|
|
|
|
|
|
by PeterisP
980 days ago
|
|
|
The video evidence of the aftermath, published by HAMAS, is sufficient to dismiss the possibility of air-burst of even smaller weapons such as GBU-39/B, because that would have resulted in much more distant blast-wave damage (e.g. broken nearby windows which were intact in the video of the scene). The impact crater that was identified (it's clearly visible in the same HAMAS videos of the aftermath) is approx 1 meter wide and 30 cm deep - in the context of glide bombs that's "not a crater", as it's far too small for a GBU-39/B sized bomb. While we definitely will need to wait to know the whole truth, there is already sufficient information to come to at least some conclusions (e.g. that Gaza health officials definitely lied about the casualties). And the primary reason for "too much confusion" IMHO is people disseminating hypotheses that are already disproven by the evidence that we do already have, such as the GBU-39/B suggestion. |
|
|
Yes, this is the problem, and you see it in many of the comments here. There is plenty of compelling technical evidence, but people come in with a cursory read of the topic and listen to some "expert" who says "oh it whistled like a bomb". And given how incredibly badly some people want to pin it on Israel, incredibly moronic* analyses keep getting shared.
* like the people claiming that Iron Dome intercepted a rocket 6 seconds after launch. It's a terminal intercepter! that literally can't happen!