The information war – The NZ Listener takes up arms

First – have a look at this satirical programme from Germany. It has English captions but is worth watching a few times for the subtleties.

I have commented before about the information war going on around the Ukrainian conflict. It might seem like a distant issue here (and it usually doesn’t get much coverage). But I believe the biassed propaganda we are exposed to is dangerous because of its jingoism.

And this week the NZ Listener brought the conflict right into our living rooms with an editorial which uses the same innuendo and unconfirmed claims that feeds this jingoism (see Alarmed World).

Out of the blue in a piece seeming to be about Islamic State and the conflict in the Middle East we get this:

The West faces a similar test of its resolve in Ukraine, where attempts to deter Russian-backed aggression have been largely ineffectual. The world knows that Russia supports the separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, that it has troops on Ukrainian soil and that it probably supplied the missiles that brought down a Malaysian airliner. Yet the European Union’s sanctions against Russia have succeeded only in provoking economic counter-measures that have hurt European food producers, for whom Russia was a $19 billion export market, and threats to ban “unfriendly” airlines from Russian airspace.

The assertion the “world knows” has become a substitute for evidence! The world certainly knew when the USSR invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or the US invaded Iraq. We could see the evidence. Tanks surging across borders, planes bombing, troops on the ground. But nothing of that here (except the occasional soldier who claims to have lost his way – or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters*).

[Yes, I know the presence in Ukraine of Russian and other voluntary (or even mercenary) fighters is well established – fighting on both sides. But that is not the same as invasion of a foreign army the media often claims.]

The “world knows” that Russia “probably” supplied missiles used to shoot down Malaysian airline MH17 – when the world knows nothing of the sort! At this stage this issue is wide open (see MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact) – but it seems our media thinks we don’t deserve anything better than unwarranted claims on such a serious matter.

That shows no respect for the victims of this tragedy.

As for the danger of this sort of biased reporting and media manipulation, and the jingoism it promotes, we can read the last paragraph in the Listener editorial.

“What has become painfully apparent, in both the Middle East and Ukraine, is that the democratic West is susceptible to paralysis and self-doubt when confronted with the forces of totalitarianism and autocracy. Perhaps it’s time to consider what the world’s fate might have been without the moral resolve exhibited by Churchill and Roosevelt in World War II.”

Isn’t this the sort of talk used to prepare a population for war?


UPDATE

* Of course I have taken poetic license here about these fuzzy photos. After all,  whether these were photos of artillary or combine harvesters is not evidence for or against an invasion. We know that both sides in Ukraine have plenty of artillery weapons and are using them. But for the pedantic, and those confused by my aside, here are some links to the combine harvester/artillery story:

Dave Lindorff writes about it in his article Satellite Images of Alleged Russian Artillery in Ukraine Come A-Cropper. He produced this photo below:

combines.preview

And commented:

“In the ongoing propaganda campaign mounted by the Obama administration to claim that Russia has “invaded” Ukraine from the east, it offered up some grainy black-and-white satellite images purporting to show heavy Russian military equipment inside Ukraine.

I earlier noted how unlikely it was that heavy mobile artillery pieces would be set up in a perfect line in what appeared to be a field of crops, with, as the government claimed, cannons aimed towards Ukrainian positions in toward the west. As I pointed out, there was no sign of piles of ammunition alongside these “units” as we routinely see in closeups of heavy mobile artillery — for example in photos of IDF pieces positioned outside of Gaza. I also noted the unlikelihood that such equipment would have been set up in an open field, unprotected by trees or other cover, and lined up to make for easy targeting by enemy artillery or air attack.

Now an alert reader from the agricultural state of Texas (Laredo, TX to be precise), has sent a note suggesting out that what the supposedly incriminating images most likely show are combines in a field of grain or some other crop planted in rows. He sent along photos showing harvesters, which of course feature a long, straight “cannon-like” tube which is used to shoot the harvested grain up and into an accompanying truck to be hauled off to market or to a storage silo.”

Here is a higher resolution of the satellite photo which, I understand, came from the US State Department:

artillery_2

(from European Union Court of Justice Imposes Anti-Rasmussen Rule – Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed by Reason of Fabrication, Lies, Dissimulation)

I wouldn’t pretend to draw any definite conclusions from these photos but I think Dave Lindorff  has a point:

“Now maybe the released satellite images do show Russian artillery, but given Washington’s extensive history of abject lying in the interest of promoting its war agenda (think Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMDs and mobile poison gas factories, Assad gas attacks in Damascus, etc.), it’s worth taking the claim with a “grain” of…well, in this case actual grain.”

Similar articles

 

 

95 responses to “The information war – The NZ Listener takes up arms

  1. Comments welcome.

    Like

  2. Thank you for opening comments.

    The photo I referred to was one the U.S. claimed showed a number of artillery pieces lined up in a field. The trouble is, once someone on the Internet pointed out they looked more like combine harvesters than artillery (symmetrical positioning and lack of associated boxes of ammunition) it became a but of jokes by reporters.

    So let me get this straight.
    Some unknown person…..makes a claim about what something in a satellite recon photo looks like and then…”reporters” (who?? how many??) have a giggle about it.
    Did you do the slightest bit of fact checking on this at all?

    I don’t know about you but I don’t get my information from “someone on the internet” even if it amuses mystery journalists.
    It’s not your conclusions that count; it’s your methodology.

    Can you imagine me or Richard doing this?
    On any topic?
    Wouldn’t happen.

    How many times have anti-vaxxers and climate deniers and other assorted wierdos come onto your blog and done what you have now done to prop up their position?
    You would be the first to shine a bright light on such sloppy thinking.

    This is not skepticism, Ken. Far from it.
    What’s the point of promoting article after article on critical and skeptical thinking over the years if you are going to then ignore all that for the sake of this whole Russian thing?
    You are making a horrible mistake.

    Peel back the layers of this particular onion. Do some genuine fact checking.
    You are only as skeptical as the last topic you tackled.
    Find out where this “combine harvesters” meme came from and then ask yourself why you decided to give it oxygen.
    It didn’t pop up by magic.

    Like

  3. Come off it, Cedric. I don’t know if the satellite photos were of combine harvesters or not, and that is not the issue. The photos came from the US, promoted (on the internet) by the US State Department. But like so much coming from the State Department on Ukraine these days it got a certain amount of laughter, probing questions from reporters, and evasic diversions from spokeswomen like Paski.

    But you a concentrating on a simple characterisation of weak evidence in general to avoid the real issue. The point is that the word “invasion” is being used when none of the usual characteristics of evasion are there (as they were in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Iraq). Instead we get these fuzzy satellite photos (which are not evidence of invasion whether they are artillary pieces or combine harvesters) and white trucks from one of the humanitarian convoys.

    And instead of evidence, real evidence (which I have pointed out is pretty obvious for real invasions) we have media hacks using the words – “the whole world knows.”

    One reason those with irons in the fire use the word “invasion” is to avoid facing up to the real nature of the conflict – which would then direct attention to proper constitutional reform in Ukraine and the solution of internal problems which must be resolved to move forward. Unfortunately such diversion also stokes the fires of a dangerous new cold war.

    That is a far more important issue than a debate over the origins of a satellite photo the US was promoting.

    Like

  4. I regard Russia’s alleged interference in the Ukraine as no worse than the USA’s alleged interference in many other theatres, Actually, given the Ukraine’s position on Russia’s boarder and historical association, it is not only more understandable but arguably more justifiable.
    It’s the fairly obvious hypocrisy of the western media’s spin that I object most to.

    Like

  5. Come off it, Cedric. I don’t know if the satellite photos were of combine harvesters or not,…

    All I’m asking you to do is fact check it. Just that one thing.

    … and that is not the issue.

    You brought it up. You thought it was worth repeating. Nobody held a gun to your head. That one particular talking point just leapt out and screamed “Pick me, pick me.”

    The photos came from the US…

    No Ken. That’s not why I’m putting a big fat question mark over this particular talking point.

    …or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters…

    It’s the “combine harvesters” bit. Not the US bit. That’s the oddball part of it all.

    …it got a certain amount of laughter, probing questions from reporters…

    Which is wonderful…only that’s not how I judge the veracity of information I read on the internet. Monckton has a good old hee haw at some report from the IPCC? Doesn’t really impress me at all. My standards are better than that. Yours used to be.

    But you a concentrating on a simple characterisation of weak evidence in general to avoid the real issue.

    Nope. That’s not what it happening.
    You are evading when I ask you to fact check just one thing.
    Find out where this “combine harvesters” meme came from and then ask yourself why you decided to give it oxygen.
    Peel back the layers of this particular onion. Do some genuine fact checking.
    It didn’t pop up by magic.

    Like

  6. Cedric, if you are so interested in the characterisation of the U.S. photos then research them yourself. My only memory is that having seen the photos and disregarding them as real evidence the combine harvester description “just leapt out” (as you say). But I suppose a conspiracy theorist could claim there are evil groups whose job is to create and plant such Internet memes!🙂 (Reminds me of when the Guardian blocked many commenters on their web site because they weren’t critical of the Russian Federation. Their explanation, they were trolls financed by the RF government!).

    But that particular diversion doesn’t interest me one iota – I am interested in the more serious substantive issues of the conflict. After all more than 3000 Ukrainians have died, most of them civilians, and a million have fled the country – mainly to the Russian Federation – with probably a large proportion of them never coming back.

    >

    Like

  7. Cedric, if you are so interested in the characterisation of the U.S. photos then research them yourself.

    Ken, it’s your talking point.
    You put it up on your blog.
    You gave it oxygen.
    Not me.
    You.
    Why would you ask me to “go fish”? That’s not what a skeptic would do.
    I always know where my information comes from….before I put it out there for the world to see. Someone wants to know where it comes from or who said what? No biggie. I’ll happily tell them.
    It’s the honest thing to do. It makes it easy for someone to see if I’m using the right methodology or not.
    And if I get my facts screwed up or my methodology is wrong, I’m big enough to admit it.

    My only memory is that having….

    Nobody is asking you to rely on your memory. You have access to the internet. These things always originate from somewhere. Somebody always gets the ball rolling.

    But I suppose a conspiracy theorist could claim there are evil groups whose job is to create and plant such Internet memes!

    Various groups do engage in disinformation campaigns on the internet. Happens a lot. People even analyse how they work.

    But that particular diversion doesn’t interest me one iota….

    Spare me the handwaving.
    This is an example of what you are doing.
    One talking point. A talking point you repeated. I’m asking you to fact check it. Don’t need a long soliloqy. No Herculean effort needed.
    Google is at your fingertips.

    ….then research them yourself.

    I have. Which is why I’m asking you to shift yourself and adopt a skeptical methodology. You will probably find what I have found.
    You won’t like it.
    You’ve been used.

    Like

  8. Well, Cedric, if you only response is:

    “You will probably find what I have found. You won’t like it. You’ve been used.”

    Then go ahead and tell us what you have found. Don’t let your work be wasted. Then we can see for ourselves if we like it or not? And we can make up our minds about the degree to which you or I have been used.

    But it would be nice instead of this silly diversion you were willing to discuss the real issues driving this dreadful conflict. People are dying, lives are being destroyed.

    >

    Like

  9. Cedric has a point, Ken.

    It was badly worded in the post.
    Besides, the reference was cryptic to anyone, such as myself, who didn’t know what it was you referred to.

    If it had read “or fuzzy satellite photos of what might/could be combine harvesters”, and had a link to an explanatory story, then Cedric’s point would largely evaporate.

    Like

  10. Perhaps I should just delete the aside – it was meant to be satirical. But let’s see what Cedric has. I am intrigued.

    Perhaps he has the photo – would save me from wasting my time searching it out. And it is a diversion.

    Like

  11. I’m intrigued too. I tried a couple of search terms: combine harvesters + tanks + ukraine in Google and Google News, but got nothing meaningful.

    Like

  12. I tried a couple of search terms: combine harvesters + tanks + ukraine in Google and Google News, but got nothing meaningful.

    Yet somehow it ended up on Ken’s blog.
    It got past his credibility filter.
    Does that sound ok to you?
    Really?
    Something is badly wrong here.

    He decided to propogate it uncritically on to others over the vast wide intertubes.
    Who needs that old-fashioned fact checking business, eh?
    Awful.
    You can’t control the crap that other people puke out willy-nilly on the internet but what you can do is have reasonable standards on your own blog.
    I shouldn’t have to browbeat you into doing the right thing….as a self-described skeptic who promotes skeptical thought.
    It should be something that you should do as a matter of course before you hit the “return” key.

    The photo I referred to was one the U.S. claims showed a rock formation. The trouble is, once someone on the Internet pointed out they looked more like an alien face trather than rock formations it became a but of jokes by reporters.

    So let me get this straight.
    Some unknown person…..makes a claim about what something in a Mars satellite recon photo looks like and then…”reporters” (who?? how many??) have a giggle about it.
    Did you do the slightest bit of fact checking on this at all?
    Peel back the layers of this particular onion. Do some genuine fact checking.
    You are only as skeptical as the last topic you tackled.
    Find out where this “face on Mars” meme came from and then ask yourself why you decided to give it oxygen.
    It didn’t pop up by magic.

    Come off it, Cedric. I don’t know if the satellite photos were of alien faces or not, and that is not the issue. The photos came from the US, promoted (on the internet) by NASA. But like so much coming from NASA on Mars these days it got a certain amount of laughter, probing questions from reporters, and evasic diversions from NASA spokeswomen.
    But you a concentrating on a simple characterisation of weak evidence in general to avoid the real issue. The point is that the word “alien life” is being used when blah, blah…
    (…)
    That is a far more important issue than a debate over the origins of a satellite photo the US was promoting.

    All I’m asking you to do is fact check it. Just that one thing.
    You brought it up. You thought it was worth repeating. Nobody held a gun to your head. That one particular talking point just leapt out and screamed “Pick me, pick me.”

    The photos came from the U.S…

    No Ken. That’s not why I’m putting a big fat question mark over this particular talking point.

    …or fuzzy satellite photos of alien faces…

    It’s the “alien faces” bit. Not the U.S bit. That’s the oddball part of it all.

    …it got a certain amount of laughter, probing questions from reporters…

    Which is wonderful…only that’s not how I judge the veracity of information I read on the internet. Monckton has a good old hee haw at some report from NASA on arctic ice coverage? Doesn’t really impress me at all. My standards are better than that. Yours used to be.
    You are evading when I ask you to fact check just one thing.
    Find out where this “alien face on Mars” meme came from and then ask yourself why you decided to give it oxygen.
    Peel back the layers of this particular onion. Do some genuine fact checking.
    It didn’t pop up by magic.

    Cedric, if you are so interested in the characterisation of the U.S. photos then research them yourself.

    Ken, it’s your talking point.
    You put it up on your blog.
    You gave it oxygen.
    Not me.
    You.
    Why would you ask me to “go fish”? That’s not what a skeptic would do.
    I always know where my information comes from….before I put it out there for the world to see. Someone wants to know where it comes from or who said what? No biggie. I’ll happily tell them.
    It’s the honest thing to do. It makes it easy for someone to see if I’m using the right methodology or not.
    And if I get my facts screwed up or my methodology is wrong, I’m big enough to admit it.

    My only memory is that having….

    Nobody is asking you to rely on your memory. You have access to the internet. These things always originate from somewhere. Somebody always gets the ball rolling.

    But that particular diversion doesn’t interest me one iota….

    Spare me the handwaving.
    This is an example of what you are doing.
    One talking point. A talking point you repeated. I’m asking you to fact check it. Don’t need a long soliloqy. No Herculean effort needed.
    Google is at your fingertips.

    ….then research them yourself.

    I have. Which is why I’m asking you to shift yourself and adopt a skeptical methodology. You will probably find what I have found.
    You won’t like it.
    You’ve been used.

    Then go ahead and tell us what you have found. Don’t let your work be wasted. Then we can see for ourselves if we like it or not? And we can make up our minds about the degree to which you or I have been used.

    The burden of proof

    Like

  13. Talking about the “burden of proof” – I think that is a very appropriate criticism of the “the whole world knows” claim which you appear to be oblivious to, Cedric. Or is it an argument you are happy with?

    I have absolutely no irons in the fire on combine harvesters vs artillery pieces in cultivated paddocks. I am not in the game of relying on such dubious fuzzy photos one way or the other. Nor does either interpretation provide a single piece of evidence for a “Russian invasion.”

    I am intrigued with your implications about what you had found. But it is up to your whether you are happy to rely on the “burden of proof” of such an innuendo or actually have something to base your innuendo on.

    But, seriously, the war-mongering conclusions in the Listener editorial must give concern to any intelligent person given that it is based on the “evidence” of “the whole world knows.” Why not address that question?

    Lives are already being snuffed out in Europe and that sort of rhetoric will only make it worse.

    Like

  14. The point is – where is the evidence of Russian invasion of Ukraine or for that matter the downing of MH17 Malaysian airliner? Looks like you Cedric can’t find any so all you can do is ad hominem attacks on Ken.

    Like

  15. Richard, I found a few articles, some referring to a similar earlier photo of areas inside the Russian Federation.

    This article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-seedy-propaga-by-Dave-Lindorff-Propaganda_Propaganda-Wars_Russia_Satellite-Imagery-140909-210.html has some argument and photos, but this one http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/washington-boobs-mistook-combine-harvesters-for-russian-invasion/ has a higher resolution one of the original US State a Department photo.

    I used the search words satellite photo ukraine harvester.

    Here is another reference to these photos, this time their use by NATO

    Like

  16. Talking about the “burden of proof” – I think that is a very….

    I don’t care.
    Clean up your slop. Evasion will not help you.

    I have absolutely no irons in the fire on combine harvesters vs artillery pieces in cultivated paddocks. I am not in the game…..

    This is your blog?
    You’re in charge of the stuff that gets put on here when you hit the return key?
    Then deal.

    But nothing of that here (except the occasional soldier who claims to have lost his way – or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters).
    (…)
    The photo I referred to was one the U.S. claimed showed a number of artillery pieces lined up in a field. The trouble is, once someone on the Internet pointed out they looked more like combine harvesters than artillery (symmetrical positioning and lack of associated boxes of ammunition) it became a but of jokes by reporters.

    You don’t seem to know who this someone is…or indeed why anyone should be paying attention to them. Your sources are MIA. Your methodology is woeful.
    Find out where this “combine harvesters” meme came from and then ask yourself why you decided to give it oxygen.
    It didn’t pop up by magic.

    Why do I have to repeatedly nag you to do the most elementary of factchecking? It’s not that hard.

    I used the search words satellite photo ukraine harvester.

    (Oh for pity’s sake)

    You type in the key words that gives the story legs.
    “combine harvester” “Ukraine” “Artillery”
    Then you hit the return key. It’s not that hard.

    Then, boys and girls, you look for the primary source of information. Who got the ball rolling on the internet? Spit out a name. Then you ask yourself how that person came by the information. Then (and only then) you can make an informed judgement call on whether this talking point deserves oxygen.
    (Spoiler: It doesn’t.)

    Like

  17. Looks like you Cedric can’t find any so all you can do is ad hominem attacks on Ken.

    Where do these morons come from?
    Where?
    You have access to google? So google!
    Before you start shooting your mouth of about ad hominem, how about you find out what it means first?
    Yeah?
    Sound like a good idea?

    Creationists do this. All the time. Climate deniers do this. All the time. Anti-vaxxers do this. All the time. Anti-fluoride nutters do this. All the time.
    What is the problem with you people?
    Learn.
    Stop being so dense.

    Ad Hominem

    Like

  18. Cedric, you are just becoming tiresome again. There is nothing in your obsession with the harvesters/artillery fuzzy photos except your wish to divert attention. And your little lectures about how to search the internet do you no favours.

    I can’t help thinking you are happy to ignore, or cover up, the whoppers behind “all the world knows” and the death and disruption of innocent lives in Ukraine – provided they are ethnically Russian.

    Like

  19. I can’t help thinking you are happy to ignore,….

    I’m asking you to fact check. That’s it. You just keep dragging your feet.
    Shame on you.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Cedric, I have put an update in the post for those who may have been unfamiliar with this particular issue.

    Now let’s move on to something substantive – there is nothing in this little story except an unecessary diversion.

    Like

  21. Thanks Ken, for the links to some photos.

    Before arguing over what the photograph depicts (I’m in no position to judge, but they do look more like harvesters to me):

    Q1 Was the claim even ever made by a US or western military/political source that this photograph depicted artillery? So far I’ve only seen assertion from third parties as to that.

    If yes, then, where and I’d be interested if Cedric would accept such a claim from authorities as being from a reliable source.

    If no, Ken, you may indeed have been ‘had’.

    Like

  22. Richard, my understanding is that this particular photograph was released by the US State Department as evidence to support one of their claims of a recent “invasion.” The logic was that the exact order and orientation indicated highly trained members of the RF armed forces rather than the self defence forces or volunteers.

    Clearly in themselves, even if they were artillery rather than harvesters, they are not evidence of an invasion from the RF and could well be either self defence forces or Kiev army or national guard volunteers and the argument based on order seems rather contrived to me.

    I haven’t followed closely but the photos could have been released by the U..S. ambassador in Kiev (Geoffrey Pratt I think) who is heavily involved and in the habit of passing on this sort of material and actively tweets it. (He apparently was even directing traffic in Kiev during the Maidan demos!).

    There was a similar photo released by the U.S. back in July showing harvesters or artillery pointing westward from inside the RF – they claimed evidence that the RF army was actively shelling Ukrainian territory across the border.

    Frankly I haven’t paid much attention to such “evidence” and counter claims because it is so easy to use such things as propaganda promoting a lie. And, as I keep saying, we all know what a real invasion looks like, there is no need to rely on such weak claims. I am well aware that all of us can be “had” in such situations so tend not to base my understanding on such flimsy things.. There is after all plenty of more authoritative material around to draw conclusions from.

    Really this photo and similar ones, as well as other interpretations of them, are quite irrelevant – although they do give “true believers” on both sides something to hang their beliefs on.

    >

    Like

  23. If the photographs had been released one would expect a responsible journalist would link to the text of the release.

    Dave Lindorff does not – (Big Red Flag)

    He alone appears to be the earliest source of the story from the meagre reference to it on Google.

    Like

  24. Are you suggesting Dave Lindorff manufactured the photo, put the military labelling on it, etc.?

    >

    Like

  25. .Are you suggesting Dave Lindorff manufactured the photo, put the military labelling on it, etc.?

    Why not? it’s a possibility.

    What is certain is that I’ve seen no direct link between the Harvester photo story and any announcement by US authorities.

    Like

  26. Richard, a quick search shows this image in an article on the US Mission to NATO http://usnato.tumblr.com/post/96003086125/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops.

    Their analysis is:

    “Image 2 shows Russian self-propelled artillery units set up in firing positions near Krasnodon, Ukraine. They are supported by logistical vehicles which are likely carrying extra ammunition and supplies. This configuration is exactly how trained military professionals would arrange their assets on the ground, indicating that these are not unskilled amateurs, but Russian soldiers. Russian artillery systems like these have recently shelled Ukrainian positions outside the city of Luhansk in conjunction with a separatist counteroffensive to attempt to break the Ukrainian siege of the city.”

    I really don’t think there is any reason to spend more time in this diversion.

    >

    Like

  27. Ken, you are doing what Lindorff should have done, shame on him.

    As Tumblr feed usnato is an official news site for US mission to NATO, then that’s the link I was asking for.

    So over to Cedric, why does he object so strongly to the suggestion that the photograph might depict objects other than artillery?

    Like

  28. Lindorff may well have linked it in his original article (the article I linked to was a subsequent one).

    Anyway, at the time these images were well circulated to those who were interested and following the issue. I never had any doubts about their authenticity, just their biased interpretation.

    Another interesting aspect of the images like these being circulated is that they don’t come from military sources but from commercial sources. I would expect the US to have really good satellite information but it is not being released. It would be very helpful for the MH17 investigation but it’s not being released. Meanwhile we get reports from press conferences of unidentified US intelligence people who presumable do see the military material yet give stories which don’t support the claims made by Obama.

    >

    Like

  29. Of course I have taken poetic license here about these fuzzy photos.

    The “just kidding” defense? Ew.

    After all, whether these were photos of artillary or combine harvesters is not evidence for or against an invasion.

    So now it doesn’t matter one way or the other? Really?
    Let me remind you what you actually said.

    We could see the evidence. Tanks surging across borders, planes bombing, troops on the ground. But nothing of that here (except the occasional soldier who claims to have lost his way – or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters*).

    When people invade other people, they commonly use artillery.
    It happens.
    So one of the things that military people would do would be to photograph artillery. That would be one of those things that would pop up as part of an invasion. So claiming that “Hey, here’s some happy snaps of artillery” is one of those things that you would expect as part of a case that there really is an invasion going on.
    Otherwise you get…”Oh yeah? Well if the Russians are using artillery, then how come you guys don’t have any photos?”

    Maybe you don’t get that so let me change things a little…

    After all, whether these were photos of flags waving in a vacuum or in a breeze is not evidence for or against a moon landing.
    (…)
    We could see the evidence. Stars in the sky, rockets making craters in the dusty soil, NASA going back again and again to the moon. But nothing of that here (except the occasional rock in a museum that officials claim is from the moon – or fuzzy black-and-white photos of astronauts on a film set*).
    (….)
    I wouldn’t pretend to draw any definite conclusions from these photos…

    Is there a but?
    Do I hear a “but” coming?

    ….but I think Dave Lindorff has a point

    No. Lindorff had nothing. You got conned. He got you to faithfully repeat his meme. The only reason why you found out his name(???) and his actual source of information(???) was because of me. You were clueless. You want to know why stupid stuff gets generated on the internet? Why rumours propogate? It’s because of people like you.
    Your first clue should have been when you refused repeatedly to do the most basic of factchecking.
    It’s not like it was hard or unreasonable.

    Now maybe the released images do show men on the moon, but given Washington’s extensive history of abject lying in the interest of promoting its Cold War agenda (think Gulf of Tonkin, Iran coups and Bay of Pigs, Watergate, etc.), it’s worth taking the claim with a “grain” of…well, in this case actual grain.”

    What happened was this….

    Some guy has a “Hur Hur” moment (presumably) at the expense of the US State Department by…looking at a satellite photo.
    That’s dumb.

    (When I look at a satellite photo, I always remind myself that it’s a satellite photo and remember that I have no training whatsoever in accurately reading satellite photos.
    Oddly enough, I do the same thing for autopsy reports, scientific papers, statistics, graphs of ice sheets, grainy space shots, geological formations, fossils, legal documents etc,etc,etc. The list is endless. I’m just naturally cautious that way.)

    He does this dumb thing because…somebody else (we have no idea who) send him a note going “Hur, Hur, don’t they kinda look like combine harvesters?” so naturally he posts this genius insight on the internet.
    That’s really dumb.
    Then people on the internet give it oxygen and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.
    Some people even embellish it.

    it became a but of jokes by reporters.

    Nope. Didn’t happen.
    It mysteriously grows from one dumbass reporter repeating and speculating on what someone else speculated into multiple mystery reporters.

    Soren Kierkegaard — ‘There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true’.

    Like

  30. Cedric, you are now just being childish.

    Perhaps you should just have a look at the German video and have a good laugh.

    I have not seen such a bad case of avoidance for a long time.

    Like

  31. You were wrong.
    You weren’t skeptical at all until you were badgered into it.
    You even embellished.

    (Probably you would have continued to keep your head firmly stuck in the sand if it hadn’t been for Richard giving an ever-so-cautious prod.)

    The only reason why you now know who sold you this dodgy bill of goods is because of me.
    You’re welcome.

    Like

  32. In the ongoing propaganda campaign mounted by the Obama administration to claim that Russia has “invaded” Ukraine from the east, it…

    This is dumb.
    I’m going to explain to you why it’s dumb. I’m going to explain to you why it’s dumb using small words and simple sentences.
    I’m going to explain it this way because last time I explained to you why trying to establish wiggle room for somebody (anybody!) else shooting down the Malaysian Airliner was daft, you had this ugly habit of creating strawmen.
    You also keep trying to make me the topic somehow.

    So I’m going to break this down for you in baby steps.
    Ready?

    You don’t have to believe anything NASA or the State Department says about the moon landings.
    Nothing.
    If you don’t want to accept the official story of what the big, bad Americans say about the moon landings then…don’t.
    More power to you.

    So what I am now going to say next is not going to contradict what I have just stated.
    Ready?
    OK.

    The moon landings were…big.
    Very big.
    Not possible to fake a moon landing. Can’t be done. Not happening.
    That would be big too.
    When people land on the moon, other people will notice.
    Nor can you fake a moon landing.
    The moon landings were not propoganda.

    I don’t care about the photos or the videos or the moving flag or the multiple shadows or the absence of stars blah, blah, blah.
    I have no need or desire to take you by the hand and lead you through an endless wasteland of half-assed speculations, talking points and anomoly hunting beloved of conspiracy theorists everywhere for any and all giant, global conspiracies out there.
    Don’t want to.
    Don’t need to.
    We can neatly cut through all that never ending waffle.

    All I need to do is point out that it’s really hard to fake big things happening.
    It’s also hard to cover up big things happening.

    The more people that are in a position to observe what is happening, then the harder it gets.
    The longer it keeps happening, the harder it gets.
    The more people supposedly involved, the harder it gets. The more support material needed, the harder it gets. This is the nature of things.

    If you want to fake something or you want to hide something, you need to keep it small and quick with a very limited pool of actors.
    If you can’t do that, then you are screwed.
    You will not be able to keep the curtain drawn.
    You may want to, you may need to but you will not physically be able to.

    I can give you all the money you want. All the help you want. All the time you want. All the power you want.
    Doesn’t matter. It won’t work. Not even hypothetically.

    You want to pursuade me that the Americans are lying to me about the moon landings or some other really, really, really big thing?
    Don’t waste my time pointing to the Gulf of Tonkin. That really doesn’t help you. You can’t get from the Gulf of Tonkin to fake moonlanding. It doesn’t work. Not even a little bit.
    It’s stupid.

    You don’t want to sound like a paranoid kook?
    Then do what other kooks peddling giant conspiracy theories repeatedly fail to do.
    Tell me the “how” of what you think is really going on. What are the nuts and bolts of this grand operation?
    No links necessary. No photos or evidence required.
    Lay out a plausible model.
    Acknowledge the possible risks to your conspiracy and invoke a mechanism to get around it.
    Oh, you want to model your conspiracy on another known, bonafide conspiracy?
    Oh please.
    Go for it.
    Imitate any one you like. Only do it like you mean it. You don’t get to ring the bell and run away.

    The propoganda conspiracy line is pure gobshite. Anybody could see through it.
    …………………………………………………………………………..
    For the deliberately stupid:
    No, I’m not saying you should just trust anything NASA or the Americans say.
    If that’s all you have managed to glean from this post, then you have basic English literacy problems. Try and focus on the words I wrote. Feel free to quote me.

    Like

  33. Cedric,

    IMO moon landing denial is not even a close analogy to the propaganda machines that are associated with all theatres of war.

    You assert that Ken has been duped in regard to the photos. That is a charge over and beyond failure to provide sources for his comments or his questioning of the validity of a description of a photograph. Implicit in that charge is that the US Mission to NATO description is valid and/or Ken has been lied to.

    For this charge, I believe the burden of proof lies with you.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. IMO moon landing denial is not even a close analogy to the propaganda machines that are associated with all theatres of war.

    Then provide a plausible mechanism that doesn’t run foul of the classic conspiracy problems.

    Let’s say the Americans are lying to you about something really big.
    Oh, they are?
    Yep. They’re lying to you about the moon landings.
    Ok, that’s really big.How are they doing it?

    The Americans are lying to you about something really big.
    Oh, they are?
    Yep. They’re lying to you about the Russians invading.
    Ok, that’s really big.How are they doing it?

    Same diff.
    The exact same problems of scale apply.
    If my analogy is in error, then by all means show me why some really big conspiracy gets a free pass as opposed to some other really big conspiracy.

    How do “the Americans” lie about…(wait for it)…a Russian invasion….in Europe?
    Think about it.
    That’s a pretty tall order.
    It makes 9/11 seem teeny-tiny in comparison.
    The Diana assassination? Microscopic.

    There’s no viable mechanism.
    Every and any conspiracy falls down due to the same logistical problems.

    Imagine you had to write a novel about “the Americans” making a critical piece of physical evidence vanish to save political embarassment?
    Could you do it?
    I could. Single pieces of evidence vanish all the time. Not that hard to cobble together a plan to make some evidence or other disappear.

    How about “the Americans” killing someone?
    Yep. I can see how that would happen.

    How about “the Americans” blowing up the World Trade Center complete with fake planes and fake terrorists?
    Um no. Too big. It’s not going to work. I can give you any explosive you want or give you complete control over any spook agency you want that the Americans have. It won’t help you at all.

    How about faking a Russian invasion? In Europe?
    Damn, talk about ambition. How long are you going to keep up the pretence?
    That long? Really?
    Ooookay.
    How?

    You assert that Ken has been duped in regard to the photos.

    I assert that Ken didn’t fact check.
    I’ve demonstrated that.
    Look at what he did.

    I don’t really care about the photos one way or the other.
    It’s not the conclusions that bugs me about this whole mess.
    Well, ok…yes it bugs me but….
    I mean, sure, it’s stupid.
    It’s cringeworthy. It’s not a proud moment.
    It casts Ken in a very bad light that he would even entertain such derp.
    But hey, none of us are perfect.

    It’s the methodology that grinds my gears. How can someone let something like that get past their credibility filter? How can someone….like Ken…let something like that get past them?

    Are we to think that this was a one-off?
    A momentary lapse of skepticism?
    Or is this the new model for Ken?

    We see the classic mistakes of climate deniers all the time.
    I don’t think it’s a good idea to copy their methods even if the topic isn’t scientific.
    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you’re a skeptic, then you can be skeptical about claims and counter-claims of propoganda too, not just science.

    We see the deniers having trouble with primary sources of information.
    We see them cutting-and-pasting stuff blindly off the internet.
    We see them stubbornly refusing to fact check stuff.
    We see them getting all snarky when cornered and shifting the burden of proof.
    We see them trying to handwave and distract.
    We see them trying to make the skeptic the topic of conversation.
    Ken did that all that.

    He meekly repeated a meme from some random chucklehead reporter.
    He even jazzed it up a little to make it sound more legit.

    Plus, how many times have we seen people speaking outside their expertise?
    “Oh, I’m an engineer. You can’t fool me. We use models at work. Those people at NASA blah, blah, blah…”

    So does the chucklehead know the first thing about recon analysis?
    Does his mystery friend who sent the original note?
    How about Ken?
    You?
    Me?
    I’m going to go with “Hell no”.

    Imagine if (by some as yet incomprehensible turn of events) all is revealed that they really were combine harvesters.
    Ken still looks just as bad.
    It’s the methodology, not the conclusions that make a skeptic.
    Switch out the topic for something else. Apply the same bottom-of-the-barrel standards that Ken used. Whack on the same foot-dragging stubborness.
    You end up with a playbook for any denier troll yahoo out there.
    Awful.
    I would never do that. My standards are way higher. I’m a skeptic.

    Like

  35. “IMO moon landing denial is not even a close analogy to the propaganda machines that are associated with driving the US into a war with Iraq.

    You assert that Ken has been duped in regard to the 9/11 footage. That is a charge over and beyond failure to provide sources for his comments or his questioning of the validity of a description of a video. Implicit in that charge is that the US government version of 9/11 is valid and/or Ken has been lied to.
    For this charge, I believe the burden of proof lies with you.”

    Like

  36. Cedric, it could be a cynical joke on your part, but you do sound serious. You say:

    “It’s the methodology, not the conclusions that make a skeptic. Switch out the topic for something else. Apply the same bottom-of-the-barrel standards that Ken used. Whack on the same foot-dragging stubborness. You end up with a playbook for any denier troll yahoo out there. Awful. I would never do that. My standards are way higher. I’m a skeptic.”

    Really, the “self-declared” sceptic and presenter of truth!

    But what has been your “methodology” – labelling a fellow contributor a “moron,” playing the man (me) rather than the ball? And avoiding any facts or evidence – preferring to go with “the whole world knows” and accept uncritically anything from the US State Department, NATO and the Kiev regime – in fact to attack personally anyone who doesn’t fall in with that uncritical acceptance.

    I repeat, I knew for a fact (the whole world knew) when Soviet troops (even Warsaw Pact troops) invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. The evidence was clear, we saw it in action, troops and tanks crossing borders and being confronted by Czech citizens. We didn’t need to rely on shonky and fuzzy commercial satellite photos and political guidance on how to interpret them.

    Now, whatever the reality of the support the Russian Federation provides for the people and militia in the Donbass we have not seen anything like an invasion. In fact, my only recollection of this sort of phenomena was the massive and well documented columns of tanks, apcs, artillery and soldiers moving from the west of Ukraine into the eastern regions in the early days of the conflict. And yes, confrontation by local Ukrainian citizens trying to prevent that movement or shame the soldiers into leaving their vehicles. Just like Czechoslovakia in 1968.

    We had no trouble seeing evidence of the humanitarian convoys sent by Moscow into the Donbass did we? Photos and videos of them massing beforehand and crossing the borders. But nothing like this for military hardware (although I have seen one photo of a solitary APC at a border post – whether it actually crossed I do not know). And don’t give me the excuse of it happening at night – so has at least one of the humanitarian convoys and it was well documented.

    I am happy to accept that some equipment provided to the militia comes across the border at isolated places and maybe even at night. But that is not an “invasion” any more than the military help the US gives to Syrian rebels unofficially is an invasion. (Interestingly, it appears that at least some of the covert military supplies supplied by the U.S. comes from the same sources as the material the Dombass militia are getting).

    I am happy to discuss and debate these issues. But when I see the sort of tactics you use, Cedric, the playing of the man rather than the ball, the attempt to substitute conspiracy issues, etc., I do not see a sceptic. Or someone capable of discussing the question rationally.

    I see a person with political and ideological beliefs who is desperately trying to defend their beliefs (their beliefs not the facts). I do not see a “sceptic.” I am sort of expecting to see you break out into uppercase any minute.

    It is not a surprising or unusual position. We are after all, not a rational species, more a rationalising one. Driven more by beliefs than facts. Unfortunately for many people the words “Russia” and “Russian” seems to produce a Pavlonian response preventing rational discussion.

    >

    Like

  37. Really, the “self-declared” sceptic and presenter of truth!
    But what has been your “methodology” – labelling a…

    Yes, Ken.
    I’m a skeptic. You used to be.
    Do you want to talk about methodologies? Or do you just want to make me the topic of conversation….again?

    You see, I would love to discuss methodologies. That’s what skeptics do. If my methodology for discovering the truth about the combine harvesters meme is better or worse that yours then…there’s a really simple way to resolve that.
    Share.
    Lead us through it.
    How does a real skepic do it? What’s the process?

    And avoiding any facts or evidence –

    I demanded evidence from you. I wanted to know who got the ball rolling right from the get-go. I wanted to know what fact checking you did.
    You evaded like crazy.

    ….labelling a fellow contributor a “moron,”….

    Wha…?

    Like

  38. You may not have recognised the purpose of my post because of your Pavlovian response, Cedric.

    From the beginning it was about methodology,  not combine harvesters.  In particular the the problem of “the whole world knows” method. It is actually very similar to the method you advocate of trusting official political statements or propaganda.

    Like

  39. From the beginning it was about methodology, not combine harvesters.

    Nope.
    I showed up because….

    But nothing of that here (except the occasional soldier who claims to have lost his way – or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters*).

    This was something you wrote. You kept digging and seemed very confident about it. Yet the whole story struck me as…odd. Very odd.
    So naturally, I wanted to find out where this came from.

    But like so much coming from the State Department on Ukraine these days it got a certain amount of laughter, probing questions from reporters, and evasic diversions from spokeswomen like Paski.

    Still have no idea where this came from. When were reporters probing and laughing at Paski in the State Department over combine harvesters? Is there a video of the briefing?

    ….labelling a fellow contributor a “moron,”….

    Wha…?

    Like

  40. Cedric, perhaps you are now so used to automatically using the ad hominem tactic that you are no longer aware when you label a fellow contributor to the discussion a “moron.” It doesn’t exactly enhance you argument and embarrasses others – it’s not required In rational discussion.

    You showed up and reacted emotionally to a little aside of mine because you were having a Pavlovian reaction to my unwillingness to adopt “the whole world knows” approach. Hence you missed the whole point of my post.

    I am aware you may not have watched any of Paski’s performances as you probably don’t have the same interests as me. But I can assure you she is a classic in the “whole world knows” approach and has reacted poorly to reporters’ attempts to get proper evidence from her. Yes she has therefore become a bit of a joke and may well have been sidelined by her employers as a result.

    And no, I am not going to search out videos of her for you – it’s another diversion away from the content of my post. Why do you avoid that?

    >

    Like

  41. I am happy to discuss and debate these issues.

    What are you doing that’s any different from the 9/11 troofers out there or the moon landing deniers?
    They love to discuss their issues too. Their “debates” are endless. It’s “Hey, what about this” and “Hey, look how odd that is” and “Oh come on, that’s a real givaway” etc,etc. It’s almost impossible to get creationists to stop talking about Hackel’s Embryos, for example.

    “I repeat, I knew for a fact (…)The evidence was clear, we saw it in action, (…)We didn’t need to rely on shonky and fuzzy commercial satellite photos and political guidance on how to interpret them.
    (…)In fact, my only recollection of this sort of phenomena was(…)We had no trouble seeing evidence of the(…)And don’t give me the excuse of it (…)I am…”

    This is what you are doing. The evidence just isn’t good enough for you. Based on your recollections and what you expect to see and what you expect the Russians to do, this is an anomoly and that’s an anomoly and, hey, this other thing is an anomoly….so it doesn’t add up for you.

    So…great. Ok.

    Only, why should I just trust you? What’s your methodology? How do you know that you’re right?
    You may feel that you’re right. Yet if you want me to jump on your bandwagon, you going to have to do more that go anomoly hunting and feed me a disjointed stream of talking points.

    I’m going to need a mechanism. You don’t have to provide evidence. You just have to provide a possible/plausible mechanism. If you want to use any known conspiracies as your model to help you then do so. Only provide a mechanism. You can keep the talking points. I don’t need them.

    Conspiracy theory checklist
    Don’t count on converting a conspiracy theorist. However, some questions can determine if a conspiracy theory is warranted or not.

    Logistics
    1.How large is the supposed conspiracy?
    2.How many people are part of this conspiracy?
    3.Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
    4.What infrastructure and resources does it need?
    5.How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
    6.If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
    7.Where are the secret conferences held?
    8.How do they keep track of membership?
    9.If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?

    For instance, the idea that the Nazi themselves set the Reichstag fire would only require handful of men and minimal amount of money to pull off while something like faking the Moon landing would require tens of thousands if not more to carry out; the rock samples alone might require a decade to falsify and filming would take an airtight soundstage orders of magnitude larger than any known vacuum chamber.

    Exposure
    1.How likely is it to remain covered up if it has gone on for a long time?
    2.If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected?
    3.Why have none of them leaked the story?
    4.If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
    5.There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the United States government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (if all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?

    (link)

    Like

  42. You are being childish again, Cedric. You seem unable to discuss the realities of the Ukrainian situation or my post so must drag in irrelevant conspiracies of one sort or another.

    I am not expecting you to trust me, or even objectively consider the ideas, factual material or links I have offered. Nor do I expect you to jump on my bandwagon (I actually don’t go in for bandwagons). The problem is ideological/political – tied up with beliefs. We all know when there are strong beliefs facts are discounted or reorganised to protect the belief.

    It is about time you abandoned such nebulous argument and accepted that I am not going to jump on to your bandwagon (or the NZ Listeners) either. And I certainly don’t trust assurances based on “the whole world knows” or the official propaganda position of any government,

    >

    Like

  43. Cedric, perhaps you are now so used to automatically using the ad hominem tactic that you are no longer aware when you label a fellow contributors to the discussion a “moron.”

    It’s very rare for me to label someone a moron. They’d have to do something stupid. Stupid as in “Darwin recanted his theories on his deathbed” stupid.
    Or quote-mining someone famous.

    I am aware you may not have watched any of Paski’s performances as you probably don’t have the same interests as me.

    To be honest, I’m not really interested in “Paski’s performances”.
    Just the bit about the “probing questions” and the “certain amount of laugher” from “journalists” on the combine harvester story.

    And no, I am not going to search out videos of her for you – it’s another diversion away from the content of my post.

    It’s that…well…I don’t think that it happened. I think you’re indugling in “poetic licence”.

    Let me ask you a simple question. OK?
    Just a simple yes or no will do.

    Do you remember watching the video of the press conference yourself?

    Like

  44. I am not expecting you to trust me, or even objectively consider the ideas, factual material or links I have offered.

    Yet you continue to offer up talking points. This, that and the other.
    How is that any different from the Troofers, for example?

    It is about time you abandoned such nebulous argument.

    It’s called skepticism, Ken. It’s a valid methodology when dealing with conspiracy theorists. It works. If the conspiracy theorist can’t come up which a viable mechanism (even if you give them a completely free hand) then there’s no need to take them seriously.
    I didn’t come up with this.
    It’s a standard approach. It saves a lot of time.
    Click the links for yourself. None of it is from me.

    You react to it exactly as a Troofer would.

    And I certainly don’t trust assurances based on “the whole world knows” or the official propaganda position of any government….

    Yep. No need to change a thing.

    Like

  45. As I said Cedric, you have become so used to using the ad hominem tactic you are no longer aware of doing it – it looks like my link didn’t take for some reason here is what you said “Where do these morons come from?” Perhaps an apology is in order?

    I know it upsets you that I continue to make my arguments and provide my evidence. Well you should grow up – the world is not obliged to become silent when you disagree with it, or even with an individual. It is up to you whether you choose to part image in a rational debate or to go off at a tangent about conspiracies and abuse those who disagree with you.

    I am sure if you choose to, or are able to, present your own ideological political position in the Ukraine debacle I would disagree with you. But I hope I wouldn’t end up being abusive or lecturing childishly about conspiracies. I would actually welcome a rational discussion on the issue.

    The trouble is this bloody Pavlovian response.

    >

    Like

  46. As I said Cedric, you have become so used to using the ad hominem tactic you are no longer aware of doing it….

    Quote the ad hominem. Do I need to post the video?

    Like

  47. “I know it upsets you that I continue to make my arguments and provide my evidence for 9/11. Well you should grow up – the world is not obliged to become silent when you disagree with it, or even with an individual. It is up to you whether you choose to part image in a rational debate or to go off at a tangent about conspiracies and abuse those who disagree with you.

    I am sure if you choose to, or are able to, present your own ideological political position in the 9/11 debacle I would disagree with you. But I hope I wouldn’t end up being abusive or lecturing childishly about conspiracies. I would actually welcome a rational discussion on the issue.”

    Like

  48. Let me ask you a simple question. OK?
    Just a simple yes or no will do.

    Do you remember watching the video of the press conference yourself?

    Like

  49. I have quoted and provided a link, Cedric. It is now up to you.

    Yes, I do remember Paski’s press conference – I have watched a few of hers on this topic. She is always entertaining, particularly in her response to reporters’ questions.

    But of course that is another silly diversion.

    Like

  50. No, focus.
    If you’re going to claim that someone committed an ad hominem then…you quote the ad hominem bit.
    Do it.
    Otherwise you are just doing what the creationsts/climate deniers/anti-vaxxers do all the time when they whine about “ad hominem attacks” and end up with sheepish handwaving when challenged.

    They can’t. Because they don’t really understand what an ad hominem actually means. It’s never once happened on this blog or any other blog that I have ever used a real ad hominem.
    It’s not my style.
    On the other hand, it is very much my style to rub my hands with glee when someone falsely accuses me of making an ad hominem.
    (Just ask Richard. He usually enjoys it just as much as me when it happens. And it happens a lot.)

    I get all sarcastic. I even post simple step-by-step videos to explain to them and the general public what they are doing wrong.

    So…since we both know what to expect well before it happens…how about you do yourself a favour and refresh your memory on what an ad hominem means as opposed to what you think it means?
    Then quote my ad hominem.

    Or you could just apologise to me for making a bit of a boo boo.

    Like

  51. Yes, I do remember Paski’s press conference.

    So…it really did happen? Really?
    You watched that conference with your own two eyes?
    OK.
    So do you remember where you watched it?
    Or when? A rough date will do.
    Was it from, for example, the State Department website? Or would that be unlikely since you don’t normally click that site?

    I really want to watch it myself. If I can find it, I’ll be the very first to offer a full and frank apology for thinking that maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t exist.

    Like

  52. Cedric, it should have been obvious to you long ago I don’t give a stuff whether you believe Paski gave the press conference I remember or not. It’s a silly diversion you are using in an attempt to avoid the content of my post. If you want to watch it yourself have a search for it on YouTube or elsewhere. It’s past history for me and I won’t bother with it further.

    We have already been through this exercise with the fuzzy satellite photos when you doubted their existence. You should have realised from that the pointlessness of such questioning.

    Similarly you are making yourself look foolish by pretending to not see the information I have provided on your ad hominem attack. You are obviously not going to man-up and apologise but you make yourself look even worse to readers when they see such puerile avoidance.

    Now, I don’t expect you to consider the content of my post or discuss it rationally. I fully understand that individuals have different beliefs, ideological/political stances which affect their whole understanding of the Ukraine tragedy. That doesn’t worry me. But come off it – this silliness you are promoting does nobody any good.

    Why not just say what you think?

    >

    Like

  53. Cedric, my apologies for not getting back sooner, I see you and Ken have both written much in the interim, much that I haven’t yet read.

    But back to our last exchange, I’m not going to get diverted into the moon landing denier analogy, I don’t accept it. If necessary perhaps we can come back to it, after you fairly address some of your earlier claims.

    You wrote that Ken had been used. Yet, in support only wrote about failures you perceive in his methodology.

    To be used requires something or somebody to do the using.

    Who, or what, used Ken?

    Then, perhaps, we can get to the why.

    BTW. Ken and I are very familiar with you take downs of the gullible. A great deal of it involves rhetoric, much of which can be witty and amusing. I also understand you write to an audience. But I do think that long winded derisive rhetoric when addressing Ken and myself is being counter productive.

    Like

  54. Who, or what, used Ken?

    Ken got gulled into repeating something without doing the most basic of fact checking.
    The original claimant is unknown.
    The first idiot to succumb to the Dunning-Kruger Effect and then put it on his blog is Lindorff. He got people to take his claim at face value and repeat it.
    So I’d put most of the blame on Lindorrf.

    It doesn’t look like it really took off, so it’s possible this meme will die a mercifully early death. However the damage is done. Nobody should be getting their information this way. This is how crap spreads on the internet.

    I’m not going to get diverted into the moon landing denier analogy, I don’t accept it.

    I understand that you don’t accept it.
    Only it’s not your conclusions that are important.
    It’s your methodology.
    I’d like to know why you don’t accept it.
    It appears watertight.

    The methodology that I adopted and used works very well. You yourself were there when Andy sung his swan song on this blog and really, really didn’t want ” to get diverted” on how it would be even physically possible to do a switcheroo with the IPCC graph. It totally flummoxed him.
    He completely spat the dummy.
    Had you not approved of my methodology, I’m sure you or Ken would have spoken up and set me right at the time.

    Cedric:
    ” Fiddling, massaging, sexing up, fraud (But na, you’re just being ironic)
    It’s all political but what politics and where this politics is from is all so very vague.
    You’re happy to talk about a consensus until you’re not.
    Then it’s all a big mystery.
    How does it work? No idea.
    What exactly is going on according to you? No idea.
    What’s the big woop about some footnote? Go fish.
    You’re all over the place like a mad woman’s custard.”

    Richard:
    ” I imagine in the unlikely event that someone else is reading this thread, they got it, a long time ago.
    And yet, still no one knows how all the Dr Evils cover their tracks.”
    (..)

    Cedric:
    “If you think they’re up to no good.
    Then:
    a) figure out who the “they” are.
    b) Figure out the actual crime as opposed to vague, hand-waving allusions.
    c) GIve us a step by step possible account of how (they?it? them?) are doing whatever it is you suspect.
    It can’t be that hard. You, at least, should be able to figure out what you yourself really believe is going on.”
    (..)

    Richard:
    “Oh sorry, the switchity hokus pokus goes on at the IPCC and is due to random evil doers because there is no conspiracy. But no one corrects it at any stage because they are all greenie eco fascists anyway, happy to see old people die as a result, so long as they continue to ride a funding gravy train.
    But at NASA it’s the marketing dept that’s misrepresenting NASA’s science and the scientists don’t notice. Or maybe they do but don’t think it important or they are afraid they might lose their jobs if they are difficult about integrity etc. All of them.”

    It saves an awful lot of time. It’s very fair. It short-circuits any attempt to recycle PRATTs. And so far, there’s not a single false positive.
    Check it out for yourself again. If you are genuinely uncomfortable with this methodology, then test it again.

    Take a conspiracy that we can all agree is complete rubbish.
    Does the methodology dismiss it?
    Take a conspiracy that we can all agree is legit.
    Does the methodology give it a pass?

    Like

  55. Similarly you are making yourself look foolish by pretending to not see the information I have provided on your ad hominem attack.

    I don’t get it. You haven’t quoted an ad hominem. All you’ve done is link to my response to whatshisname when they stupidly accused me of….attacking you with an ad hominem. (???)

    I don’t do ad hominems. I never have. I don’t approve of them.

    If you want me to apologise for using an ad hominem then…great.
    I’d do it.
    Just as soon as….you quote the ad hominem bit.

    Put quotation marks around it. Make it clear. What part of anything that I said at any time is even remotely an ad hominem?

    Let me help you with that. I shouldn’t have to post this yet again. You of all people should be really, REALLY clear on what does and does not make an ad hominem.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Like

  56. We have already been through this exercise with the fuzzy satellite photos when you doubted their existence.

    Wha…?
    I doubted the existence of the satellite photos?
    No. Um……just no.
    You really shouldn’t misrepresent me like that.
    I don’t see how any honest person could draw that conclusion.

    If I had doubted the…existence of satellite photos….then I’d make sure you knew about it loud and clear.
    I’d say something like “How do you even know these photos exist?”
    You’ve done this before.

    The photos came from the US…

    No Ken. That’s not why I’m putting a big fat question mark over this particular talking point.

    I don’t give a stuff whether you believe Paski gave the press conference…

    No Ken. That’s not what I’m questioning. I’m questioning your apparently….unique….version of events.
    If you said ” Paski gave a press conference” I wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
    If you said ” Paski gave a press conference, someone said something about combine harvesters” then..well…ok. Not terribly remarkable at all.
    Only that not what you said.

    But nothing of that here (except the occasional soldier who claims to have lost his way – or fuzzy satellite photos of combine harvesters*).
    (…)
    But like so much coming from the State Department on Ukraine these days it got a certain amount of laughter, probing questions from reporters, and evasic diversions from spokeswomen like Paski.

    See?
    Done some digging and so far…nothing.

    (…time passes…)

    (…more time passes….)

    Ok, so here’s an update.
    State Department has a website. They lay out all their press briefings on a calendar schedule. A viewer can click the video of the briefing or click the transcript.
    Clicking the transcript takes you to list of contents where everything is divided up into topics. Syria, N. Korea etc.
    There’s two briefers. Psaki and Harf. They take turns but not at the same briefing.
    So I looked at all the briefings hosted by Psaki.
    Looked at all the briefings starting from July 28 to Sept 30.
    Psaki did 13 of them.
    Whenever any key words showed up in the transcript such as “artillery” or “combine harvesters” or “harvesters” or “farm equipment”, I’d double check and listen to the video itself.
    (NB: “Combine harvesters”, “harvesters” and “farm equipment” were never mentioned.)

    Well maybe Ken got the wrong briefer? OK.
    So I checked all of Harf’s briefings.
    Zip.

    One more thing. I noticed that all the transcripts was kinda pedantic in a detailed and very useful sense. They didnt just cover the words spoken. They also covered things like laughter from the reporters. Video shots were also helpful during the odd moments of mirth.
    Psaki seemed in her element. Reporters did laugh at stuff but she’d laugh too. It’s seemed, well, mundane.

    So…yeah. As far as I can tell, based on video evidence and transcripts from the State Department, something is amiss with Ken’s version of events.

    Maybe I missed a briefing somehow. Maybe I skipped over one accidentally. Only the transcripts do pop up on google searches for key words.
    By all means, check my results but…
    (shrug)

    Like

  57. “Paski seemed in her element?” And I, together with a lot of commenters on Twitter, see exactly the opposite! Well it really does confirm how what one sees is very much conditioned by what one already beliefs. (And it confirms the pointlessness of such diversions – except if you want to avoid the real issues – why else attempt to dominate the discussion with asides instead of discussing the real content of the post).

    Similarly, Cedric, you don’t see anything wrong in calling someone a “moron” and your continual playing the man rather than the ball. That demonstrates an inability to appreciate how your behaviour may be seen by others, or indeed appreciate when you are reacting inappropriately.

    I guess that is consistent with relying on “the whole world knows” argument. Why bother with facts if you are confident with the rightness of your beliefs.

    Problem is, it doesn’t work in a calm rational discussion where people are interested more in facts than opinions. And in the Ukrainian situation that approach is part of the problem, not the solution.

    Like

  58. Richard has characterised Cedric’s position as claiming I have been “duped” regarding the propaganda photos circulated by the U.S. and NATO. I think I have made clear that while the objects in the photos look to me more like combine harvesters than artillery I did not profess to know one way or the other. In fact that is the same position that the people who reported the comparison had. It’s a sensible and open-minded position. There is no question of my being “duped.” (More of sensible people refusing to be “duped” by US propaganda).

    My point in this discussion has always been that it makes no difference – whatever the objects in the photos they are not evidence of an invasion (that is how NATO and the U.S. used the photos). We all know what real invasions look like and such fuzzy photos do not demonstrate anything like that. More, their use demonstrates the absence of any real evidence for the claim.

    But the real content of my post was about people being duped by such crude propaganda – and the video showed how some Germans are reacting to this manipulation. I myself personally object strongly to being told how to think or what to believe in such a crude manner – and yes that goes back to the war in Vietnam and the Tonkin Gulf incident

    The other message of my post was my disgust that a respectable journal like the NZ Listener had fallen into such crude propaganda tactics as to use “the whole world knows” gambit. To behave like that over the MH17 tragedy shows an inhumane attitude which places politics and ideology over human decency. It is pathetic to see people use this tragedy in such a vulgar way.

    The irony of this is that Vladimir Putin, who has been much maligned, even blamed for the MH17 tragedy, in the early days asked that politicians stop trying to make political capital out of the deaths of so many innocent people. There is something wrong with one’s approach when the object of one’s derision occupies the moral high ground on the issue.

    Like

  59. On reviewing some of the comments here I was amused that Cedric wrote that I used to be a skeptic, but declared I was no longer one. Amused because I was recently asked to join the NZ Skeptics group and effectively declined. The truth is that I have never been a Skeptic (note the capital) and responded to the request by saying I am not a joiner. Because I preferred to do my own thinking and inevitably belonging to a group meant one is pressured by group thinking. I gave the example of NZ Skeptics who had taken sides defending Rebecca Watson’s silly claims about evolutionary psychology.

    Even self-declared skeptics can be very unsceptical. Which is just say they are human.

    I think this discussion also illustrates this point,

    Like

  60. Ken

    Richard has characterised Cedric’s position as claiming I have been “duped” regarding the propaganda photos circulated by the U.S. and NATO.

    Yes, I used the term duped. Cedric actually wrote “You’ve been used.”
    I think my characterisation of his charge against you is correct.

    Cedric.

    We have some some progress. At least we can stop the trail at Lindorff.

    You still haven’t substantiated the charge above of using Ken. It requires motive.

    Lindorff has as much right to question what is in the photos as the US Mission to NATO has to suggest that they are artillery pieces. As a journalist it is his job to question authority.

    I find myself in almost total agreement with Ken in that there is no case to answer in regard to giving the question as to doubt legs by mentioning it in a discussion. None, that is, aside from failing to link to the identity of the source of the doubt. It should have been done, it wasn’t, it has since corrected in comments.

    We can thank you for that outcome.

    It still possible that it is merely a photo of combine harvesters.

    Like

  61. You still haven’t substantiated the charge above of using Ken. It requires motive.

    Someone posts something bogus on the internet. Someone else falls for it.
    They got used. Happens all the time. In this case, it happened to Ken. It doesn’t show him in a good light. This is how crap spreads on the internet. People don’t fact check.
    I didn’t get used.
    Ken’s story of the State Department smelt bad to me. So I checked it out.
    The results speak for themselves.

    It still possible that it is merely a photo of combine harvesters.

    Well, anythings “possible” if your imagination is fertile enough. There are people who think it’s possible that there’s a giant face on Mars. People see things in satellite photos that are not really there. Especially if they perhaps really want to see them. Paredolia: not just a pretty word.
    I’m skeptical that way.
    If some no-name blog tells me that “HEY! Y’know this kinda…I mean…if you squint at it and hold it up to a bright light…it looks a bit like beams from a giant boat from say…5500 years ago” then the first thing I would do is to get verification. Who else out there is saying the same thing? Is it just other no-name idiots? Is AIG touting this one? If that’s the case then, sure…it possibly maaaaaaaay be the Ark but…..nah, I’m going to need just a bit more verification than that.
    I’m sure as hell not going to give it oxygen.
    Nor am I going to be inspired to weave a personal narrative of some State Department offical fielding questions about it from multiple reporters who are having a good old giggle at her expense.
    That would be…wrong.
    People might believe that and take me at my word. Then I would be responsible for misleading people.

    “Andy has as much right to question what is in the graphs as the IPCC has to suggest that they are evidence of climate change. As a thinking individual it is his job to question authority”

    I find myself in almost total agreement with Ken in that there is no case to answer in regard to giving the question as to doubt legs by mentioning it in a discussion.

    Then provide a mechanism. Let’s say that those satellite photos really, really are…combine harvesters.
    Go for it. How does that work in the real world?
    You’ve done the google searches for yourself.
    Account for them.

    If necessary perhaps we can come back to it, after you fairly address some of your earlier claims.

    That would be nice. When can we start?

    Like

  62. Someone posts something bogus on the internet.Someone else falls for it.
    They got used. …i n this case, it happened to Ken.

    You haven’t established that it was bogus.

    Like

  63. Of course a presentation which is just as reasonable (at least) is that the US posted something bogus. In fact, irrespective of the subjects in the photo, the analysis is clearly bogus as it is not evidence of an invasion.

    Governments promote bogus stuff all the time – only fools and dogmatists accept such things uncritically as Cedric appears to have. I will be charitable and say he is not a fool. But ideology and political belief easily become dogmatic.

    In this case it is the US sycophants who appear to have lapped things up uncritically. The other commenters we have discussed here, including me and Richard, have all said their minds are open. The objects could be artillery or they could be harvesters. They are just not proof of an invasion.

    So who have the healthy attitudes – those with open minds who are prepared to consider possibilities and not take governments claims as fact – especially in a conflict situation like Ukraine. Or those who blindly accept a government’s partisans claims uncritically but call the,selves a skeptic?

    >

    Like

  64. And I, together with a lot of commenters on Twitter, see exactly the opposite!

    Did any of them see this mystery video of yours? Maybe you can ask one of them to track it down for you? Sent out at Twitter alert or something. I mean, somebody else must have seen it too, right? It’s famous, right?
    Just post the the briefing link and I’ll watch it. Heck, I’ll even read the transcript. Then, when it’s clear that you were right all along, I’ll make a full and frank apology to you for putting a big, fat question mark over it.
    Can’t do fairer than that.

    Similarly, Cedric, you don’t see anything wrong in calling someone a “moron” and your continual playing the man rather than the ball.

    What’s wrong is to accuse someone of making an ad hominem…when they didn’t. It’s stupid. It promotes ignorance of the term itself. It’s also really annoying.
    I call those kinds of people morons all the time.
    That’s because they’re acting like morons.
    You have never objected before.

    When someone accuses me (or even you) of making an ad hominem, my methodology is simple and effective and very, very fair.

    I tell them to quote the statement in question. Spell out for all to see this so-called “ad hominem”.
    Then demonstrate that it’s really an ad hominem.
    I always warn them to double check what the term “ad hominem” means before they go off half-cocked.
    Heck, to make it really easy, I even provide a rich variety of videos that they can pick from to help them understand the hole they have dug for themselves.

    Do you know how they always react?
    They react just like you do.

    You owe me an apology. And whashisname too. Y’know, the moron.
    What is an ad hominem? What isn’t?

    Like

  65. You haven’t established that it was bogus.

    There’s no evidence. It’s just some guy on the internet shooting his mouth off. It’s certainly not worth repeating. It’s bogus until demonstrated otherwise.

    ‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’- Christopher Hitchens

    Like

  66. “Of course a presentation which is just as reasonable (at least) is that the US posted something bogus. In fact, irrespective of the subjects in the photo, the analysis is clearly bogus as it is not evidence of a terrorist attack bringing down the World Trade Center..

    Governments promote bogus stuff all the time – only fools and dogmatists accept such things uncritically as Cedric appears to have. I will be charitable and say he is not a fool. But ideology and political belief easily become dogmatic.

    In this case it is the US sycophants who appear to have lapped things up uncritically. The other commenters we have discussed here, including me and Richard, have all said their minds are open. The buildings could be destroyed by aircraft or they could be controlled demolitions. They are just not proof of a terrorist attack.

    So who have the healthy attitudes – those with open minds who are prepared to consider possibilities and not take governments claims as fact – especially in a conflict situation like Iraq. Or those who blindly accept a government’s partisans claims uncritically but call the,selves a skeptic?”

    Like

  67. Cedric, your memory is failing. I have several times had to pull you and Andy up together when things have got out of hand. I agree I should have done it more often.

    I really don’t like to get into banning people or interfering with discussions but of late I have considered the wisdom of introducing a few rules to guide me in moderation. And make clear to commenters where they stand. The reason being that when discussions become abusive or pointless they turn other readers off the blog. I don’t want that.

    Certainly one such rule would be to hold back any comment accusing other commenters of being a moron.

    It is sad to see you attempt to avoid the mild point that you were using ad hominem to avoid the real problem – your inability to provide evidence of an invasion. And then to simply use ad hominem again by labelling your discussion partner a “moron.”

    But, in the end as the owner of the blog, and as I am interested in providing an atmosphere which doesn’t turn people away, I am seriously considering being more proactive on this problem.

    I am not a fool. I understand how you having been using the ad hominem tactic and find your justifications childish.

    >

    Like

  68. There’s no evidence. It’s just NATO on the internet shooting their mouths off. It’s certainly not worth repeating. It’s bogus until demonstrated otherwise.

    Like

  69. Well Cedric it is quite simple. As you quote “‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    Considering these photos are not evidence of an invasion we can safely dismiss the US assertion. A good intelligent approach.

    When evidence is produced of an invasion I will accept it. But this isn’t evidence.

    >

    Like

  70. There’s no evidence. It’s just NATO on the internet shooting their mouths off. It’s certainly not worth repeating. It’s bogus until demonstrated otherwise.

    Doesn’t work. You haven’t provided a mechanism.

    In my world, some guy on the internet saying something about a graph or a satellite photo or moon video footage is not the same thing as NASA or NATO or the IPCC or the CDC saying something about a graph or a satellite photo or moon landing video footage.

    Like

  71. In your world, Cedric, do you place the U.S. government and the Kiev government in the same class as NASA and the IPC? I guess you do because you include NATO! Then why not the government’s of NZ, Malaysia and the Russian Federation.

    Yet you call yourself a “skeptic.” Where are your crticial facilities? Why do you quote Hitchens when you will accept assurances without evidence?

    Like

  72. Doesn’t work. You haven’t provided a mechanism.

    No mechanism eh?

    You can’t be serious.
    Propaganda has been an integral feature of war since time immemorial.

    The first casualty of war is truth … etc blah blah

    Like

  73. “Well Cedric it is quite simple. As you quote “‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    Considering these photos are not evidence of a moon landing we can safely dismiss the US assertion. A good intelligent approach.
    When evidence is produced of a moon landing I will accept it. But this isn’t evidence.”

    It’s not your conclusions that matter Ken. It’s your methodology.
    There’s no reason why anyone should take your word for anything. You have to stop behaving like the nutters.
    Stop validating the way they go about things.
    Someone wants to convince me that “the Americans” are up no good?
    That would be fairly easy to do.
    There are plently of examples from real life.
    A really good way to convince me is to use them as a model.
    A really bad way to convince me is to simply invoke them in a heated rush and yell “TA-DAAA!”

    Step one: Provide a mechanism.

    Like

  74. In your world, Cedric, do you place the U.S. government and the Kiev government in the same class as NASA and the IPC?

    They face the same problems. Think about it. If you can construct a mechanism that would explain what you think is “really” going on then…do so. Just do a better job than Andy.

    Like

  75. You have a real thing about the US, Cedric and it clouds your judgement. You don’t happen to work for the US government, do you?

    If there were evidence for an invasion. If the armed forces of the RF similar to evidence for the moon landings I would certainly accept it. But there isn’t.

    You are blind if you equate the two.

    >

    Like

  76. General Colin Powell UN Speech on Iraq Part 1of5

    “One of the Greatest Historical Lies of the century, that makes it possible for USA to invade another country (with huge resources of black gold). At the end: No weapons or terrorist connections found.”

    Like

  77. Propaganda has been an integral feature of war since time immemorial.

    That’s true. Only you have to provide a mechanism.
    How do you fake a Russian invasion?
    It’s a problem of scale.
    Think about it.
    Can you even imagine how you would go about such a thing?

    (link)

    Like

  78. You have a real thing about the US, Cedric and it clouds your judgement. You don’t happen to work for the US government, do you?

    Oh the irony.
    Shame on you.

    Ad Hominem

    Like

  79. “If there were evidence for a terrorist attack. If Al Quaeda was similar to evidence for the moon landings I would certainly accept it. But there isn’t.”

    Only the labels change.
    All conspiracy theories face the same basic problems.

    One group wants to claim that “the Americans” are lying to them sounds a lot like another group claiming that “the Americans” are lying to them.
    You have to have a method for sorting out the sheep from the goats.

    One really simple way is to (at a minimal hypothetical level) is to have a mechanism. If that group can’t even do that, then it’s ok to point and laugh at them.

    Like

  80. “One of the Greatest Historical Lies of the century, that makes it possible for USA to invade another country (with huge resources of black gold). At the end: No weapons or terrorist connections found.

    Richard, if you want to use the Iraq war propoganda mechanism as your model for faking the Russian Invasion then do so. Grab a cup of coffee and think about the similarities. Then think about the differences. Then try and work around the basic logistics of the task. Remember the problems of scale.
    Treat it with the same due dillgence as you would putting together a plot line for a good novel.
    You don’t have to limit yourself to just one model from some verified conspiracy. Feel free to create a hybrid from one or more historical conspiracies out there that we would probably both accept.
    Give it your best skeptical shot.
    I already have.

    Like

  81. How do you fake a Russian invasion? It’s a problem of scale.

    Much the same as faking WMDs or claims to the throne or the need for lebensraum.

    Big lies, little lies. Lots of lies or only a few targeted lies.

    In the end, lies are lies are lies are propaganda.

    Lies to the gullible who are only to happy to believe it’s the good guys (their side) vs the evil doers.

    Like

  82. It is sad to see you attempt to avoid the mild point that you were using ad hominem to avoid the real problem….

    It’s sad that you refuse to quote the ad hominem part. Do it.

    And then to simply use ad hominem again by labelling your discussion partner a “moron.”

    You can’t create an ad hominem attack by calling someone a moron.
    Ad hominem attacks don’t work like that.
    You are confused.

    I understand how you having been using the ad hominem tactic and find your justifications childish.

    Your personal, private meaning of what “ad hominem” means to you is of no interest to me. I’ll stick with the reality-based community and the multiple examples of easy-to-understand examples of how ad hominem works. There are even videos about this.

    You are in the wrong. You owe me an apology. What do I have to do? Draw you a map in crayon?

    Like

  83. Well surely the facts show that it is easy to fake an invasion of RF forces convincing enough for the faithful at least. Just take some photos of objects in a field – they could just be harvester or maybe even real artillery. We know both are in Ukraine (bugger it – it doesn’t even have to be Ukraine). And then claim this is evidence of an invasion.

    I know, not at all convincing to the open minded who are well aware what an invasion looks like. But it seems to fool some people.

    Cedric,my our methodology is non existent. You are just a true believer.

    >

    Like

  84. “How do you fake a Russian invasion? It’s a problem of scale.”

    Much the same as faking WMDs or claims to the throne or the need for lebensraum.

    Wonderful. Then you have two models to work with. I look forward to you presenting your model. I just don’t think you can do it.
    I certainly couldn’t.

    Like

  85. Cedric, a simple answer yes or no would suffice. The trouble is this sounds like an evasion.

    “Oh the irony. Shame on you.”

    Could I include NATO in the question?

    >

    Like

  86. Regarding ad hominem attacks and the “moron” label – I am not going to discuss it. If I do set up rules stopping that sort of behaviour it is going to be time consuming enough without debating the issue with the perpetrators. In the end it is my responsibility, as others have been telling me.

    >

    Like

  87. Well surely the facts show that it is easy to fake an invasion of RF forces convincing enough for the faithful at least. Just take some photos of objects in a field – they could just be harvester or maybe even real artillery.

    When you say “faithful”, who do you mean?
    (Problems of scale, remember?)

    Do you really believe that it’s possible to fake a Russian invasion with some photos of objects in a field? That would be…convenient and very cheap but it doesn’t sound very accurate. Surely there’s a bit more to it than that?

    We know both are in Ukraine…

    That’s true. There are many things in the Ukraine. Where are you going with this line of thought?

    Like

  88. Regarding ad hominem attacks and the “moron” label – I am not going to discuss it.

    You are in the wrong and you are not big enough to admit it.
    You are a hypocrite.
    Shame on you.

    Like

  89. Cedric, you ask “Do you really believe that it’s possible to fake a Russian invasion with some photos of objects in a field?”

    My answer, definitely not. I am not that foolish. But this is what NATO and the U.S. claim with exactly that evidence, nothing more. People repeat it as if it were convincing? Many people want to believe this conclusion so they will accept anything as “evidence.” And I thought you were supporting the US/NATO analysis.

    But if not, then this discussion has been about nothing. You now accept these images are not evidence of an invasion. Hopefully you also accept the argument “the whole world knows” is also not evidence for an invasion, for shooting down a commercial airliners, and all the other conclusions the media seems to draw.

    >

    Like

  90. Then you have two models to work with.

    I think you misunderstand.

    Specific models don’t come into it.

    But there are well worn principles in propaganda, including demonising the enemy, downplaying or ignoring one’s own side’s culpability etc

    Much of which appears to be happening in much western commentary regarding the Ukraine.

    (…over and out for now, it’s Friday evening)

    Like

  91. You now accept these images are not evidence of an invasion.

    How did you come to such a curious conclusion?

    “Cedric, you ask “Do you really believe that it’s possible to fake a moon landing with some photos of astronauts in a TV studio?”

    “My answer, definitely not. I am not that foolish. But this is what NASA and the U.S. claim with exactly that evidence, nothing more. People repeat it as if it were convincing? Many people want to believe this conclusion so they will accept anything as “evidence.” And I thought you were supporting the US/NASA analysis.

    But if not, then this discussion has been about nothing. You now accept these images are not evidence of a moon landing. Hopefully you also accept the argument “the whole world knows” is also not evidence for a moon landing, that terrorists brought down the world trade center and all the other conclusions the media seems to draw.”

    Like

  92. But there are well worn principles in propaganda, including demonising the enemy, downplaying or ignoring one’s own side’s culpability etc
    Much of which appears to be happening in much western commentary regarding the Ukraine.

    Sure, only faking a Russian invasion would be…well…big.
    I don’t see how it could work.
    The planning involved alone would be huge. How do you even go about starting to plan something like that? Who would be in charge? Who’s the Dr Evil?
    Obama?
    Oh please, say it’s Obama.😉
    I’d pay real money to know how he would fake a Russian Invasion in Europe.

    Every known conspiracy that’s been verified and can be used as an example of “the Americans” doing something bad….has a mechanism.
    You can go through the conspiracy checklist (that I so helpfully provided) and tick the boxes and demonstrate that it could at least physically work.

    You want to use it for the Iraq War? Yep, it will work.
    The Gulf of Tonkin? Yep, it will work.
    Faking moon landings? Not so much.
    Faking 9/11? Not so much.
    Faking a (gulp) Russian Invasion? No.

    There’s no mechanism.

    “I think you misunderstand.
    Specific models don’t come into it.
    But there are well worn principles in propaganda, including demonising the enemy, downplaying or ignoring one’s own side’s culpability etc
    Much of which appears to be happening in much western commentary regarding 9/11.
    (…over and out for now, it’s Friday evening)”

    Like

  93. Hilarious! This is like being at the Mad Hatters Tea Party. An early night is a good call Cedric.
    Signed ‘Moron’

    Like

  94. Signed ‘Moron’

    The truth often hurts. I’m just sorry you don’t understand English and Latin terminology as well as I do. Google is not your friend.

    Ad Hominem

    Like

  95. An early night is a good call Cedric.

    You do realise that…I just cut-and-pasted Richard to make a point, right?
    The call is not “mine”.

    There are several clues:

    1)the text you are referring to is in italics.
    2)then there’s the quotation marks.
    3) Plus, if you use that scroll wheel thingy on your mouse, you can scroll up just a little teeny tiny bit and see Richard’s original comment and compare.

    Signed ‘Moron’

    Well, you don’t exactly come across as the sharpest tool in the box.
    (shrug)

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s