Originally posted by Dowding
Suave - they are exactly the same bull dozer in both photos, and definitely not the armoured bulldozer in your picture.
The only reservation I have is with the treeline - but there is a movement of POV from the first to the second photo that might account for that.
Dowding, notice the differences between the lights mounted on the cab and the accessories mounted on the cab in both pictures. One has the lights mounted in front of the cab, just below the roof, at the corners. The other has the lights mounted above the cab, at the same corners. Also, there are different accessories mounted to the roof of each, and in different locations. There are also slight differences in the steel gaurd on top of the blade. They are in fact two different bulldozers. The differences may or may not be immediately apparent to the casual observer, but with a little knowledge of heavy equipment and some attention to detail, they will be clearly visible. Every bit as visible as the fact that those "skulls" someone claimed were on the bulldozer are actually the hydraulic rams and knuckles that raise and lower the blade.
There is little doubt she was in one way or another killed by being crushed under a piece of tracked heavy equipment. However, nothing in the written account matches the photos used for evidence, other than there is a girl (maybe, you cannot readily identify the person(s) in the photos), a bulldozer (actually two different bulldozers), a bullhorn, and some ground where it took place (possibly not even the same location). She's not even under the supposed pile of rubble when the bulldozer is only 30 feet away, when they claim she was crushed as the bulldozer pushed a pile of dirt, sand, and debris over her, ran over her, backed over her, and the reversed to a position several hundred yards away. In the time it would take the bulldozer to back up 30 feet from her body, there is absolutely no way two or three people could possibly hope to remove at least a ton of dirt, sand and debris to uncover her. And remember, those who provide the photo claim she was buried under a pile of dirt, sand, and debris as tall as the blade of the bulldozer (about 6 FEET high), then driven over and crushed by the same bulldozer, backed over and crushed again by the same bulldozer, and then they rushed forward and dug her out of said pile, crushed and compacted by the bulldozer, as the bulldozer continually retreated in reverse to a position several hundred yards away. Yet in well under 30 seconds, two people had her dug out of the pile and held her while another person took the photos! Two people couldn't move a ton or more of debris in thirty minutes, let alone 30 seconds.
Where are the rest of the pictures they would most certainly have and be willing to show if the pictures backed up their claims?
In order to take their account as factual, you should be able to clearly and easily match the account in complete and total detail with the photos, and it does not even come close. You are taking photos, which do not match the eyewitness account (given by the same people who took the photos), taken by, and provided for viewing by, a group of people with an obvious agenda, as the absolute and certain truth beyond any doubt. A foolhardy basis for a statement of fact at best.
Is it a sad, pitiful incident? No doubt. Is it proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was intentionally pursued and crushed by an IDF bulldozer? Not hardly. Not even close.
