Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist

Infrared video of missile strike?

There is a supposed "infrared video" of a missile strike on the port of Beirut. I did not miss this, I saw that within 10 minutes of it being posted, looked at it closely, and determined it was not an infrared video at all, it was instead a photo negative video that had been de-saturated. Could I be wrong?

Well, it would have to be very coincidental to have an infrared video match the characteristics of a photo negative video. Everything was a simple invert of the existing contrast values. Technically that could happen in infrared but the chances are beyond slim. And therefore, I did not believe the video was legit.

AND, One key item with this: If the missile did not show up clearly in full color video, infrared would provide ZERO advantage, it is implausible that it would be crystal clear in infrared and not show up at all in the color videos, the only color video that had anything in fact had a bird, (the one with the blue circle drawn on it).

SO, my final answer:

We got the d*mn nuclear fireball PLAIN AS DAY. We have other events in Syria, known to be Israel, that look the same, photographed, PLAIN AS DAY. It therefore is not wise to say any video shows a missile, because that leaves a way for the story to be pried apart.

Why does it have to be a missile when it could have been a nuclear torpedo, or driven in on a truck, or planted a week before the blast, or whatever? The important thing is it was an easily provable nuke just from the fireball and blast characteristics and beyond that, nothing matters. We know Israel did that. The(y) already proved this with less witnessed blasts in Syria. Their new toy simply has that look when it goes off.