Thread by @Rootclaim

Important finding from our analysis of #ShireenAbuAkleh’s death: the forensic calculation used by major media outlets to determine the shooter’s distance is incorrect.
This was used by @bellingcat @CNN @wapo to implicate an @IDF shooter, and by @elderofziyon to exclude the IDF.

The original work used the time delay between the supersonic shock wave of the bullet passing next to the camera, and the muzzle blast coming from the rifle, to determine a distance to the shooter of 175 to 197 meters.

Two different forensic experts: Robert C. Maher and Steven Beck performed this analysis, reaching similar estimates, which were used to implicate an IDF force located at a similar distance from Shireen.

@Israellycool correctly identified that since the camera was located behind Shireen, the distance between the IDF and the camera is around 210m, above the upper limit of 197m, reducing the likelihood that this specific IDF force, in its documented location, is responsible.

However, both of these analyses are incorrect, as the calculation doesn’t account for the distance from the arriving bullet to the microphone.

The bullets are known to have hit the journalists and a tree that were 10-15 meters from the camera. That means 30-45 milliseconds should be added to the 300-310 ms delay measured in the soundtrack.

This chart shows the distance to the shooter, as a function of the average bullet velocity. The blue line is the erroneous calculation and the red line shows the corrected distance (using 10m correction).

Most rifles used by both sides are around the 800 m/s range (after deceleration in air), meaning an increase of ~20 meters, to a range of ~200 meters, which better matches the IDF’s location.

We publish this specific finding ahead of our full analysis as it is widely used in public discourse, causing confusion. However, we generally advise against using a single piece of evidence as a “smoking gun”, since they rarely are (as demonstrated here…).

Only a detailed probabilistic inference, using all evidence, and accounting for all possible sources of error, can provide a reliable assessment of a hypothesis’ likelihood. We’ll be publishing our full analysis soon.