Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010
From: Harry Conover (hhc314_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/28/04
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Previous message: charliew2: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- In reply to: fumblus: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: robert luis rabello: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: robert luis rabello: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Sep 2004 10:42:38 -0700
fumblus <fumblus@nospamYahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4158ffba$0$31704$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>...
> Mike wrote:
> > In article <4157d5eb$0$3613$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, fumblus@nospamYahoo.com says...
> >
> >>Mike wrote:
> >><snip seemingly thoughtful post>
> >>
> >>> http://www.stilemedia.com/?v=vanish8.wmv
> >>
> >><snip more seemingly thoughtful post>
> >>
> >>Mike, as a fellow aussie, I would just to say that this is the funniest
> >>thing I've seen in a long time. Not the supposed missile video, which I
> >>just couldn't wait around to download (if it is indeed provided by that
> >>fabulous website), but because it's the first time I have ever been
> >>tricked into visiting a porn site via a link in a (seemingly) serious
> >>post in a serious newsgroup.
> >
> >
> > Sorry mate, I was taking the easy route and just passing the
> > link on, here is the file uploaded to my site:-
> >
> > http://niche.iinet.net.au/bombing_raid_on_pedestrians.wmv
> >
> >
> >
> >>Or is Mike just a right-wing reactionary sabateur?
> >
> >
> > Hey we are all stirrers, nothing like a good foray into
> > political dialectic, properly matched of course ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >>Mark
> >
> >
>
> Ok, I've downloaded the video. Thanks for providing an alternative link
> that didn't involve me being assaulted with many, many pink bits.
>
> As a point of reference I lean to the left when it comes to the
> situation in Iraq, am not versed in military jargon or interested in
> weapons of any sort. I'm sure my profile applies to many australians
> and not a few citizens of other countries, including the US. I'd like
> to try to provide an objective review of the video you provided:
> --<start summary>
> The video shows an aerial view of a town and follows, presumably, a
> guided bomb. The picture progressively zooms in to show buildings and
> streets. The streets look to be deserted - no pedestrian or vehicular
> traffic is visible, until the camera gets close enough to distringuish a
> somewhat coherent group of perhaps 20 people moving quickly on foot down
> the middle of a road. They appear to be running.
>
> Two main voices can be heard commenting on the vision: perhaps a missile
> pilot, and someone to whom he directs questions and from whom receives
> orders. Both voices have "north american" accents. At no point does
> the "pilot" sound belligerent. He asks his supervisor whether he should
> target the group of people moving down the road, or to continue with his
> original target. He is told unambiguously to target the people.
>
> The picture progressively zooms in to street-level, with the group of
> running people at the centre. The footage ends with a large plume of
> black smoke obscuring the picture.
>
> A voice is heard to say "oh dude". The video ends.
> --<end summary>
>
> I abhor violence, and the thought of a bomb targeting me as I walk down
> the street, with someone directing the action via video, is frightening.
> But I can't make an informed decision about the events shown,
> because there are too many unanswered questions. Where is the town?
> When is the footage dated? Why are the streets deserted? Why is a
> group of people running down the middle of a road? Why was the decision
> made to switch from the original target? These answers could only have
> been provided by the control-room staff, so we will never know. The
> pilot and his supervisor can be as virtuous or as evil as I want them to
> be. As can the group of unfortunate targets.
>
> The voices in the control room are as professional as I can imagine
> anyone in that role can be. The final "oh dude" can be interpreted in
> many ways. I choose to view it as a collegue of the pilot acknowledging
> the seriousness of the events.
>
> My original "mind picture", elicited by Mike's initial description of
> the video, had me imagining a missile being directed into a crowded
> marketplace. The video is substantially different to that scenario. I
> want the horrendous abuses of power by the occupying force in Iraq to
> end as much as anyone, but I just can't interpret this footage, and I
> doubt that anybody lacking intimate knowledge about military operations
> could either. So I'll save myself the grief and won't even try.
>
> Mark
Mark, don't you find it just a bit odd that the 'smart bomb' continued
to send back television images (black smoke) AFTER it detonated?
I've seen any number of television images showing the images from
these weapons but, if real, this is the very first one in history to
continue to transmit any images at all during or after detonation.
I don't know about you, but given the many other technical issues with
this video, it seems clear to me that is is a product of not very
clever editing.
I'd therefore be very wary of the credibility of the source.
Harry C.
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Previous message: charliew2: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- In reply to: fumblus: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: robert luis rabello: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: robert luis rabello: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
