> The report by Earshot and Forensic Architecture reconstructs, minute by minute, how the massacre unfolded. Using video and audio recordings from the incident[1], open-source images and videos[2], satellite imagery[3], social media posts[4], and other materials[5], as well as in-depth interviews with two survivors of the attack[6], the groups were able to digitally reconstruct the scene and events surrounding the massacre.
So out of multiple "sources", some of which aren't even mentioned ("other materials"?), only the first one is actually from the scene. Sources 2 through 5 are not from the actual scene. The "interviews" are eye witness accounts which are extremely unreliable in this context, especially in a gunfight in the dark.
I don't know. Doesn't seem all that high-tech impressive or even reliable to me. There's also a huge problem with the team conducting this report being consistently biased in their terminology, having team members with titles like "activist", and having researchers from Ramallah and other places who are clearly a side in the conflict.
I will be glad to see a neutral, journalistic research of this incident trying to actually get to the truth and determine if there were hamas militants in the convoy, rather than see some self proclaimed activists play with google maps.
Decide for yourself if the initial Israeli claims that it was an unmarked, unlit convoy check out. Only need to see the first few seconds, if you don't wanna hear all the shooting and dying.
I was addressing the "digital reconstruction", replying to what you said about satellite images "showing the scene" (which is wrong), not claims on whether or not emergency light was on. It would be appreciated if you actually replied to my comment.
Sorry to nitpick here, but using satellite from literally a different time cannot be part of the reconstruction of the events they appear to be showing in the post. So, this is just one of numerous small but misleading details. The actual reconstruction is not an incredible feat of technology, they have very little work with and have to lean heavily on eye witness accounts from people trying to make it through a gunfight at night time. This wouldn't pass any scrutiny by a real publication which is probably why it's on their blog and nowhere else.
>but using satellite from literally a different time cannot be part of the reconstruction of the events they appear to be showing in the post.
I'm struggling to understand why you think satellite data "cannot" be part of a scene reconstruction. Satellite data establishes things like distance, field of view, and clarifies what kinds of details would plausibly be known to the soldiers at the scene and what interpretations of events are more or less plausible. Geography of a landscape only changes over the scale of 100,000 years or more, over the time scales involved here satellite data is consistent.
The satellite shows something from a time after the events which were recreated and is therefore not relevant to the "digital recreation" which is what the post is about.
Also, there is absolutely zero proof it was a coverup as multiple explanations for this were given. Sure you may choose to believe what you will. But the right way to put this, if you're truly neutral and looking for the truth, is that the satellite imagery shows a later occurance where the vehicles were uncovered, several reasons for this were suggested, and a coverup is also possible, but couldn't be verified with any factual data.
“the examination identified several professional failures, breaches of orders, and a failure to fully report the incident”
“The deputy commander of the Golani Reconnaissance Battalion will be dismissed from his position due to his responsibilities as the field commander in this incident and for providing an incomplete and inaccurate report during the debrief.”
Sure seems like the IDF thinks someone covered shit up.
Once again, no. Nowhere does it say the intent was to cover it up. Failure to portray the situation accurately can be a result of several factors, like participating soldiers being in recovery and not able to fully describe the events, misunderstanding, failing to prioritize this event, or just incompetence. It's fair the deputy commander was let go, but this isn't an admission of a cover up.
I'd appreciate if you stopped portraying events in a biased manner and presenting speculation as fact. This is exhausting and I'm losing interest.
