The @washingtonpost did its own "analysis" of #ShireenAbuAkleh's death, and ignores the same evidence that the others did. Because they had already determined the outcome before the "investigation" they ignored the more compelling evidence. @SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix 1/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix The interview Ali Samoudi, a known Pallywood liar. He says that he knows the bullets came from the IDF convoy. But on May 11, he said they came from roofs of buildings "opposite" from him. WaPo didn't ask him about that.
There is line of sight from buildings across. 3/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix He was not the only witness who noted the snipers on buildings across from the Shireen. But they assumed they were IDF. THEY WEREN'T. The IDF didn't take over any buildings that day - but the shebab sure did.
4/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix The WaPo said that Shireen was 182 meters away from the IDF convoy. Based on their own pictures, Google Maps and Bing say they were nearly 200 meters away. This is a major difference - one is within the audio forensics distance, and one isn't.
But even more important....
5/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix The WaPo is measuring from Shireen;'s location - NOT THE MICROPHONE LOCATION. The audio forensics is from mic, not her. That adds an additional 10-15 meters beyond her - 210-215 meters away from gunshots, which is WELL outside the range of the audio analysis.
6/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix Which means that if Google and Bing are correct in distance, and the IDF was at that street corner (which video shows they were), there is no way this could be from the IDF.
7/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix And if you want to see what a clear line of sight looks like from 177-187 meters away from the camera mic, here it is. Did you check this building out as a possibility? Did you ask residents about Pal snipers? Did you act like real reporters? @SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/
I found the gunshots that @CNN says were the ones that killed Shireen Abu Akleh on video, with the secondary sounds to identify the distance. It starts at :08 of this @DigFind video. There are 7 or 8 high pitched shots.
@CNN@DigFind The secondary sound is indeed about 300 ms from the primary shot sound, and I'll trust the Montana State professor that says that indicates it is 190m away or so
2/.
@CNN@DigFind According to @CNN, these are the shots that killed her, based on witnesses that they are trusting to remember those kinds of details. But we don't know if she was killed before or shortly after.
Then after the Six Day War, when military victory seemed impossible, the "Palestinian cause" was born. It was another means to the same end.
Which is why Palestinians have never accepted a state when it would allow the Jewish state to continue to exist.
2/
Since then, most of the Arab world has realized that there is no benefit to a state of war with Israel. Their support for the "Palestinian cause" evaporated because it was never there to begin with. It was always an excuse.
Rashid Khalidi of @Columbia says on video, "Palestinian journalists have been systematically targeted. It's really important to Israel that nobody see what's going on in the occupied territories."
Really? 1/
@Columbia The publicity when a journalist is accidentally killed in the territories is FAR higher than otherwise. If Israel is trying to block media coverage, this is the EXACT WRONG way to do it!
Khalidi and anyone with two working brain cells knows this.
2/
@Columbia If it was an Israeli bullet that killed Sireen, it is absolutely certain it wasn't from a sniper (different caliber bullet.) But it would be certain anyway because Israel LOSES every time a journalist dies - it makes Israel look bad. And liars like Khalidi take advantage.
3/
The Israel haters have perfected an excellent propaganda technique.
They don't say "Israel killed Abu Akleh." That statement can be disputed.
They say "SINCE Israeli snipers brutally killed" her, the readers automatically accept the lie as they read to the punchline.
1/
The liars don't want there to be any question that their lies are true, so they frame the lies as a given that everyone already knows and accepts. Subconsciously, this makes the reader think, this must be true, because it sounds like accepted fact.
Essentially, they create a narrative - an entire, false story of Israeli snipers targeting a journalist because they want to silence her. The narrative it treated as true without any proof or even attempt at argument. Everything else is inside this fake news universe.
Let's examine the many ways @Time magazine shows anti-Israel bias in this short printed piece.
1/
@TIME 1. It first mentioned Israel's REACTION to rocket fire before mentioning the rocket fire, making it sound like the reaction is the real story and rockets aiming at Israeli citizens are no ig deal and not worth such a huge reaction.
2/
@TIME 2. The magazine included news from as late as April 26, but Israel re-opened the border on April 25, so it was a very short response. TIME doesn't mention this. Why not? Because it would detract from the "evil Israel" narrative.