Rev. Sensing weighs in on the NYT’s “missile”

The NYT strikes again

A former artilleryman, Donald Sensing makes his opinion known. The short version: Probably a 152mm or 155mm shell (not a training round), but of neither US nor Soviet/Russian origin. Go read to see why.

Someone in the comments notes that the photo might be flipped horizontally. I had tried that, but I can’t tell. He notes the boy’s shirt, but neither he nor I know for sure whether it means anything. If it is flipped, it might mean that it’s a Soviet/Russian shell due to the rifling grooves.

I guess I’m not really convinced by those who think the pic is photoshopped.

Coming as it does from Getty Images, it could be a picture of just about anything from just about anywhere. That doesn’t change the fact that the NYT said it was something that it obviously wasn’t. That doesn’t make them part of a big conspiracy. Just either liars or idiots. Or lying idiots.

Noted previously on MO here and here.

Comments

  1. Of course the important thing here is, like you said, the press knows nothing. The amazing part is how they perpetually get it wrong, then pick themselves up and just go on gettin it wrong.

  2. I am glad that i get all my news from blogs, since they know eveything and NEVER ever NEVER make mistakes. It is amazing how some blogger sits at home in his underwear in front of a computer could be so perfect

  3. torcik: You seem to have utterly missed the point. The point is that the NYT *isn’t* a blog and shouldn’t make the dumb sort of errors that some blogger sitting ‘at home in his underwear in front of a computer’ would make. The Legacy Media spends all their time poking fun at the amateur pajama media, then the Legacy Media’s apologists defend the NYT’s errors by saying ‘blogs make errors, too!’? What sort of sense does that make? I’m just some guy sitting at a computer. I’ve never mistaken an artillery shell for the fragment of a Hellfire missile, and I don’t think I’ve made any comparable error when it comes to military identification. I’ve never been in the military. I have very little in the way of resources. I get paid $0.00 to do this. Why isn’t the NYT a thousand times better than me at military identification?

  4. Murdoc, I’ll answer your rhetorical question. Because, unlike Murdoc, NY Times reporters: 1. Despise the military and the type of people who serve, 2. Do not know anyone actually in the military, 3. Consider it a point of pride to be clueless about all things military, 4. Are liberal to the point of being Socialists, 5. Wish the U.S. to be weak and pathetic, 6. Are UNPATRIOTIC!

  5. Yes, that’s a ‘rhetorical-type’ question, but I’m also quite curious to see what torcik’s response is. Despite the fact that I generally disagree with him (except about the issue of visas for Poles, it seems) he’s sometimes a pretty sharp character.

  6. Thanks Jim, I’m commenting half in jest of course, but… I returned to the National Guard a couple of years ago. I have not been deployed abroad yet in this war, however, many of my friends have served in Iraq or Gitmo. They all returned with a deep distrust and suspicion for main stream media types like the NY Times. Sad.

  7. Yes clearly we have found conclusive proof here that the NYT hates life itself! And of course highly inflamatory pictures, like this one bolden the terrorists. And then the caption! That surely must EMbolden them even more! Wow, mystery of the Iraqi resistance solved! Its the NYTimes fault! And they wouldve gotten away with it too, if it hadnt been for you pesky kids!

  8. Aaron, Your sarcasm really bit deep but I think I’ll recover. I doubt the Times will ever recover their credibility which is the issue.