Murderers of the World, Unite!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
While these photos may be of the same bulldozer in more or less the same place on the same day, they are definitely taken from very different perspectives. Their relation to the photo of Rachel between the house and the bulldozer cannot be readily determined.

I agree with that. Theta, Rho, and X are all different. The only way the second photo can be different, though, is if it was staged. Which is a lot more implausible it being a follow-up to the first one.

Originally posted by Sikander
These photos prove nothing about whether this was an act of murder by the Israeli armed forces (which is the claim in the headline), or whether it was an accident.

Since the woman was wearing red (a very eye-catching colour) and had a megaphone, it is quite implausible that the driver failed to notice her.

[The Mad Monk]

Look at the horizon in each photo -- in the one on the left, there are many structures and what appears to be either trees or towers off to the left. In the right-hand photo, the horizon appears nearly flat on the left, with only a few structures and a single tower on the right.

In the midground in the left photo, you see what appears to be a fallow field (brown) on the right, with low grasses in the foreground. In the photo on the right, the spot that should be occupied by the field now appears quite rugged and covered with shrubs. The foreground also appears much more choppy, with some exposed earth and grey-white rock.

[The Mad Monk]

The problem, UR, is that these two photos are being shown as proof that she was standing and clearly visible just before being run down. The claim is being put forth that these photos were taken in succession, in a short period of time.

[Urban Ranger]

TMM,

Suppose these photos are genuine. The first one seems to show quite clearly Rachael was about to be run over by the bulldozer. The seond one seems to be taken after the bulldozer ran over her and backed up over her again

The backgound is different because the second one was rotated quite a bit to the right, I think. Also, don't forget that both the bulldozer and the woman blocked objects in the background, and the second one has a different elavation than the first one.

[Ramo]

I don't see what's so suspect about the pics. The first thing to notice is that, assuming the girl didn't move from the her initial position in the first pic, the tractor would have to turn left from the perspective of the tractor to run her over. Now, if the tractor does turn left, the background of the tractor from the perspective of a camera facing it would be shifted left. And if the pattern holds from what we can tell, the horizon would indeed be flat.

Further, since it appears that the tractor would have to turn to run her over (unless her situation changed between the first pic and when she was run over - say she ran in front of it), the actions by the tractor driver must've been either criminally reckless (maybe the driver was drunk) or intended. Also, consider that she has some sort of loudspeaker so the driver presumably could've heard her, and also that the tractor would have to run her over twice for the situation in pic two to have existed (unless it was staged).

[The Mad Monk]

All that's required for the photos to be different is for the earlier one to be from a different confrontation -- perhaps even earlier on the same day. Very simple, and dosen't require visciousness on the part of the driver to explain the difference in perspective.

[Ramo]

Why make such an assumption?

Also, note that the people in both pics are wearing a lot of red, so probably it's same confrontation.

And the light levels and weather are comparable, so it's probably about the same time.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm not the one having the bulldozer swerve (at 15 mph) in order to justify a change in perspective.

[The Mad Monk]

BTW, the tread tracks in the last photo look pretty straight to me.

[Ramo]

I have no clue what the handling capabilities of a bulldozer are. But rotating the velocity a few degrees within a few meters doesn't strike me as impossible.

But assuming the girl in the first pic was ran over at the time (and she didn't suddenly run into the path of the bulldozer), the bulldozer would have to turn. The idea just happens to mesh with the evidence of the horizon.

You have a point about the track marks. That's rather suspicious.

[Ramo]

Of course she was probably moved a bit from the impact(s), so the more swervy part (whether in front or back) might not be visible. It looks like it curves a bit in front.

[Edan]

My 2 cents:

- I don't know whether or not the driver could see her or not. There should certainly be an investigation. If the driver did see her, he should be taken to task.

- If they had seen her, they should have used tear gas or some other method of getting her out of the way
while not exposing themselves to danger (snipers, or the possibility that the peace protester might have been a terrorist with a bomb strapper on). If she couldn't have been removed safely, they should have come back another day - unless keeping that house standing (if it were the site of gunmen or such) would have posed more of a risk than postponment.

- Apparently, the troops had used tear gas an hour earlier in a simmilar confrontation at a nearby location, which makes me think that the driver didn't see her, or the same tactics would have been used.

Troops had fired tear gas and shot into the air during a confrontation with the protesters at another nearby house, about an hour before Corrie was killed, both Dale and the Israeli military said.

- Those picture aren't at the same location/time. Just take a look at the shadows of the bulldozer.

-Anyone standing in front of a moving bulldozer and doesn't expect the possibility of getting run over is stupid, plain and simple.

- Another picture of Rachel:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030317/168/3j5nj.html

- A statement from the Israeli side:

"This was a very regrettable incident," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an Israeli military spokesman. "We're dealing with a group of protesters acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger -- the Palestinians, themselves and our forces."
...
The military "expresses sorrow" and is investigating the incident, the statement said.

- A statement by the protest group:

"It's possible they [the protesters] were not as disciplined as we would have liked," Thom Saffold, a founder and organizer of the International Solidarity Movement, said in a telephone interview from the group's base in Ann Arbor, Mich. "But we're like a peace army. Generals send young men and women off to operations, and some die."

(Both from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar16.html )

Which side looks like it cares more about her tragic death?

[muxec]

She was weared like HAMASist. It could be a reason. She would have i weapon. It's also reason. IDF do not kill anybody with no need.

[chequita guevara]

The driver could clearly see her. While the photos may not be an immediate sequence of events, since the driver knew that there was a pesky girl trying to stand in front of the dozer, he should have been much more careful. Either he should have stopped for the day or called in help to have them physically removed.

It is, however, the same horizon. The camera is at a different angle and elevation, not the dozer. If you look at the details on the right side of the picture, they are the same, just in different places.

Since we can see the driver in the photo where she was standing on top of the pile of dirt, he could see her.

[Lincoln]

I'm sorry that the young lady lost her life trying to do what she thought was right. I am sure she has also tried to stop the Pals from blowing up children trying to eat a pizza.