While the answer regarding Syria was wrong, it is understandable. The human rights defenders knew additional details about the incident in Syria from the expansive media coverage of the alleged chemical weapons attacks and, in turn, made assumptions about what the video proved. Upon discussion, however, they agreed that the videos themselves did not prove a chemical weapon attack at all. The video clips only indicate that hundreds of people in Ghouta and Bhopal suffered from some sort of massive airborne poisoning that seemed to affect everyone — from the very young to the very old. The images do not prove that a poisoning happened. The images also do not tell us how the probable poisonings happened, why they happened, or who might be responsible. While the videos don’t provide the answers to these critical questions, they do offer up invaluable leads for determining what happened in both situations. TAKE HOME POINT When it comes to analyzing video as evidence, we must set aside our outside knowledge and assumptions and think critically about what a video clip actually indicates and proves. 41 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: ALL ABOUT EVIDENCE V 1.0 LAW The human rights defenders were then asked, “What does this video footage offer proof of?” In short, they answered that the video footage was proof of chemical weapons attacks in Syria and likely some sort of poisoning in India. They were right about India, but wrong about Syria.