Disclaimer: The opinions expressed below do not necessarily reflect those of zombietime.com; we neither endorse nor repudiate the statements given on this page, which exists solely as a forum where visitors can express their personal views.All names and email addresses have been abbreviated or removed to maintain privacy.
Your "exposé" has been disproved. Now would be a good time to apologise.
From: Barrie W.
Congratulations on a world-class piece of work.
One defensive report has it that the bandage on a face wound was to 'prevent it becoming septic'. This is the sort of treatment for a very humid tropical summer climate, as well for a deep wound. As we know, neither is true.
The absence of ANY side shrapnel damage on the displayed vehicles is unbelievable in conjunction with claims of many 'rockets' landing in the same area after the initial 'direct hits'. Any competent or unbiased journalists should have immediately smelt a rat as soon as they were told no-one was killed.
The obvious conclusion, sadly, is that there are many pro-Hezbollah journalists among the Western press. I can't believe they are that incompetent TWICE, so they must be moral cripples.
They call you a right wing blogger. They make it sound like they aren't politically motivated. Yeah right, they're totally objective, and I'm Wonder Woman. It's obvious they're extremely annoyed with the fact that the public isn't buying their B.S. propaganda hook line and sinker anymore. I thank you and your ability to be an independent thinker rather than just a follower.
[Sarah Smiles] reports on the results of a first-hand visit to the yard containing the ambulance documented at Zombietime's website, and another, more damaged ambulance as well. She writes:
The Age visited the yard where the bombed out ambulances are now parked. This reporter saw the ambulance that Mr Fawaz was in. It appeared to have been hit by a weapon that punctured a huge hole through the back.Yet she apparently came back from her visit with only a single low-res image of the new alleged Israeli target.
This South Lebanon yard was presumably in Hezbollah territory. Was it? Smiles doesn't say.
She was presumably accompanied by [Hezbollah] minders. Was she? Smiles doesn't say.
She presumably would have liked to have taken extensive photographic documentation of the scene. Is that what she wanted? Smiles doesn't say.
Was her access controlled by or impeded by her hypothetical Hezbollah minders? We have no way of knowing, but given the disgraceful pattern of reportage that Smiles' colleagues have readily agreed to, we can guess at answers to all these questions, and evaluate her credibility accordingly.
From: Michael F. (Canada)
It is your dedication, and that of other's such as yourself, that shine the spotlight on the media's darkside. Whether or not some people consider this a major incident, the media has the responsibility to collect accurate information and correct itself when wrong. Admitting errors and inaccurate evidence may seem embarassing for these media outlets, but trying to cover it up, and defend their position the way they have, with more lies and personal attacks, is disgusting. Thank you for all the time you have spent investigating this matter (obviously more time than the "real" journalists) for the purposes of revealing the truth. They could learn a thing or two about reporting from you.
From: Linda M.
In the first item under the "Additional Evidence Links" portion of your report, the Boston Globe photo, you stated the location of the photo may have indeed been the actual site of the claimed attack.
Further down, you excerpted the following from The Age:
"Mr Fawaz's elderly mother Jamila crawled out of the vehicle while the volunteers carried Mohammed, Ahmed's son, who was unconscious. They could not reach Mr Fawaz with rockets from drones hitting around the ambulance and the building they were in."
My question is, and forgive me if it's been asked before or unwarranted, is why, if rockets or gunfire or missiles were hitting around the ambulance, there is no evidence of that in the Boston Globe photo. Surely rockets hitting the pavement around the ambulance would have caused visible damage -- small craters, chipped concrete. There are glass shards and a few small pieces of debris surprisingly intact and undamaged given the drivers' accounts; and some of the small shadows in the photo could be pock marks from gunfire, although it's hard to tell -- but there's nothing substantial enough to suggest that this was the "attack" site, or that the ambulance ever came under fire at all. And admittedly I'm no expert in physics, but even if the ambulance had been strafed from above, would not even one or two bullets have hit the sides of the ambulance? There's not a scratch on the sides of those incredibly clean and dust-free ambulances. And lastly, if there had been a strafing attack, I'm sure the media would have reported the ambulance drivers scooping up handfuls of spent bullets, a la Giuliana Sgrena.
From: Clay B.
To: Open Letter to Ian Mayes of The Guardian
Dear Mr. Mayes,
I appreciate your willingness to address charges that the press acquiesced to a hoax in their coverage of the Red Cross ambulance story, but your effort impressed me as distinctly half-hearted, even evasive, given your inability to concede any of the points made by zombietime. It was honorable for you to provide your readers with zombietime's url, but you did the less industrious of them a disservice by leaving the impression that "The heading on the Age story speaks for itself: 'Ambulance attack evidence stands the test.'" I have to believe you are aware how thoroughly that piece has been taken apart. It confirmed nothing, indeed raised more questions.
As an investigation of zombietime's charges, your own piece puts Sarah Smiles' article to shame--you drew on numerous resources, gave voice to several sides, even referred to zombietime's evidence, if dismissively, reducing it to "a matter for conjecture". Which leaves me puzzled. I find myself wondering if coming up short is the best you can do, or whether you have employed your skills to create a patina of honesty sufficient to convince trusting readers that any further investigation would be a waste of time.
By the end of your article, you seem to have forgotten whose reputation has in truth been dragged through the dirt: You are defending the Lebanese Red Cross against conjectures of dishonest behavior made on a web site with modest readership; whereas Israel has been condemned in the worldwide media for deliberately rocketing two ambulances--and what is the evidence? Zombietime shows how poor it is, and given Hezbollah's conception of the media and its purpose, a healthy does of skepticism would have been in order.
Journalists should have done much better than they did on this story, and you, as an ombudsman--as president of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen--should acknowledge as much.
It's taken me ages to plough through all the material -- but I am convinced that no missiles hit the ambulances and that it is all a huge hoax.
The BBC's reporting in the Middle East is unspeakable.
As for the Guardian I believe it was a former Guardian editor, the writer/novelist Graham Greene who said:
"Opinions are free -- but the facts are sacred."
-- Selwyn D. (UK)
Of course, if western journalists DID NOT cover the ambulance story in the way it was presented by their "sources," it's highly likely that, at some point in the future they would either be denied access to those source, or worse, taken off at gunpoint and shot by these savages.
"Report what we say or die, infidel scum."
If the mainstream media is forced to justify facts, the glaring absence of such facts would not only invalidate this particular tale, but would force them to admit that it's possible that ALL of the Lebanon stories are at best, slightly erroneous, and at worst, blatant anti-Israel propaganda. THAT is the real reason for any on-going cover-up of the "Tale of Two Ambulances."