File talk:Fetus with Misrata magic bullet - full.png

Syria Relief Posting
WTF? I thought this must be a joke. Appears Oct. 20, right after I added the Nott claims and the Misrata fake x-ray predecent here (see here). Best guess at first: someone followed up on that based on this page, and no one really claimed that. But a Telegraph report is cited, citing the Times and a different Nott interview, and the story ... in the Google search, that picture was attached. Here there's a video I can't get to load. Okay, text says:
 * Pictures showing an x-ray purportedly of a foetus with a bullet lodged in its skull were provided by charity Syria Relief. Their authenticity could not be verified and the skull in the image showed no sign of damage from a high velocity bullet.

Read properly, even they can barely avoid calling it blatantly fake. It was provided on the side, Nott does not say there he endorses it. Who would? Here's their source given: Heart-Breaking Images Provided By Syria Relief Media Team To Major UK Newspaper Heart-breaking, side-slitting, let's not go hair-splitting. They endorse it, and kudos to them for helping bring off this propaganda/prank. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

They explain it so:
 * The Time [sic] Newspaper is publishing on tomorrow’s front page a heart-breaking image of a fetus killed before it was born by a sniper. The photo was provided by Syria Relief Media Team inside Syria.  Other major newspapers are also picking up on the story.
 * The images were taken by our Media Time [sic] recently, and show a sniper bullet lodged in the brain of an unborn baby.
 * The baby’s mother received severe abdominal wounds, and sadly passed away as well.
 * (did they believe they were speaking to Time magazine?) --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This did come up right on October 19, so (depending) either they copied me quick or I'm just tracing the right things at the right time. That's of course in reference to this section of the Snipers page and how it lines up with the below section with this image. And thanks for it, Petri. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice at their posting, zero comments. I highly suspet they aren't approving any. I won't even try to mess it up. Not right there anyway. Saw yours on Twitter, I'll call us covered and skip the chatting for now. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Deeper Source?
The image is stamped ACMC. What is ACMC? Aleppo? City? Medical/media? Center, I guess. Petri, you might know this. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But I won't even give you time to prove it. ACMC on Facebook, Jan 6, 2013: Introduction of Aleppo City Medical Council --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just noticing the date of incident, August 23 implied, not "the other day." Will follow up on this. If it lines up with what Nott says, there should be two that day. Or else it's the day with five, or another day yet. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my ... don't click lightly, but we have a visible light rendition too of the same baby, delievered dead with placenta and head issues someone should asses, not clearly actually shot. Anyway, the CDV has it, both images together to clarify, here, this fetus named Abdulraaouf Mohammad Mezmar, by ... his dead mother who died? "He is a fetus 8 months old, martyred by regime forces sniper;s shot," from Bustan el-Qassr, Aleppo, martyrdom location blank, killed August 24. (yesterday somewhere, considering time zones). At 8 months, a decided name could well be known. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

All 6 adult females from Aleppo killed August 23-25 (allowing day each way for different scenarios): three victims of a murky massacre in Juneid (not the first), two killed by shelling, and only one by sniper: Mayyada Khouraqee, 52, from Sukkari neighborhood, killed wherever on August 24 "by regime forces sniper's shot in the chest." By this, I guess Abdulraaouf's mother lived, and someone screwed up the "game" that day. Did the one sniper aim too low, or did the other one aim too high? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Date of CDV posting: August 25. I checked entry sequence - the one after (92993) is dated Aug 25, the one before (92991) is the sniper-shot woman who can hardly be his mother, also dated Aug 24, but before that (92990) is another person who died Aug.25. So it took a little bit to gather and report this data, with those two alone added late and together, at least there. So it didn't just now appear, although it was just now boosted to the world stage from its previously obscure failure. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Times says Assad's snipers target unborn babies: but is this horrifying photo real? By Sophie McBain, New Statesman, October 22, 2013:
 * I called Syria Relief, the NGO that provided the Times with the photo. Yashar Kassar, the head of fundraising, said that the photo was taken in Aleppo by the Syria Relief media team that accompanied Dr Nott and others to the field hospital. “It is a real picture, taken by one of our team, and we can guarantee that,” he told me.
 * I'd even say a real photo of a real piece of transparent film with pigment added to depict an alleged x-ray image. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * He added that Syria Relief also took a photo of the same baby after an operation to remove it from the mother’s womb, which he agreed to send to me. The photo is too graphic to post online, but it neither corroborates nor disproves the X-ray image above, ... 

I disagree. See next section. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fetus Analysis
I have taken a closer look at the photo CDV posted and reiterate, especially now, only the serious should look at it. I'm presuming it's the same one McBain was sent. She wrote:
 * ...it neither corroborates nor disproves the X-ray image above, as there is no evidence of any wound to the foetus’s forehead.

As expected, there is no exit wound in to baby's forehead, as the x-ray showed it still inside but headed there. It's unclear why McBain expected it to resume the journey later and create an exit wound.
 * It is on its side, so only the left hand side of its head is visible. There is a possibility that the bullet wound is obscured on the right-hand side of the baby’s head - although if that is the case, it would have made more sense for the photo to depict this.

It does show that side somewhat. More important, it would make more sense for the x-ray to show anything remotely consistent with the photo. What I think I'm seeing there is upsetting. We can't really see if there's an entry wound in the back to explain that bullet. What there is is a horrible wound in the top of his head, a bit right of center it seems - the side that's hardest to see from body position and low lighting. Boosting the levels only reveals so much detail in that shadow zone, but there's an askew piece of skull, a lot of black, a fairly clear line down the forehead to suggest a skull-breaching wound. Othwerwise it could almost be a bloody raw scalp - there's not enough structural damage to be certain of a huge wound but I think it's there. I don't see how anyone could convince me otherwise. That means either the x-ray is wrong and the bullet went vertically through his head an exited, or entered here and whatever (a slightly deformed bullet on a tiny skull like that, maybe) or as I suspect this is some other kind of injury, either in addition to the bullet entry or in place of it. And also the x-ray shows no (clear) sign of the wound to the top of his head we can see, suggestingg this x-ray was never even of this particular fetus, even before it was doctored. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Judging by the position of the arms and legs, the X-ray shows the same fetus as the photograph. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. Looking closer, you're right. The arms and legs positions are uncanny. As if x-rayed in this very position. Is his mouth open in the photo? Doesn't seem so. Maybe the x-ray silent scream effect was added by pushing his mouth open. Anyway, as for the head wound, it too might appear after all. Where the skull line disappears, going dark, imagine an arc intersecting, curving to the other side. Note a faint line of something along the far side. But then other parts of the skull go dark like that too, all along the top, and I don't suspect all that of being a wound. Some of it visibly isn't, if this is the same kid. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is possible, that the hole on the top of the head is the entry wound. Bullets tumble when the enter soft tissue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Worth considering but I doubt it. Soft belly tissue first, then this skull, almost newborn-grade. Was the bullet already half-sideways before hitting brain? Implied turn of about 90 degrees or more in just a few inches of soft tissue. I'm no expert but it doesn't sound right. My deformed bullet comment was silly as this isn't deformed (it is slightly lopsided/asymmetrical, as one expert noted, but not blunted/flattened). It coming in sideways from the top is a better explanation, but why would it? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as upsetting to me, and I'd appreciate someone explaining how I must be wrong, but ... there seems to be a patch of greenish skin down the left side of his head, and it seems along the forehead wound as well. This is about where decay like gagnrene would set in if it had time, which it wouldn't by the story we've heard. The fresh blood on his body (but not upper head, note- that was wiped) suggests he just came out of the womb - the blood looks healthy as far as I can tell. But to me that dessicated-looking placenta doesn't look well, not does the pale and wormy umbilical cord. I don't even want to think about just what this might mean. Something awful, 'nuff for now. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The green skin is meconium staining. This and the abundant scalp hair are signs of post-maturity.  Otherwise I'm not sure there's anything wrong with this baby, as it has good muscle tone.  A stillbirth would be floppy.


 * Sweet, welcome back! Post-maturity meaning, already born? Ready to be, I'd say, but surely they didn't splice in blood spatters and some other placenta and uterus? No, surely that could totally happen. Meconium, looking it up ... okay, green stuff babies often exude - first non-food poop - after birth or too early if there's stress, like getting killed. Gross. Thank God though they have another reason than what I was starting to wonder. (and on the right side, it's mainly the sheet's reflection of course) I agree that otherwise this doesn't look like a sickly or dead baby, except the murky and fatal head problems. That should not have happened. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that medical staff are being coerced into providing faked atrocities, and are making sure that the fake is obvious. I thought that about the alleged chemical attack victims with shaving foam. Pmr9 (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And on the that, sorry forgot before - good imagination. I wonder things like that a lot with things that seem too fake, maybe too much. I can overrate peoples' intelligence and intentvs. haplessness, or maybe others underrate it. I suspected Syria Relief of a prank to ultimately discredit rebel propaganda claims, but the x-ray predated that, made under the ACMC banner. So they'd be more like publicists, and we have two parties with motives worth considering, both of which should have been like "well, it's going to be perceived as fake anyway. Should we run with it?" --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Post-mature" means pregnancy has continued beyond expected term of 40 weeks: another sign is the deep skin creases on the neck. It's definitely not 8 months gestation as the CDV site says: more like 42-43 weeks.  I can't really see anything on the top of the head except a bloodstained mess, so I don't know if you've been able to see more detail by enhancing the image.  The X-ray would most easily have been produced by taping a spent bullet to the side of the baby's head.  Pmr9 (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the full resolution image. It is displayed in a smaller size on VDC page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Duh, premature/postmature. The enhanced picture might be worth posting here informationally. Taste-wise, not inclined. The details are pretty well visible here anyway. There's a lighter curve in the dark, looks like a piece of skull to me. That pops out a bit more in mine. Otherwie, little changes - there's the red, lots of black in the middle, and the forehead line. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In case it's seen, I have a question for Pmr9: Is Post-maturity at all more common in older mothers? Say, some local widow of around 45-52 who was raped by some rebel (maybe a local who had a MILF crush on her years ago), I guess around Nov-Dec 2012, who waited 'til the last minute to clean up his mess this way? --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're getting at. Where antenatal care has broken down, pregnancies that continue past 42 weeks will often be undiagnosed or untreated. Not much relation to maternal age.  My point is that it's obviously not a stillborn infant delivered at 8 months gestation after a gunshot injury as CDV claims.  The muscle tone suggests that the baby is alive, and the blood on the body that it was delivered by caesarean.   The yellow-green colour doesn't look great, but that may be just meconium staining.
 * I like to correlate things, and there was the second sniper death that day (that I saw), a 52-year-old woman, hit in the chest it said. Obviously the name and locae didn't match, but that could've been altered. I checked and 52 seems to be the upper edge of what there's ready precedent for, so decided not to rule it out. If it increases odds of post-maturity as we see, might argue for this baby coming out of her. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Reality vs. Fakery
At first when I saw the X-ray, I thought it showed an infant with a bullet placed on his head. The photo however clearly shows this is a fetus or a stillborn baby. Something dramatic happened, this is not fakery. Also, the position of the bullet is consistent with the position and shape of the entry wound. I am not going to speculate what trajectory bullet may have had before it hit the fetus.

What then does all this prove? That civilians are being hit by bullets in Syria. Who did this? Unless the bullet can tell us, we will never know. What experience tells us is that killing civilians with sniper fire and blaming the other party is useful revolutionary tactic. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, except even that it proves people are getting hit by bullets. I see what could also be shrapnel or a blade impact with this kid's skull and the bullet added on the computer, most likely. I guess babies are being violently killed in way that never happened before this "Arab Spring" blew in is proven again here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The simplest explanation here is that both images are fake, and not necessarily the same baby. The X-ray may have been faked first, then the photo in an effort to corroborate it. It's unlikely that even Syrian rebels would wait in the operating theatre to grab a baby before the cord had been cut so they could make a hole in its head just to get a photo. More likely the top of the head is just photoshopped Pmr9 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. Simplest in a sense. I shy away from arguing that photo or video evidence - or even a x-ray - is fake (in a digital sense -actors and fake blood seem common enough). It's hard to do right, usually unnecessary, and I've seen few examples I felt compelled to call. I think the missile in the Aleppo University bombing footage was inserted (and not done right), but I think that's it so far in Syria. In Libya, I think only the sniper x-rays. Same feels right here, but I think the photo looks legit. I'm inclined to say the easiest explanation is this fetus and likely his mother were murdered, probably by the hordes of terrorists in Aleppo, real head wound and real x-ray, with a bullet most likely added digitally, or taped to his head, whichever. And it was done sloppily, perhaps, as you wondered, to sabotage and expose the op. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Identifying the bullet?
Identifying the bullet could hel us identify the rifle. The three likely candidates: It is easy to find photos ammo in cartridges but more difficult to find photos of the bullets. The bullet seems to have the aerodynamic shape of a spitzer bullet used in sniper ammo. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 7.62×39mm – Soviet cartridge used by AK-47. Low energy, not suitable for sniper rifles.
 * 7.62×54mmR – Originally designed for the 1891 Mosin–Nagant rifle. High-energy ammo used in Soviet sniper rifles. Used by both sides in the war.
 * 7.62×51mm NATO – Used by NATO rifles, including the Belgian FN FAL. Often used by rebels in Syria.

For the record, I'm not sure I can/could tell, but if given specific images, I could do some graphic comparisons if that helps. But then complicating that, there should be a 3-D aspect to it, unless their plane of view happened to be perpendicular to the bullet's axis. So, eh... not enthused, but open. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pitfalls
While I appreciate it, this is in my opinion a dangerous propaganda/prank for at least two reasons. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This will let some simply laugh off the claims that might really testify to a real crime spree that shoul be investigated and prosecuted as if it mattered. We have word that at least eight pregnant women in (Aleppo?) have been shot through the fetus. No matter how fake this x-ray thing is, it cannot erase a true fact like this may be. And we also hear of enough people being shot that on multiple days patterns could be discerned like that. That means quite a number of people horribly wounded and sometimes killed, including children disproportionately. It does sound like a game, any kind of variation of the finer points of target practice will constitute that. The motive, depending, would be for cigarettes and the glory of Bashar, or maybe to make sure the good doctor saw the proof, heard that story, and unapologetically slapped them together under his credibility umbrella for global consumption. The dupes need sorted from the criminals and the crimes exposed. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Most normal people can see it's fake, but less scientific and rational folk (including Sunni extremists with guns inside Syria) can't tell or don't care. They'll see a Satanic plot to shoot baby Sunnis, they're sure, and they will for real put a bullet into any swollen Alawi womb they happen to see. That and cutting them open is something they've been doing already, but  it doesn't help to give them anything they think can be an excuse or pretense. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And also, as I say, the actual crime might well not be fake. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)