What digital reconstruction? They took a witness and basically did what they said in a 3D editor. I don't see anything sophisticated about this. They also did things like count weapon sounds in audio, which might be the only factual reliable data point on this report.

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

> They took a witness…

And the satellite photos showing the scene, and the cell phone video showing the shooting...

▲

magic_hamster an hour ago | parent [-]

From the report:

> 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.

▲

ceejayoz 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

You can see the video at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-isr....

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.

▲

magic_hamster 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

ceejayoz 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

The satellite images start on page 39 of the report, showing the cover-up efforts.

	▲	magic_hamster 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.