View Single Post
Old 23rd October 2017, 03:13 PM   #195
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,674
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
If we're going to assume for the discussion's sake that the AP didn't just completely invent the recording on its own, logically there can have been only two possible sources for the various recordings - the government investigators, or the victims who made them.

In the original article, the AP says it "has learned" that the recordings were being analyzed by the US Navy. Again, if this isn't a complete invention by the AP, it's the kind of fact that can only have come from a government source familiar with that development. This necessarily indicates that the government is in possession of the recordings. So the matter must be: either the alleged victims who made the recordings gave copies of them to the government and other copies of them to the AP, or the victims turned the recordings over to the government and a source involved in the government investigation gave copies to the AP.

The AP reports that it has played the recordings for some of the alleged victims who reported hearing sounds during their supposed incidents, and those victims positively recognized the sound in the recordings. Again, unless this is utter fiction, that makes it logically unlikely that the AP or whomever gave the recordings to the AP fabricated them.
There are other possible sources: Cuban government, Cuban spies, family of victims, Canadian embassy, Swiss Embassy, French Embassy, talented North Korean hacker... etc.... I don't doubt that the AP found it to be credible.

The odd thing is that whoever the source is, they didn't provide the story behind the sound. e.g., "AP sources say this sound was recorded at a diplomatic residence with technology provided to embassy staff last summer. This particular sound is said to be linked to a victim with mild head trauma and other undisclosed ailments that have been medically confirmed."
Odder still is that they don't acknowledge that these facts are missing. e.g "At this time, the AP is not at liberty to disclose confidential details relating to the recording..." (<---note that I have made up all those quotes as examples)

All we get is "we obtained this sound of the attack in Havana".

It's weird journalism, right?

*If it was made personally by a victim and then shared secretly by the government to other victims, then it really isn't authenticated at all, is it? It is the victims say-so. That is not a good source, especially for something that could be initially delusional. (I happen to have a lot of experience with 'proof' offered by delusional people! They are pretty clever!)
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top