The article implies Bellingcat are crowd funded (they only mention one kickstarter campaign from 2014) but their funding is concerning, and their investigations deeply biased. They are not at all to be trusted:
"funded by The Atlantic Council (a think-tank with deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world)"
"an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. "
Regardless whether Russia did any of the outlandish things that the UK accuses it of, what business does the UK have picking a fight with Russia or anybody else? I think it comes down to nostalgia for the days of the British Empire.
Second it is deeply concerning that a trade orginisation like IEEE would wade into political affairs and write a puff piece on Bellingcat who is obviously a creature of the UK intelligence establishment.
> it is deeply concerning that a trade orginisation like IEEE would wade into political affairs and write a puff piece on Bellingcat who is obviously a creature of the UK intelligence establishment.
yes, this is the critical point. me and "thrwway34" can argue about the trustworthiness of bellingcat, but IEEE has clearly picked a side.
> Regardless whether Russia did any of the outlandish things that the UK accuses it of, what business does the UK have picking a fight with Russia or anybody else?
Wasn't one of those "outlandish things" trying to assassinate a naturalized UK citizen in UK territory and causing one collateral death and several other collateral non-fatal poisonings of other British citizens? And wasn't the poison used so obviously Russian that it turned up in another attempted assassination of a Russian dissident that occurred in Russian territory? And the dudes that were identified as responsible from security footage turned out to be the same dudes involved in blowing up a Czech ammunition depot that contained arms manufactured by a Bulgarian that the Russian government has a beef with?
That's not the UK "picking a fight," and seems enough reason to convince any reasonable person that UK involvement is justified.
Where are the Skripals? Did MI6 bury them to cover for Crossfire Hurricane or connected stuff? There has been no proof of life in years. Readers should see former Ambassador Craig Murray for another take on the Skripal affair.
Meanwhile Bill Browder who is supposedly hunted by Putin is unscathed after years. So MI6 cannot protect a former spy and his daughter but they can a protect business man who regularly appears in public.
Nice website. On it you can also watch a nice video where you can hear (for instance) a psychiatrist posing as an expert to say "this pandemic is not a real medical pandemic" and "the COVID-19 vaccine has not been proven safe of effective...because there is not a clear definition for any new disease for which it can be tested." (https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/09/watch-ask-the-experts-co...)
> Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza.
> The pseudopandemic was a psychological operation (psy-op) designed to terrorise the public. The objective was to accustom the people to draconian system of government oppression by familiarising them with the mechanisms of a biosecurity state.
> If there is anything about the claims I highlighted in the article I linked to that you think is wrong, feel free to mention them.
Why would I bother reading it? That website demonstrated its utter unreliability in very clear terms, and I don't have the time or inclination to search for bits of edible food in piles of shit.
One of the upsides of COVID-19 is that it's made a lot of conspiracy nonsense blatantly obvious, so I don't have to waste so much time.
And pursuing the first link, I could also spot a couple of sloppy mistakes (text description showing a sloppy misreading of their document screenshot).
So is he more credible than that website you posted earlier? Probably, but only because that website is such a garbage fire. Does that mean he is actually credible? Not so much.
Wikipedia class the greyzone as Max Blumenthal's blog but one of the articles I posted is by Aaron Maté. I find him consistently honest and thorough - I don't know much about Max Blumenthal.
I'm curious what your assessment of bellingcat as a source is? Surely it cannot stand up to your scrutiny.
The Wikipedia discussion is embarrassing to read. They cry about Blumenthal being on Russian media, while citing the nytimes and wapo without any sense of irony. They link to a SPLC piece by Alexander Reid Ross, a known hack and 'anarchist' that collaborates with people in the IC. No one actually has a serious argument against the site, and goes off on the delusional russian influence conspiracy.
As far as what you said, why not address the real concerns brought up by Mate and how the OPCW covered up their investigative results about the Syrian 'chemical attacks'. They provide great evidence, and all you -- and it seems others -- can come back with is 'oh they overstated something that cant be definitively proven' or 'sloppy editing' or (lol) 'russian propaganda'.
If there are any of Bellingcat's claims that you think are wrong, why don't you mention them? You began this thread by just blindly saying they're "not at all to be trusted" based on some article on a sketchy website.
The main focus of my comment was their funding sources, because the IEEE false suggest they are crowd sourced. The website I linked described those funding sources, and they can be corroborated elsewhere.
I've since linked to articles by Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté detailing just some of the issues with Bellingcat's work.
Crowd sourcing has nothing to do with funding, it's about how they gather information. I'll copy a paragraph from they article where they explain it since you obviously haven't read it:
"In 2014, he used a Kickstarter campaign to launch Bellingcat, an online platform for citizen journalists to verify and publish research that taps into the hive mind approach to worldwide, Internet-era collaboration and open-source sleuthing. Whereas traditional investigative journalism—commissioned and published by newspapers or foundations or blogs—is only as expansive and wide-ranging as the team of reporters assigned to any given project, Bellingcat is more like an online meritocracy of ideas à la Wikipedia: Start a thread or page or investigation or project, and if it yields something good, some will read while others will contribute. Get enough people involved, and things can even start to snowball."
> "Crowdsourcing is a sourcing model in which individuals or organizations obtain goods or services, including ideas, voting, micro-tasks and finances, from a large, relatively open and often rapidly evolving group of participants."
The fact remains, Bellingcat are funded in ways that we could expect to compromise their journalism. The IEEE article doesn't mention any of that and only mentions the Kickstarter.
I'll review the guide. I understand generally HN does not like excessive back and forth. Not trying to be rude to anybody in the conments. Thanks for warning instead of banning.
Stop linking the NYT as if they are a credible source. That video just shows they had a conclusion they wanted and went out to show that. There is no definitive proof, and there is more evidence that the OPCW lied.
A CGI-equipped video with a compelling narrative of skilled investigators using their Sherlock Holmes' skills show skills/competency. Not truthfulness.
NY Times is a long known war monger working for U.S. interests.
Search for OPCW whistleblowers and Aaron Mate for alternative view on this media story.
32 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 93.3 ms ] thread"funded by The Atlantic Council (a think-tank with deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world)"
"an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. "
https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/15/the-art-of-doublespeak-b...
Second it is deeply concerning that a trade orginisation like IEEE would wade into political affairs and write a puff piece on Bellingcat who is obviously a creature of the UK intelligence establishment.
yes, this is the critical point. me and "thrwway34" can argue about the trustworthiness of bellingcat, but IEEE has clearly picked a side.
Wasn't one of those "outlandish things" trying to assassinate a naturalized UK citizen in UK territory and causing one collateral death and several other collateral non-fatal poisonings of other British citizens? And wasn't the poison used so obviously Russian that it turned up in another attempted assassination of a Russian dissident that occurred in Russian territory? And the dudes that were identified as responsible from security footage turned out to be the same dudes involved in blowing up a Czech ammunition depot that contained arms manufactured by a Bulgarian that the Russian government has a beef with?
That's not the UK "picking a fight," and seems enough reason to convince any reasonable person that UK involvement is justified.
Meanwhile Bill Browder who is supposedly hunted by Putin is unscathed after years. So MI6 cannot protect a former spy and his daughter but they can a protect business man who regularly appears in public.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2007/S00048/were-the-skrip...
Nice website. On it you can also watch a nice video where you can hear (for instance) a psychiatrist posing as an expert to say "this pandemic is not a real medical pandemic" and "the COVID-19 vaccine has not been proven safe of effective...because there is not a clear definition for any new disease for which it can be tested." (https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/09/watch-ask-the-experts-co...)
You can also read this there: https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/29/pseudopandemic/:
> Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza.
> The pseudopandemic was a psychological operation (psy-op) designed to terrorise the public. The objective was to accustom the people to draconian system of government oppression by familiarising them with the mechanisms of a biosecurity state.
Why would I bother reading it? That website demonstrated its utter unreliability in very clear terms, and I don't have the time or inclination to search for bits of edible food in piles of shit.
One of the upsides of COVID-19 is that it's made a lot of conspiracy nonsense blatantly obvious, so I don't have to waste so much time.
Do you find Aaron Maté more credible?
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-wh...
The Grayzone is banned from Wikipedia because "there is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...).
And pursuing the first link, I could also spot a couple of sloppy mistakes (text description showing a sloppy misreading of their document screenshot).
So is he more credible than that website you posted earlier? Probably, but only because that website is such a garbage fire. Does that mean he is actually credible? Not so much.
I'm curious what your assessment of bellingcat as a source is? Surely it cannot stand up to your scrutiny.
As far as what you said, why not address the real concerns brought up by Mate and how the OPCW covered up their investigative results about the Syrian 'chemical attacks'. They provide great evidence, and all you -- and it seems others -- can come back with is 'oh they overstated something that cant be definitively proven' or 'sloppy editing' or (lol) 'russian propaganda'.
I've since linked to articles by Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté detailing just some of the issues with Bellingcat's work.
"In 2014, he used a Kickstarter campaign to launch Bellingcat, an online platform for citizen journalists to verify and publish research that taps into the hive mind approach to worldwide, Internet-era collaboration and open-source sleuthing. Whereas traditional investigative journalism—commissioned and published by newspapers or foundations or blogs—is only as expansive and wide-ranging as the team of reporters assigned to any given project, Bellingcat is more like an online meritocracy of ideas à la Wikipedia: Start a thread or page or investigation or project, and if it yields something good, some will read while others will contribute. Get enough people involved, and things can even start to snowball."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing
> "Crowdsourcing is a sourcing model in which individuals or organizations obtain goods or services, including ideas, voting, micro-tasks and finances, from a large, relatively open and often rapidly evolving group of participants."
The fact remains, Bellingcat are funded in ways that we could expect to compromise their journalism. The IEEE article doesn't mention any of that and only mentions the Kickstarter.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of... https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-wh...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI&t=3s
Or should we only question things we don't like and give everything else a free pass?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2X84JZINcI&t=3s
NY Times is a long known war monger working for U.S. interests.
Search for OPCW whistleblowers and Aaron Mate for alternative view on this media story.