Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #Bellingcaught
Most recents (6)
This extremist crank from Bellingcat — a guy so corrupt & sloppy that I exposed a hidden author writing his propaganda — is right about one thing: I’m testifying Friday to the UN Security Council on the Syria cover-up, along w/ two distinguished speakers. 
Here’s what I’m talking about re: hidden author writing scam material for Nick Waters of NATO troll farm Bellingcat. thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/aut…
#Bellingcaught - I never tire of saying it.
#Bellingcaught - I never tire of saying it.
The UNSC meeting starts at 10am ET. I’ll post link here right before.
Last year, we caught @Bellingcat publishing falsehoods in a bid to smear an OPCW whistleblower.
That isn't all. Emails obtained by @TheGrayzoneNews now show that Bellingcat let a hidden, external author write its fraudulent material. #Bellingcaught
thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/aut…
That isn't all. Emails obtained by @TheGrayzoneNews now show that Bellingcat let a hidden, external author write its fraudulent material. #Bellingcaught
thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/aut…
Bellingcat's OPCW deception (thegrayzone.com/2020/10/28/dra…), was based on it claiming to have obtained an OPCW letter sent to Dr. Brendan Whelan, a whistleblower who challenged the Syria cover-up. We showed that Bellingcat's "letter" was never actually sent, and full of falsehoods.
New emails reveal more of Bellingcat's subterfuge.
It begins w/ another outlet. Months before Bellingcat's bogus October 2020 article, @ChrisDYork of @HuffPostUK first pursued the same story. He even told Wikileaks that he was about to publish. He ultimately never published.
It begins w/ another outlet. Months before Bellingcat's bogus October 2020 article, @ChrisDYork of @HuffPostUK first pursued the same story. He even told Wikileaks that he was about to publish. He ultimately never published.
Kreeg vandaag een email van een journalist:
"Zoals je weet komt Bellingcat met een stuk over jou en Bonanza Media. Ik begrijp van hen dat je niet wilt reageren op hun bevindingen. Klopt dat, of wil je een kans om bij ons te reageren op de bevindingen van Bellingcat?"
"Zoals je weet komt Bellingcat met een stuk over jou en Bonanza Media. Ik begrijp van hen dat je niet wilt reageren op hun bevindingen. Klopt dat, of wil je een kans om bij ons te reageren op de bevindingen van Bellingcat?"
13 Juni 2018 stuurde ik Bellingcat deze email met het verzoek mij op Twitter te deblokkeren:
Deze email uitwisseling ging daar aan vooraf:
Samenvatting van Boudewijn van Eijck's betoog tijdens het eerste uur van deze zittingsdag: Veel vragen over inslaggaten en Buk-deeltjes. maxfromthewharf.com/nl/mh17-2/
Screenshot uit artikel "#MH17 - 1.000 Dagen" waarin ik deze thema's bespreek.
Screenshot uit artikel "#MH17 - 1.000 Dagen" waarin ik deze thema's bespreek.
Sabine ten Doesschate in deel 2. Verdediging wil nader onderzoek naar route van "de beweerde Buk" en anonieme getuigen. Enkele van de vragen:
Welke belangen hadden zij?
Hoe zit het met de tegenstrijdigheden in hun verklaringen?
Waarom legde SBU woorden in de mond van getuigen?
Welke belangen hadden zij?
Hoe zit het met de tegenstrijdigheden in hun verklaringen?
Waarom legde SBU woorden in de mond van getuigen?
Blok 3. Anonieme getuige S09. De kaart die hij heeft ingetekend over de route ziet er voor de verdediging zo uit:
Now that @bellingcat has admitted that it published disinformation (), let's look at those who tried to accuse others of doing what Bellingcat in fact did themselves, and even gloated that the falsely premised article was some kind of vindication.
Let's start with @bellingcat's @N_Waters89, a likely author of the anonymously bylined & discredited Bellingcat piece.
Nick has deleted a number of tweets, but luckily I saved them for us. #Bellingcaught
Nick has deleted a number of tweets, but luckily I saved them for us. #Bellingcaught
.@N_Waters89:
"For anyone who's been paying attention, it was clear the 'OPCW leaks' were based on flawed information from the start.
The correspondence we obtained proves it. There was a coverup, but it wasn't the OPCW doing it."
Nope:
"For anyone who's been paying attention, it was clear the 'OPCW leaks' were based on flawed information from the start.
The correspondence we obtained proves it. There was a coverup, but it wasn't the OPCW doing it."
Nope:
In response to @TheGrayzoneNews (thegrayzone.com/2020/10/28/dra…), @Bellingcat admits its article was based on a false premise: an OPCW letter they claim was sent was in fact an unsent draft.
Of course, they also can't do a retraction without new falsehoods & evasions. #Bellingcaught
Of course, they also can't do a retraction without new falsehoods & evasions. #Bellingcaught
“The final version omits much of the information contained within the draft version."
No, the final version — aka the actual letter that OPCW Director General Arias sent to inspector Whelan — omits *all* the "information" Bellingcat falsely claimed was sent. Not even a sentence.
No, the final version — aka the actual letter that OPCW Director General Arias sent to inspector Whelan — omits *all* the "information" Bellingcat falsely claimed was sent. Not even a sentence.
".@Bellingcat stands by the extra information in the draft version and has verified its authenticity and its conclusions."
Oh you’ve "verified" it, have you? Same way you "verified" your false claim that the letter was sent? (hence why I asked you about that multiple times).
Oh you’ve "verified" it, have you? Same way you "verified" your false claim that the letter was sent? (hence why I asked you about that multiple times).
