Thread by @elderofziyon

Here is a summary of what @bellingcat and @CNN got wrong with Shireen Abu Akleh's death:

The only way they have any clue of the distance of the gunshots that killed her came from is the audio study. It is accurate. But they assume that fire can ONLY have come from due south.
1/

@bellingcat @CNN They make the basic error (and I did too!) that since the only videos they had showed only the IDF at (roughly) that distance, that the fire MUST have come from the IDF.

And since it appeared that it was directed at the reporters, they assumed it was purposeful.
2/

@bellingcat @CNN It didn't QUITE add up - the IDF was further away than their estimate (and their estimates were about 20 meters off) but there was no other possible gunmen in that area south, it MUST have been the IDF. Everyone else made LESS sense.

3/

@bellingcat @CNN The fact that the IDF is a professional army, with great disincentive to fire on reporters, did not enter their thinking. Either because of subconscious bias or sticking to the evidence at hand and thinking that was ALL the evidence.
4/

@bellingcat @CNN IDF professionalism and Jenin fighters trigger-happy acts did not enter their calculations.

So they fit the conclusions with what they knew, not with what was possible. A basic error Sherlock Holmes would call out in a moment.

5/

@bellingcat @CNN But they didn't know about the group of 15 Jenin gunmen to the southeast.

So they didn't consider that a possibility.

6/

@bellingcat @CNN That changes EVERYTHING. Suddenly, when we KNOW there was another group, a whole new range of ideas that were not considered make MUCH more sense than the IDF acting like a spoiled teen.

7/

@bellingcat @CNN So what do we know about these gunmen?

1) They WERE walking within the range of the audio estimate.
2) They AREN'T professionals.
3) They can EASILY make mistakes in shooting at people from a distance.

Did they?
8/

@bellingcat @CNN If I am seeing this video accurately, showing reporters dodging a bullet minutes before Shireen was killed, and then pointing to a building while saying that there were Palestinian militants there, it sure seems so.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2022/05/there-…

/8

@bellingcat @CNN And if they could see a gunman in a building from where they point, that indicates a line of sight from the gunman to Shireen.

I don't know if the gunmen on the ground had line of sight - but @CNN, which COULD have checked it, wasn't interested.

The IDF wasn't there.

9/

@bellingcat @CNN Does everything dd up perfectly yet? No, of course not. We need the bullet. But there is enough evidence that there was another group, who could have seen helmets or flak jackets and assumed IDF targets, that comparing them to the IDF professionals makes this FAR more likely.
10/

@bellingcat @CNN Perhaps @bellingcat will have the intellectual honesty to look at these other possibilities - they fit in better with the tree bullet holes, they fit better with the reporters in the video, and they fit better with basic logic if you know anything about the IDF beyond lies.
11/

@bellingcat @CNN And you KNOW @CNN will never admit they are wrong unless the evidence becomes overwhelming. They care more about reputation and ratings than the truth.

That's where we are at. There is a compelling alternate theory that was NEVER considered. That was the biggest mistake.
/end

@bellingcat @CNN And just a point on open source intelligence:

It can be fantastic, It can open up ideas that the professionals would never think of. But those of us that engage in it need to remember that TikTok videos and Mapillary photos are WOEFULLY incomplete.
A/

@bellingcat @CNN We don't know what we don't know. Were there gunmen in buildings/ Well, there were photographers on roofs and on upper floors - why not? Just because we don't have video doesn't mean they aren't there.
B/

@bellingcat @CNN Is there line of sight from either the IDf or the Jenin militants? We don't know EITHER. We don't know EXACTLY where Shireen was, and (I think) the angle for the IDF to her and the tree is VERY narrow.

C/

@bellingcat @CNN Using that as evidence of a "sniper" rather than evidence of another source of gunfire reveals the other problem with open source intel - bias can creep in. (Again, I am guilty as well.)

So while it is tempting to think we have enough info to decide, chances are...we don't.