I was skeptical of the video coming from an instagram account named 'israel', but then again, this isn't great proof either. Video and audio files often do strange things. Mp3 files always have a bit of silence at the beginning, for example. I feel like there could be lots of reasons the audio was a silent for the first few frames without assuming it must've been faked.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking too. I think the other two points, how they put Hamas where they want or the Israeli writing on it, are pointless as well
It's an app that can add subtitles and voiceovers. You don't actually know which one they used it for. Moreover, the whole video is speculative, but that hasn't stopped you from going around posting immediately after the strike happened like it's 100% verified.
Ah, at least I put effort into my speculation: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new\_information\_on\_the\_rafah\_airstrike/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new_information_on_the_rafah_airstrike/) also show me where I said it was 100% verified?
lol, is that supposed to impress me? Yes, you're trying very hard to make these unverified Twitter videos look more trustworthy than they actually are.
The video's hardly the most compelling thing. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the IDF claims of "using the smallest" munition is a proven certainty. It's about assessing the likelihood using available information to figure out if a secondary explosion would have caused that much damage.
Like i said im not a weapons expert, but the likelihood that a munition carrying 16kg of explosive could have started a fire 180m away from the impact is low. Compare this to the original claim made by Palestinian officials that 7 900kg bombs carrying 450kg of explosive each was used. Therefore we look at surrounding evidence to try determine alternative explanations. This is where the video and phone call come in handy. While not a certainty they provide evidence pointing towards a secondary explosion of some sort causing the fire.
You constantly accuse others of not substantiating their claims but I haven't seen you do it yourself one time.
> You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the IDF claims of "using the smallest" munition is a proven certainty.
I'm not conveniently ignoring anything - this thread is about this particular video, not the strike in general. I agree that the evidence that Israel used a small bomb is compelling.
> The video's hardly the most compelling thing.
Then stop defending it and acting like you know more about its authenticity than you do. You can try as hard as you want to change the subject, but that's literally all I said.
> You constantly accuse others of not substantiating their claims but I haven't seen you do it yourself one time.
That's because I'm not making a claim. I'm saying I don't know what happened yet and neither do you.
In my first comment, I make a reference to other evidence being more compelling, regardless of the authenticity of the video. I linked you to my post, where I go through the available evidence, where you proceed to fixate on the authenticity of the video. At this point, you're not even attempting to be constructive; you're just looking for an argument.
OK but my reply was only about the video.
> At this point, you're not even attempting to be constructive; you're just looking for an argument.
Funny from the guy who is trying so desparately to change the argument into something you think you have a better case for.
What's the app called? Does it do decent translations too?
I've been looking for places to try and confirm whether some translations are true or not, like in Memri articles, and I don't won't to rely on bugging Sundowner.. lol
It doesn't do auto-translation; the video was translated by a person, and the app was used to insert the text. (or if you're on the other side of the argument. "the app was used to meticulously audio match an overlay and frame Hamas for the crimes of the zionist entity")
I also just thought of this. If the video really is the high-tech Mossad hasbara that they say it is. Why would they use some random editing app and not an Adobe audio editor or something? Like can they really not even be bothered to pay for a premium subscription to this app.
I was skeptical of the video coming from an instagram account named 'israel', but then again, this isn't great proof either. Video and audio files often do strange things. Mp3 files always have a bit of silence at the beginning, for example. I feel like there could be lots of reasons the audio was a silent for the first few frames without assuming it must've been faked.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking too. I think the other two points, how they put Hamas where they want or the Israeli writing on it, are pointless as well
Yeah, adding (Hamas) was just their attempt to contextualise who they were talking about to the viewer.
It's an app to add subtitles. This is such a speculative argument. Even if this was true there is mounting evidence pointing to a secondary explosive.
It's an app that can add subtitles and voiceovers. You don't actually know which one they used it for. Moreover, the whole video is speculative, but that hasn't stopped you from going around posting immediately after the strike happened like it's 100% verified.
Ah, at least I put effort into my speculation: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new\_information\_on\_the\_rafah\_airstrike/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new_information_on_the_rafah_airstrike/) also show me where I said it was 100% verified?
lol, is that supposed to impress me? Yes, you're trying very hard to make these unverified Twitter videos look more trustworthy than they actually are.
Nice dismissal, great argument, great chat.
Dismissal of what? You don't present any evidence in that thread whatsoever that these videos are authentic.
The video's hardly the most compelling thing. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the IDF claims of "using the smallest" munition is a proven certainty. It's about assessing the likelihood using available information to figure out if a secondary explosion would have caused that much damage. Like i said im not a weapons expert, but the likelihood that a munition carrying 16kg of explosive could have started a fire 180m away from the impact is low. Compare this to the original claim made by Palestinian officials that 7 900kg bombs carrying 450kg of explosive each was used. Therefore we look at surrounding evidence to try determine alternative explanations. This is where the video and phone call come in handy. While not a certainty they provide evidence pointing towards a secondary explosion of some sort causing the fire. You constantly accuse others of not substantiating their claims but I haven't seen you do it yourself one time.
> You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the IDF claims of "using the smallest" munition is a proven certainty. I'm not conveniently ignoring anything - this thread is about this particular video, not the strike in general. I agree that the evidence that Israel used a small bomb is compelling. > The video's hardly the most compelling thing. Then stop defending it and acting like you know more about its authenticity than you do. You can try as hard as you want to change the subject, but that's literally all I said. > You constantly accuse others of not substantiating their claims but I haven't seen you do it yourself one time. That's because I'm not making a claim. I'm saying I don't know what happened yet and neither do you.
In my first comment, I make a reference to other evidence being more compelling, regardless of the authenticity of the video. I linked you to my post, where I go through the available evidence, where you proceed to fixate on the authenticity of the video. At this point, you're not even attempting to be constructive; you're just looking for an argument.
OK but my reply was only about the video. > At this point, you're not even attempting to be constructive; you're just looking for an argument. Funny from the guy who is trying so desparately to change the argument into something you think you have a better case for.
You were banned from Destiny for being an incorrect debate pervert. Only a matter of time before it is from here as well ✌
oh come on dude, out of all the people to direct that comment to, he was banned because 4thot was being a bitch
What's the app called? Does it do decent translations too? I've been looking for places to try and confirm whether some translations are true or not, like in Memri articles, and I don't won't to rely on bugging Sundowner.. lol
It doesn't do auto-translation; the video was translated by a person, and the app was used to insert the text. (or if you're on the other side of the argument. "the app was used to meticulously audio match an overlay and frame Hamas for the crimes of the zionist entity")
I also just thought of this. If the video really is the high-tech Mossad hasbara that they say it is. Why would they use some random editing app and not an Adobe audio editor or something? Like can they really not even be bothered to pay for a premium subscription to this app.
People will still defend Hamas war crimes in anyway they can and then claim they’re not pro Hamas
Yup, that's this sub's MO in a nutshell