People argue about this video as though it were film. It is not film. It is the output of a piece of targeting equipment, recorded for review, and nearly every honest disagreement about what the footage shows comes down to a property of that equipment.
What the aircraft is
The AH-64 Apache is the US Army's main attack helicopter. It carries a 30mm chain gun under the nose, rockets, and Hellfire missiles. It is built to find and destroy vehicles and armour, often at ranges where the crew never sees the target with the naked eye.
The pair that flew that morning
Two Apaches were over the district that morning, working as a pair: Crazyhorse 1-8, whose camera produced the recording, and its wingman, Crazyhorse 1-9.
- 30mm chain gun under the nose, built to destroy light vehicles.
- AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, built to destroy tanks.
- A targeting sight slaved to the gun, so the crosshair is roughly where the rounds go.
What the sight is actually for
The targeting sight is a sensor package on the nose. It magnifies heavily, stabilises against the movement of the aircraft, and feeds an image to the crew's displays. Critically, it is slaved to the weapon: where the crosshair sits is roughly where the cannon is pointed.
The one question it was built to answer
It was designed to answer one question quickly. Is that a vehicle, and is it the vehicle I was told about? It was never designed to answer the question everyone has asked of this recording, which is: who is that person and what are they holding?
Why the picture looks the way it does
| Property | Why it exists | What it costs the viewer |
|---|---|---|
| Monochrome | The sensor works on heat and light intensity, not colour | No press vest, no uniform colour, no skin tone |
| Heavy magnification | Targets are engaged from a long way off | Shapes blur and smear; small detail is invented by the eye |
| Narrow field of view | You zoom in to identify | You cannot see what is just outside the frame |
| Stabilised but drifting | The aircraft is moving the whole time | Objects swing and flatten as the angle changes |
| Compressed recording | Made for review, not broadcast | Fine detail is lost before anyone watches it |
Put those together and you get a picture that is excellent at telling a truck from a car and poor at telling a camera from a launcher. That single sentence covers most of the dispute in the frame-by-frame reading.
The one-line version
The sight is excellent at telling a truck from a car and poor at telling a camera from a launcher. Nearly every dispute about this footage fits inside that sentence.
The audio is half the record
Gun camera recordings capture the radio as well as the picture: the two crew talking to each other, the exchange with the wingman, and the calls to and from the officers who approve engagements.
That is why this file carries so much more weight than a silent clip would. You are not only watching a decision, you are hearing it being made and approved, in real time, in the words the people involved actually used. Most of the public reaction to this video in 2010 was a reaction to the audio.
Why the sound carries more than the picture
You are not only watching a decision. You are hearing it made and approved in real time, in the words the people involved actually chose. Most of the public reaction in 2010 was a reaction to the audio, not to anything visible on screen.
Who normally sees this material
Almost nobody outside the military. Gun camera recordings are used for after-action review, for training, and as evidence in internal investigations. They are classified by default, and there is no routine process for releasing them.
That is the whole background to the Reuters freedom-of-information fight: an agency asking for a file that the system had no habit of ever handing over. Until 2010, the public's image of an airstrike came from statements about airstrikes.
What it means for judging the people in the seat
Two conclusions follow, and they point in different directions.
The point in the crew's favour
The first favours the crew. Anyone insisting it was obvious from the picture that those were journalists is wrong. It was not obvious. The equipment cannot do that, and no amount of replaying at home changes what the crew had in front of them at the time.
The point against them
The second cuts the other way. If the sensor cannot reliably tell you what someone is carrying, that is an argument for more caution before firing, not less. The rules of engagement required identification. A tool that is bad at identification does not lower the standard; it makes the standard harder to meet.
Watching a gunsight, not a film
The useful mental adjustment is to stop treating the recording as a document of what happened and start treating it as a document of what the crew could see. Those are different things, and the gap between them is where the whole case lives.
Once you hold the difference in mind, the recording becomes a much better source than it first appears. It tells you, with unusual precision, exactly how much information two people had when they decided to fire. In most military incidents nobody can reconstruct that. Here it was recorded. The main page puts that back into the story.
Questions people ask about this
Is the video in black and white because it is old?
Could the crew zoom in further to check?
Who hears the radio on the recording?
Where this comes from
- July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike — Wikipedia
- Department of Defense FOIA reading rooms — US Department of Defense
Spotted something wrong? Tell us and we will fix it.
