photo caption after Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of The American Thinker brought attention to it."
Isn't the Times, just the best? And I'm sure the correction takes care of any unjustness that was initially done. They are such a moral, pro-American newspaper. They would never print anything that would harm the United States...
Huh..There was a freeper who posted that pic here a couple of days ago and said it was fake. And a few of us seemed to remember it from the old Afghan wedding bomb propaganda from a couple of years ago. But I can't find the thread now....
??
When I saw the photo here a couple of days ago, the first think that hit me was the kid. I thought he looked more like an Afghan, not an Iraqi. Look at the color of his hair and skin.
Caught again!
Because the pic was staged for the terrorist sympathizing media. Any half-baked fool can tell the difference between a rocket and an artillery round. Well, except for the LSM, that is.
Now there is a report that there were terrorist there, 4 were drug away to hide their identity....Put a reward out. "Bring us the bodies and we will give you 2000 goats." Money don't mean crap to these people.
"Bring us the bodies and we will give you 2000 goats." Money don't mean crap to these people.
_____
Yeah! That would be better than the 72 virgins they are used to be getting...............
Yup... I was playing my war games last night and got stuck on 105mm. I meant 155mm (seriously).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.