Sharp as a Marble - Picture #7 saddens the hungry zombie

<< You want to make a safer society? | Home | If you look up 'Clear Shot' in the dictionary >>

Picture #7 saddens the hungry zombie

Cartel gun battle. Warning, some of the pictures (like #7) are very grotesque.

Luckily, our borders are secure and we don't have to worry about this stuff spilling over into… wait. Never mind.

posted @ 8/3/2010 9:40:05 AM

Incoming Links

You know that little voice? « Curses! Foiled Again! on 8/3/2010 11:59:13 PM

hellinahandbasket.net » Blog Archive » Pretty Sceptical on 8/4/2010 9:55:53 AM

Sharp as a Marble - About the slideshow I linked to regarding the shootout in Mexico on 8/5/2010 8:48:12 AM

More on that slideshow « Curses! Foiled Again! on 8/5/2010 9:33:57 AM

Comments

Standard Mischief says:

on 8/3/2010 9:58:23 AM

Brought to you courtesy of the unintended consequences of the war on (some) drugs.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/3/2010 10:08:03 AM

Standard, you will not hear me disagree.

You don't see shootouts over Colt 45 Malt Liquor.

Jake says:

on 8/3/2010 12:33:32 PM

There are some really frightening implications from that presentation. These aren't just drug-dealer thugs, they are becoming trained and well organized private armies. They could probably take on similar sized units from some national militaries without serious problems. They would slaughter any of the local LEO agencies in the border states if they decided they need to.

Good thing our borders are secure and our President is taking this seriously... oh, right.

Crap.

Will says:

on 8/3/2010 12:47:16 PM

All the more reason to bring back the militias.

B Woodman says:

on 8/3/2010 2:02:51 PM

Jake,
When you consider that many of the people in the drug cartel armies are deserters from the Mexican Army. . . .

'Nuff said.

Patrick says:

on 8/3/2010 5:34:41 PM

Wow.. incredibly disturbing on so many levels.

Linoge says:

on 8/3/2010 8:25:15 PM

Huh. So the shitty commie-bloc rifles do not surprise me terribly much, but the bare-metal AR-15 lower does... Are they fabricating themselves, do they bring in 80% blanks, or what?

In other news, cars are concealment, especially against "military" calibers.

divemedic says:

on 8/3/2010 9:45:56 PM

That bare metal lower in pic 13 appears not be bare- it looks spray painted, see the over spray on the delta ring? It also appears to be a full auto. It looks like it has a hole for an autosear.

Also note the 40mm grenade in the picture. Contrary to the .gov and the media, these guns are not coming from the USA civilian market.

Jake says:

on 8/3/2010 11:39:12 PM

Scam warning! Jay G noticed something familiar about one of those pictures. Look at slide #20. The maroon SUV on the trailer with the really big holes in it? Second row on the far right? That exact same picture was posted a couple of years ago in a story about some guys who wandered into a live-fire range at night and into the sights of an F-16 on a training exercise. If you look closely, those holes are entry holes - what kind of man-portable weapon does that?

Someone's trying to pull something with this. I just wish I knew who and what.

Jake says:

on 8/3/2010 11:40:46 PM

Oops! Forgot the link to the original photo. It's here.

Crotalus says:

on 8/4/2010 12:14:38 AM

"Luckily, our borders are secure..."

Wait, what? ;o)

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 9:54:35 AM

Jake, not a scam warning at all. This was not designed as something for the masses to consume. It was an AAR report. The picture chosen for that montage was supposed to represent the types of SUVs used, not specifically those from that particular battle.

I don't believe they released this slideshow in order to falsely portray this particular battle as having 20mm cannons in an attempt to get the American populace worried about violence spilling over into America.

I understand there is an image in there that doesn't fit and is questionable. What I don't understand is why people believe this makes all the other pictures false.

Jay G. says:

on 8/4/2010 11:47:33 AM

Robb,

Because once you establish that they've "borrowed" one picture, what reason is there to assume that they have not "borrowed" others?

Quite simply, that one picture puts all the rest in jeopardy. The person putting together that representation put in at least one picture that was entirely unrelated to what was going on.

None of us know their motivations. Maybe they were simply trying to illustrate the kinds of vehicles used; frankly, I don't buy that line. Why not use stock dealer footage of vehicles in that case?

I'm sorry, but it puts the entire slideshow in the category of "fake but accurate" for me.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 11:59:01 AM

So, JayG, are you claiming none of this happened? There was no shootout?

Let's put this in another light. OJ Simpson. Does it matter how much the prosecution bent the truth? Does it change the *fact* OJ Murdered Nichole?

I don't understand what people's problem is here outside of a poorly placed image on a report not specifically meant for public consumption. Are people claiming nothing happened, that these pictures are ALL fake?

If you have a 50 lb bag of apples and one of them is a pear, does that mean ALL of the items in the bag are not apples? I don't get it.

Jay G. says:

on 8/4/2010 12:05:48 PM

Robb,

No one is claiming that the event never happened, nor that all of the pictures are fake.

What I am claiming is that we need to take this report with a big grain of salt, because whoever prepared this report took liberties with the truth. They inserted at least one image that did not belong in the report by any stretch of the imagination; that calls into question the veracity of the entire report.

I don't understand how anyone can blithely say, oh well, the image was fake, but the rest is fine. That's what boggles my mind. Yeah, we know we caught them in one lie, they can't possibly have told another.

To use your apple analogy, if you have that same 50 lb bag of apples and you find one apple that is moldy, do you assume that every single other apple in the bag is fine?

Patrick says:

on 8/4/2010 12:07:53 PM

Robb, I can appreciate your analogy. However, I am more likely to believe someone or something that is always truthful even though each time could potentially be a lie. Once you find out someone lied to you, everything else they say must have doubt cast on it.

I am not saying that the fight didn't happen but I wouldn't necessarily believe the pictures because one is false.

And if I had a pear in an apple bag, I would certainly verify that the rest were apples.

Jake says:

on 8/4/2010 12:11:29 PM

Robb, you're right, "scam warning" is probably too strong. Chalk it up to posting it near midnight.

Jay hit most of my concerns before I could get to posting a reply. I don't doubt the incident happened, but why add a completely unrelated photo? If it was just a pic from a different drug dealer battle, I could see the point, but this pic has nothing to do with drugs or crime at all. The only point of including it is to show an SUV with great big holes in it.

So now the question becomes: what other pics in that slideshow are not from the battle in question? Are they in there to support conclusions that can't be supported by the evidence from that battle? Why? Is there something the presenter is saying that's not true - even if the rest of his presentation is true?

It doesn't negate the point of the whole slideshow, but it does mean that every part of it should be looked at very closely to see if there are any other discrepancies.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 12:26:53 PM

I'm still waiting on how the inclusion of that vehicle in the pictures labeled as vehicles similar to the ones favored by the cartels in an AAR invalidates the actual event?

There are NUMEROUS other photos NOT from this particular AAR that show the exact same scenes (pdb has them at the bottom of this post). How does someone else's fuckup invalidate those?

This battle happened. There was a report sent out to LEOs to show them that this happened right across the border. Someone posted the AAR on the Interweb tubes and it happened to contain a faulty picture (along with photos of OTHER SUV's that were not in that particular firefight). FarmDad confirmed in GBC that it was not uncommon for someone to slip in pictures into an otherwise serious report that were so over the top as to be known to be a joke.

This shit happens and it happens across the street from us. I see nothing wrong with looking at these pictures (not just the single AAR I linked to) and thinking "This shit can easily move over to our side of the road". I don't care that someone put in a picture of a truck hit by 20mm cannons from an F16, it doesn't change the fact that our border ain't currently in any kind of shape to stop the next round of photos (with added photos of the aftermath from Hiroshima) from happening in Texas or Arizona.

Jay G. says:

on 8/4/2010 12:47:19 PM

Shorter Robb Allen: Believe everything you see on the internet!

(KIDDING)

Jake says:

on 8/4/2010 12:49:11 PM

I'm still waiting on how the inclusion of that vehicle in the pictures labeled as vehicles similar to the ones favored by the cartels in an AAR invalidates the actual event?

And you probably won't hear how it "invalidates the actual event," because I don't think anyone here is saying that it does. We're simply saying that it means the accuracy of the rest of the report needs to be questioned - but not dismissed entirely.

As I said, if they were just showing "vehicles similar to the ones favored by the cartels" then a stock photo, or a photo from a different battle, would have worked just fine, but the one in question has nothing to do with drugs, crime, or cartels at all. The only point is to show an SUV with great big holes in it. Why do that?

Like Patrick said, if I had a pear in an apple bag, I would certainly verify that the rest were apples. That's all we're saying - verify.

Jay G. says:

on 8/4/2010 12:58:15 PM

On a serious note...

Robb, you admit this was a "report sent out to LEOs to show them that this happened right across the border", right?

Why did they feel the need to embellish this report with pictures that do not belong in it?

If the other pictures are legitimate and accurate, they are WAY more than enough to grab the attention of any LEO who sees that report - why muddy the water with something that clearly doesn't belong?

I fear - and this is why I said something - that someone's trying to ratchet up the fear level with unrelated pictures.

It fits in with the "ZOMG MEXICAN DRUG GANGS GET MACHINE GUNS AT AMERICAN GUN SHOWS" crap we've been seeing, and that's what sticks in my craw, Robb.

We've been seeing a steady stream of obfuscations, exaggerations, stretches, and outright lies in regards to the Mexican drug wars. This is but another in the pile IMHO.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 1:04:18 PM

I don't see it that way, Jay. I see a picture shoved in haphazardly. I see nothing that indicates the report was trying to do anything other than put together what happened. Hell, the shoes thing was interesting.

The fact that these pictures were culled from the plethora of available pictures tells me that what I see happened, the AAR was simply one view of it.

I guess my views on this were already set as I'd seen the other pictures first. This slideshow was nothing more than a repeat for me and I didn't give it much weight.

Jake says:

on 8/4/2010 1:06:53 PM

Also, as AT just pointed out over at Jay's blog, we are approaching the end of the budget year. While this wasn't meant for public consumption, I bet there was an expectation that someone who deals with the budget would see it. Were images thrown in to ramp up the fear internally so they'd get more money?

Trust, but verify.

Jay G. says:

on 8/4/2010 1:11:00 PM

I think what irks me the most is that this *IS* a significant problem; that there really *is* a nasty war brewing that we DEFINITELY need to be aware of; and that there are some bloodthirsty killers out there who are WAY beyond the "hold the Glock sideways" caricature.

And yet there was still the need to embellish. That, for me, throws up giant red flags.

Maybe it was just a picture thrown in as part of a montage. Maybe someone didn't realize that it came from somewhere else. Heck, maybe someone pasted from the wrong URL - I mean, THAT'S never happened before, right?

A famous man once said "Trust, but verify". I'm just asking for verification is all.

We're really not all that far apart on this, Robb.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 1:11:03 PM

Gee Whiz, one would think a portfolio of just the head shots alone would be all you need to stir up emotions. I don't give a rat's ass if they can put 20mm holes in my GTI, I don't want half my head missing while they're battling it out over a 30 count bottle of Pseudoephedrine.

Jake says:

on 8/4/2010 1:37:13 PM

Robb, remember, the sectional density of the average bureaucrat approaches infinity.

Also, these people are fairly used to scenes like this - as an EMS provider my first reaction was to think "Neat! I wonder what did that?" and then start looking for anatomical landmarks. (Yes, we're strange and sick people in EMS.) Many LEO's would probably have the same reaction. OTOH, the huge holes would probably have a more stunning impact on anyone with LEO experience, since they tend to use vehicles as concealment or cover.

Patrick says:

on 8/4/2010 2:41:42 PM

You know.. the other side of the coin is any time you are making a point, you should never embellish. This WILL be used in a "this isn't really happening because this picture is a fake" by those that do not want anyone to believe there is violence on the border.

I have seen enough BS already on the forums and comments from those that do not believe Arizona or Texas really has a problem because someone said something that only happened one time but the way they said it made it sound like it was happening all the time.

I'm in a discussion on another blog with a guy that doubts any of this is going on because Gov Brewer made a comment about beheadings when they found one head and it might have been done by animals. Now he assumes that every report coming out is BS.

Patrick says:

on 8/4/2010 2:46:20 PM

And for the record, when I read slide 20, I didn't get the impression that those were from different events. I thought they were showing vehicles from this event. I had to go look again with your words in my mind and still went "why include this photo?". It says consistent with other vehicles used during assault operations, but that vehicle was never used in an assault operation.

Standard Mischief says:

on 8/4/2010 3:03:15 PM

Robb, where did you get the hattip for this file? It appears to have been u/l two days ago by "bovine splendor" and has made quite a splash in the RKBAsphere.

Standard Mischief says:

on 8/4/2010 3:11:29 PM

OK, I think it's been bouncing around email cc: before "bovine splendor" posted it on scribd two days ago. That username does not appear to be the source of the file.

James R. Rummel says:

on 8/4/2010 3:56:30 PM

When it came impossible for the people behind RatherGate to continue to insist that the fake letter was genuine, they shifted their claims to say that it didn't matter because the narrative was true! Fake evidence was okay, as long it told what they were convinced was a true story.

You are doing the same thing, Robb.

Patrick, Jake, Standard Mischief and Jay G are all in the right on this.

And now me, I suppose.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 4:58:11 PM

James, you're correct. There was no event. This never happened. All those pictures are fake. 100%. The dead people are either CG or mannequins. The buildings in the pictures? Fake Hollywood sets.

OJ? He never killed no one. The prosecution lied, therefor the event never took place.

You're totally right. One incorrect picture completely negates any happenings of reality. Never mind that I saw these pictures BEFORE I saw the (fictitious) AAR with the single bad photo.

I'm going to go throw away all my cereal now. I got a bad cheerio last night so therefore EVERY CHEERIO IS SUSPECT AND I CAN NO LONGER TRUST THAT FUCKING BEE ON THE BOX!!!!

James R. Rummel says:

on 8/4/2010 5:18:39 PM

Robb, what you are doing is the very definition of the phrase "creating a straw man".

Pretty soon your picture is going to be in the dictionary if you aren't careful.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/4/2010 5:25:19 PM

So, you deny that that battle ever happened or not?

Because I have pictures that say... yeah, coupla Mexi's took some crash courses in brain surgery using nothing but medium powered rifles. Someone putting in a picture of a Monster Truck driven by Bigfoot in an AAR that wasn't even designed for you and me doesn't change that fact.

You, on the other hand are claiming that because ONE version of the story has ONE picture that is incorrect, that ALL versions are now suspect.

Your TANG forgery is a bad example. If Rathergate was the same, then the fax they had would have been legit, but someone fudged the signature.

alan says:

on 8/4/2010 6:04:12 PM

This is SO going to be the topic on the next VC. I love me some drama llama!

:D

James R. Rummel says:

on 8/4/2010 11:59:57 PM

"So, you deny that that battle ever happened or not?"

I put something up on my own blog about this, about 7 hours before leaving my first comment here.

http://hellinahandbasket.net/?p=4388

Follow that link, and you will see that I performed due diligence through some research. If, that is, you can dignify ten minutes spent on Google as "research".

What did I find? Two sources that confirmed there was some trouble in Nuevo Laredo on Friday, July 16, 2010. One source is a newspaper in San Antonio, the other is the official website of the US State Department.

But they both give very diferent versions of what happened than the slideshow you linked to above. This is what the paper had to say ...

Twelve people, including two civilians and a soldier, died in Nuevo Laredo in gunbattles that broke out in broad daylight between suspected drug traffickers and the Mexican army, officials said. Nearly two dozen people were injured in Friday's shootouts, including numerous children who were riding in a bus shot up by the gunmen as they tried to escape, a source said.

That isn't what the source you are so intent on defending claims happens. The slideshow says that there was one fight, an ambush between soldiers of rival drug cartels. When the targets weren't killed outright, the attackers stayed and slugged it out for more than two hours. A static fight with nary a soldier, or schoolkid, in sight.

What else does the newspaper say?

As has become common when these gunfights break out, the suspected traffickers carjacked several vehicles, sending their drivers fleeing, and stole others parked on the street. They then overturned the vehicles to block streets to try to prevent soldiers from pursuing.

Not a static fight, and it was between the Mexican Army and members of a drug cartel. Does the US State Department concur?

We have received credible reports of widespread violence occurring now between narcotics trafficking organizations and the Mexican Army in Nuevo Laredo. We have credible reports of grenades being used. The narcotics traffickers have reportedly blocked at least one major avenue, Lopez de Lara, and are carjacking vehicles. Other roads may also be blocked by narcotics traffickers.

You seem to be operating in binary mode. If I disagree with your slideshow, then you insist that I am claiming there was never any violence in Nuevo Laredo on July 16.

Could be that I'm saying there was plenty of violence in that town, on that day. But the slideshow still looks like a fake.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/5/2010 8:51:16 AM

Ok, we seem to be talking past each other and I think there's a LOT of confusion here.

I've written up another post here to try to explain it. Please refrain from commenting any more on this post.

Thanks,
R

Comments have been closed on this topic.