Continuation - Ukraine erupts in riots and general strikes

jimbob said:
Western reporters are working for several different employers
Click to expand...

So are Russian ones.

Good ones are aware of their own biases, and try to account for them. I admit that I only know a retired foreign correspondent socially, and not very well, but his professional attitude was certainly along those lines.
Click to expand...

Bought journalism

There is plenty of evidence of the Russian denials being untrue.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, we are not discussing what Russia says but whether Western media are reliable on the Ukrainian conflict.

The Guardian and BBC have also reported on the less savoury aspects of the Ukrainian side.
Click to expand...

They've also, during this conflict, praised neo-nazis, practiced censorship and are generally biased as hell.

Russia has zero credibility in this.
Click to expand...

Who cares? Stick to the point, which is the reliability of Western media.

Ukrainian sources have slightly more, but independent journalists when they corroborate each others stories and provide evidence are credible.
Click to expand...

Do you have any sort of evidence for this? There's plenty of it to the contrary:


I do realise that at least one of the people proclaiming the Russian narrative has proclaimed their belief in conspiracy theories* so this is probably a waste from their point of view.
Click to expand...

Both irrelevant and ad hominem, stick to the point.
 
Last edited:
"The point" of this thread is not "the bias of the western media" it is the situation in Ukraine. This involves assessing whether Russia (admitted to lying about the invasion of Crimea) or independent western journalists are more reliable.

If you want to discuss that - why not start a thread: "The bias of the western media in reporting Ukraine and the utter truth of the Russian side"?



If someone proclaims their analytical skills yet falls for the idea that 9/11 was anything more than a conspiracy by Al Quaeda, then it is fair to doubt their analysis on related subjects - plausibility of sources, for example.
 
caveman1917 said:
The Guardian and BBC have also reported on the less savoury aspects of the Ukrainian side.
Click to expand...

They've also, during this conflict, praised neo-nazis, practiced censorship and are generally biased as hell.
Click to expand...

Like this from the Guardian?

Showing that they are covering the issue

Ukrainian protesters must make a decisive break with the far right

Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger

Kiev's protesters: Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-view-ukraine-election-farewell-old-politics
True, the president is an oligarch, but he seems, on his record so far, to be a reformed one. The vote also demonstrated that the far-right elements around which Moscow weaves its dark tales of resurgent fascism remain relatively minor actors on the political stage. Although support for President Petro Poroshenko’s bloc was matched by that for Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s group, which could bring strains and divisions, the possibility now opens up that Ukraine can decisively repudiate both the Communist past and the murky era that followed, and transform itself into a healthy democracy.
Click to expand...

Incidentally they have also reported on the far right supporting Russia.
 
jimbob said:
This involves assessing whether Russia (admitted to lying about the invasion of Crimea) or independent western journalists are more reliable.
Click to expand...

Something you seem quite bent on not discussing, yet at the same time making claims about.

If you want to discuss that - why not start a thread: "The bias of the western media in reporting Ukraine and the utter truth of the Russian side"?
Click to expand...

A common tactic. Attaching a claim to the opponent's argument that he did not make (just a couple of posts ago I specifically said both were unreliable). At least it's better than ProBonoShill's tactic of simply replacing a completely unrelated claim with "Russian media tells the truth" and then pretending his opponent was defending that instead. No wonder he has to work pro bono :)

If someone proclaims their analytical skills yet falls for the idea that 9/11 was anything more than a conspiracy by Al Quaeda, then it is fair to doubt their analysis on related subjects - plausibility of sources, for example.
Click to expand...

More irrelevant ad hominem. Not that I ever even claimed anything of the sort.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
More irrelevant ad hominem.
Click to expand...


One of his little fallback positions. He's also excellent (well, let's say eager) at pretending that I only post "state-sponsored" sources while ignoring the flood of first hand videos subtitled by amateurs. Like the latest ones from the guy who calls himself "Texas" and doesn't seem like a Putin puppet, corroborating the everyday situation in the suburbs of Donetsk and Gorlovka etc.

Russia Insider (also not "state-sponsored") has written a very true little piece about that latest video: If This Video Doesn't End the War in Ukraine, Nothing Will

But who cares when your real enemy is your own unwillingness to accept that your sources are extremely selective, which is the issue with this guy who was told often enough that we have gone enough rounds around.
 
jimbob said:
This is actually a pretty good example to view conspiracies. Russia is trying to hide its involvement, and there is plenty of hard evidence that it is involved.
Click to expand...

And saddam hussein is trying to hide his support to al queida and his WMD programs.
 
caveman1917 said:
Something you seem quite bent on not discussing, yet at the same time making claims about.



A common tactic. Attaching a claim to the opponent's argument that he did not make (just a couple of posts ago I specifically said both were unreliable). At least it's better than ProBonoShill's tactic of simply replacing a completely unrelated claim with "Russian media tells the truth" and then pretending his opponent was defending that instead. No wonder he has to work pro bono :)



More irrelevant ad hominem. Not that I ever even claimed anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

How embarrassing. You were called out on your false equivalency in the other thread and here you are doing it again. Will you run away this time too?

Oh and have you found that link to Russian media yet? Too difficult?
Maybe give Vladimir a call, I'm sure he'll have someone help you out.
 
caveman1917 said:
Yes it is, in exactly the same way as the one above. Again, the photographer himself described doing this (taking multiple transformations of his picture and then combining these to a final image).
Click to expand...

That is not what Krawetz accused him of doing, as I showed with a quote from Krawetz's blog.


caveman1917 said:
So you have no response. Quod erat expectandum. A "blogger" who is still writing textbooks on the subject, should be noted.
Click to expand...

Not when he's demonstrably wrong.


caveman1917 said:
Krawetz was correct, as the photographer indicated. Just because the jury considers some specific transformations of pictures to combine (not the translation, rotation and scaling I did above) as acceptable does not mean that it's not a composite.
Click to expand...

Krawetz was wrong, as his own blog demonstrates.

caveman1917 said:
Can you please identify this purported "Pro-Russian troll" that you claim to have been doing this? The edit history completely disagrees with you. The only troll in the edit war easily identified is "Volunteer Marek" who started it.
Click to expand...

I can't identify the troll because he's unsigned and only the IP is showing.
 
caveman1917 said:
It's a bit like the old 'supporting of dictators' adage "but at least he's our bastard", only this time it's "but at least he's our Alex Jones". The part about jumping into the middle of a discussion of Higgins and then claiming not to be part of it is also funny enough.
Click to expand...

Still lying about that, huh? I suppose, when you have nothing else...
 
ProBonoShill said:
How embarrassing.
Click to expand...

For you, yes.

You were called out on your false equivalency in the other thread and here you are doing it again.
Click to expand...

A blatant lie. Keep trying though, I'm sure if you train hard enough some day you may not have to work pro bono anymore.

Oh and have you found that link to Russian media yet? Too difficult?
Click to expand...

As anyone can determine, the few times I've actually discussed Russian media I considered it a propaganda machine. As anyone can also determine the claim I was defending had nothing to do with Russian media. Bit's signature comes to mind about the pigeon playing chess.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
That is not what Krawetz accused him of doing, as I showed with a quote from Krawetz's blog.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the words "likely", "possibly", and so forth.

Not when he's demonstrably wrong.
Click to expand...

Then you should demonstrate that. He claimed that the metadata showed the picture to be a composite and gave a likely scenario consistent with those observations. The result is that the picture is indeed a composite and this was indeed correctly shown by the metadata but it occurred by a different scenario.

Note specifically that you are to demonstrate that, given those observations, the given scenario is not likely. That's different from wrong btw.

Krawetz was wrong, as his own blog demonstrates.
Click to expand...

What the photographer did was transform his picture a couple of times and combined them back together in order to simulate HDR.

You know what, this doesn't actually matter all that much anyway. I'll concede that the guy was wrong about that as I'm not willing to stray further into this tangent of a tangent.

More to the point that I was making, do you agree that:
expertise(Kriese & Krawetz) >> expertise(Higgins/Bellingcat)?

I can't identify the troll because he's unsigned and only the IP is showing.
Click to expand...

So your identification as a "Pro-Russian troll" can only have been based on the content, which you call "questionable material". I believe the relevant "questionable material" (ie the "criticism" section) was added somewhere in february. Could you show the specific edit and related content, how exactly it is questionable material, and specifically how you derive from that the conclusion that the IP making that edit it must have been a "Pro-Russian troll".

It would seem much easier to make these determinations of "Pro-Russian troll" or "Pro-Western troll" if the edits are signed and one can look at the history of the user. Especially when, as in this case, piles of documentation exist of the user doing exactly that.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
You don't seem to understand the words "likely", "possibly", and so forth.
Click to expand...

I do. Do you? Krawetz asserted that multiple images where involved in his original blog. He later changed his mind when he was called on it. Krawetz was wrong.


caveman1917 said:
Then you should demonstrate that. He claimed that the metadata showed the picture to be a composite and gave a likely scenario consistent with those observations. The result is that the picture is indeed a composite and this was indeed correctly shown by the metadata but it occurred by a different scenario.
Click to expand...

I have demonstrated it.

caveman1917 said:
Note specifically that you are to demonstrate that, given those observations, the given scenario is not likely. That's different from wrong btw.
Click to expand...

I don't have to demonstrate that, no. All I have to demonstrate is that Krawetz's accusation was wrong. I have.

caveman1917 said:
What the photographer did was transform his picture a couple of times and combined them back together in order to simulate HDR.

You know what, this doesn't actually matter all that much anyway. I'll concede that the guy was wrong about that as I'm not willing to stray further into this tangent of a tangent.
Click to expand...

Ok.

caveman1917 said:
More to the point that I was making, do you agree that:
expertise(Kriese & Krawetz) >> expertise(Higgins/Bellingcat)?
Click to expand...

No idea. Probably.


caveman1917 said:
So your identification as a "Pro-Russian troll" can only have been based on the content, which you call "questionable material". I believe the relevant "questionable material" (ie the "criticism" section) was added somewhere in february. Could you show the specific edit and related content, how exactly it is questionable material, and specifically how you derive from that the conclusion that the IP making that edit it must have be a "Pro-Russian troll".

It would seem much easier to make these determinations of "Pro-Russian troll" or "Pro-Western troll" if the edits are signed and one can look at the history of the user. Especially when, as in this case, piles of documentation exist of the user doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

I base my identification of a pro-russian troll on the fact that an edit war was started on a wiki page with material sensitive to Russia by unsigned users using apparently biased sources (going by what signed editors are saying), and knowing that Russian internet propaganda has targeted Wikipedia in the past.
 
uke2se said:
No idea. Probably.
Click to expand...

Selective skepticism much?

I base my identification of a pro-russian troll on the fact that an edit war was started on a wiki page with material sensitive to Russia by unsigned users
Click to expand...

False, the edit history is clear on who started the edit war. This is verifiable information. It is also verifiable information that the edit that added the criticism section wasn't made by an IP.

using apparently biased sources (going by what signed editors are saying)
Click to expand...

I'll ask again, can you show the edit and the content it added? So that you can easily find it: it was on 21 february 2015. Could you show how this is biased, specifically with respect to the standards employed by the article, such as using Higgins himself as a source on his expertise?

Also what do you mean by "signed editors", the one who started the edit war? What are the "unsigned editors" saying and what do their edits constitute of exactly?

and knowing that Russian internet propaganda has targeted Wikipedia in the past.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example?

We already have one clear example of Western internet propaganda targeting wikipedia (by the exact same user who started the edit war even).
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Selective skepticism much?
Click to expand...

Wut?


caveman1917 said:
False, the edit history is clear on who started the edit war. This is verifiable information. It is also verifiable information that the edit that added the criticism section wasn't made by an IP.
Click to expand...

Obviously the removed section was crap. The war started when anonymous trolls invaded to restore the removed section.


caveman1917 said:
I'll ask again, can you show the edit and the content it added? So that you can easily find it: it was on 21 february 2015. Could you show how this is biased, specifically with respect to the standards employed by the article, such as using Higgins himself as a source on his expertise?
Click to expand...

There were two sources. One is our dear Krawetz, whom few people appear to believe in this case, probably because he failed to present any kind of analysis for his claims. The second is an off-the-cuff quote, basically an ad-hominem attack with no evidence presented. This is disallowed in a Wikipedia Biographies of Living Person articles.

caveman1917 said:
Also what do you mean by "signed editors", the one who started the edit war? What are the "unsigned editors" saying and what do their edits constitute of exactly?
Click to expand...

The signed editors remove the contentious section. Unsigned editors put it back. Fairly simple.


caveman1917 said:
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=2

caveman1917 said:
We already have one clear example of Western internet propaganda targeting wikipedia (by the exact same user who started the edit war even).
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
 
GOd, it seems as though one poster is so dominating this thread he is driving other posters away. But maybe that is his purpose.
 
uke2se said:
Obviously the removed section was crap.
Click to expand...

Can you show the removed section?

The war started when anonymous trolls invaded to restore the removed section.
Click to expand...

Again, this is false. Show the consecutive edits and their dates.

There were two sources. One is our dear Krawetz, whom few people appear to believe in this case, probably because he failed to present any kind of analysis for his claims. The second is an off-the-cuff quote, basically an ad-hominem attack with no evidence presented. This is disallowed in a Wikipedia Biographies of Living Person articles.
Click to expand...

These are both completely false. Krawetz wasn't quoted in the removed section. Furthermore, where he was quoted (on the talk page), an analysis was indeed presented for his claim that Higgins doesn't know what he's talking about. The second, by Postol, wasn't off-the-cuff at all - reaching the same conclusion, though in another field that Higgins claims to be an expert in.

The signed editors remove the contentious section. Unsigned editors put it back. Fairly simple.
Click to expand...

Again, false. Show the consecutive edits, dates and changes that were made. Specifically this one and this one. As anyone can see, these edits did not "put back a contentious section" but put the standard tag on the page that its neutrality is in dispute.

So, start an edit war and then remove anything showing that a dispute even exists. I'm wondering if you're even looking at this or just making up some good-sounding answer out of nothing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=2
Click to expand...

You were to provide an example of one targeting wikipedia.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Also false, plenty of documentation has been provided. I don't think you quite understand the word "substantiated". Here is some of the documentation again.

Can you show any independent expert at all in the fields that Higgins dabbles in who corroborates his expertise?
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
GOd, it seems as though one poster is so dominating this thread he is driving other posters away. But maybe that is his purpose.
Click to expand...

It's funny to see you chasing ghosts like that, still think everyone disagreeing with you is a paid shill? Also, try to reconsider your first statement in light of the existence of the "ignore function" on the forum.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
GOd, it seems as though one poster is so dominating this thread he is driving other posters away. But maybe that is his purpose.
Click to expand...

What i find much more interesting is that after bellingcat goes down in flames, the original posters fall silent, yet fear not: UK2se to the rescue! trying to attack the source and muddy the waters.
 
caveman1917 said:
For you, yes.
Click to expand...

Hey if you want to remain ignorant that's up to you.



A blatant lie. Keep trying though, I'm sure if you train hard enough some day you may not have to work pro bono anymore.
Click to expand...

Truth hurts eh? Maybe one day if you train hard enough, you can leave the cave.


As anyone can determine, the few times I've actually discussed Russian media I considered it a propaganda machine. As anyone can also determine the claim I was defending had nothing to do with Russian media. Bit's signature comes to mind about the pigeon playing chess.
Click to expand...

Link doesn't work, but it seems you're finally willing to admit Russian media isn't even close in terms of freedom when compared to that of Western nations. That wasn't so difficult was it?
 
magellan said:
What i find much more interesting is that after bellingcat goes down in flames, the original posters fall silent, yet fear not: UK2se to the rescue! trying to attack the source and muddy the waters.
Click to expand...

Individual Bellingcat analyses stand or fall on their own. So far I have seen proclamations of victory, but nothing concrete. Certainly nothing about the links I have posted.

Similarly with Childlike Empress retrospectively claiming the Gohouta attacks as being shown to have been a false flag operation.
 
jimbob said:
Similarly with Childlike Empress retrospectively claiming the Gohouta attacks as being shown to have been a false flag operation.
Click to expand...


Focus. I was "claiming" in context that Brown Noses' work on that event has also been shown to be fraudulent. I think I provided you evidence for it you ignored as usual. This is an actual chemical weapons expert writing:

Theodore Postol said:
This very short summary is aimed at exposing a counterfeit expert and his cohort, Eliot Higgins, who were empowered by a serious failure of the mainstream Western press. This empowerment was due to an essentially complete failure of these major journals to exercise the most rudimentary levels of editorial due diligence. This has resulted in controversy that has no basis in sound science. This ill-informed and inflammatory use of false technical facts by the press could have played a role in a US military involvement in Syria. In addition, it is now clear, as reported by the New York Times itself, that by being a highway for the introduction of extremist Sunni jihadists, Turkey has played a major role in exacerbating an already out-of-control situation.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, look at that. After the "news" that the US is training Neo-Nazis made it even to the Daily Beast, there finally comes this: U.S. House Passes 3 Amendments By Rep. Conyers To Defense Spending Bill To Protect Civilians From Dangers Of Arming and Training Foreign Forces

WASHINGTON— Late yesterday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” During consideration of the legislation, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Congressman Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) offered bipartisan amendments to block the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia “Azov Battalion,” and to prevent the transfer of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles—otherwise known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS)—to Iraq or Ukraine.

“If there’s one simple lesson we can take away from US involvement in conflicts overseas, it’s this: Beware of unintended consequences. As was made vividly clear with U.S. involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistance or the hyper-weaponization of conflicts can have destabilizing consequences and ultimately undercut our own national interests,” said Rep. John Conyers. “I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions.” [...]
Click to expand...


Maybe the pre$$titutes should start to wonder now if what these "repulsive" forces are doing in Mariupol and other places is protecting or ... occupying.
 
Last edited:
ProBonoShill said:
Link doesn't work
Click to expand...

It was a link to my posting history on the forum, apparently these searches are cached with limited lifetime.

but it seems you're finally willing to admit Russian media isn't even close in terms of freedom
Click to expand...

You understand that anyone can check my posting history regarding Russian media to see you're just making stuff up out of thin air?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Maybe the pre$$titutes should start to wonder now if what these "repulsive" forces are doing in Mariupol and other places is protecting or ... occupying.
Click to expand...
caveman1917 said:
Still no problems with the neo-nazi Aidar, Sich, etc battalions apparently.
Click to expand...


<:tinfoil>
There we have it. Talking points directly from the Russian Foreign Ministry:

Sputnik said:
"It took US Congress over a year to see that the [Azov] battalion is a band of sheer Nazis, sporting the emblem used by Hitler's SS and acting like vigilantes on an occupied territory. But it is better late than never," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement.

The next step, according to the diplomat, is to finally acknowledge that the 2014 coup in Kiev, Washington eagerly supported, "was carried out by the same Nazi thugs."

"It is evident that other militias within Ukraine's National Guard are no better than Azov. Bloody crimes committed by the Ukrainian nationalists, who burned Odessa residents alive and continue killing women and children in Donbass, have long spoken for themselves," Lukashevich noted.
Click to expand...


Coincidence?
</:tinfoil>
 
LSSBB said:
Then your knowledge was faulty.
Click to expand...

I believe his point was that using bellingcat's method of "forensic analysis" (notice how the post contains an ELA transformation of the image) one can "show" that NASA manipulated the moon landing images.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
One is our dear Krawetz, whom few people appear to believe in this case, probably because he failed to present any kind of analysis for his claims.
Click to expand...

Just to prevent a possible misunderstanding: remember that we're talking about the criticism section that got removed by Volunteer Marek on 1 june.
 
LSSBB said:
Then he should say so, and also explain how it supports his point.
Click to expand...

<SNIP>

According to bellingcat one would expect compression artifacts to be distributed roughly evenly in a picture.
I, having extensive knowledge of the subject (I heard the word compression before and once may have used it in a sentence) expect no such thing. I expect compression artifacts to cluster in areas where the compression algorithm had much to do. Using this expectation i was also able to quickly find a picture of the moonlanding that would produce compression artifact clusters. The LEM and astronaut produce lots of artifacts, the black sky and white ground less.

<SNIP>
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with both Rules 0 and 12 the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And this is a complete digression, attacking some evidence when there is a mountain of other perfectly strong evidence* that Russia has been sponsoring the violence in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian regime is not blameless, but the vast majority of the responsibility lies with Russia. Unfortunately, it has fanned the flames sufficiently that the conflict has developed its own momentum.

*Even if you discount most Ukrainian and Western sources, the sudden flaring up of fighting far from the initial conflict area, and the even more sudden reversal of fortunes in the middle of a successful Ukrainian offensive. The separatists suddenly developed a vastly greater military capability right when their capability was being degraded - the Russian story is not believable, whilst the Ukrainian and NATO line that Russian forces intervened fits with the observations.
 
magellan said:
<SNIP>

According to bellingcat one would expect compression artifacts to be distributed roughly evenly in a picture.
I, having extensive knowledge of the subject (I heard the word compression before and once may have used it in a sentence) expect no such thing. I expect compression artifacts to cluster in areas where the compression algorithm had much to do. Using this expectation i was also able to quickly find a picture of the moonlanding that would produce compression artifact clusters. The LEM and astronaut produce lots of artifacts, the black sky and white ground less.

<SNIP>
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with both Rules 0 and 12 the Membership Agreement.
Click to expand...

What is bellingcat's response, and how much of their analysis depends on compression artifact clustering, and how much does the compression artifact discussion support your overall conclusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom