Comment by magic_hamster
1 month ago
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.
The satellite images start on page 39 of the report, showing the cover-up efforts.
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 the cover-up.
The shooting is on video, and admitted to by the IDF. After a while, when it was dug out of the grave.
Again, the video is available, from the very real publication The New York Times.
4 replies →