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).
And if you really “stand by the extra information” — aka an unsent draft — then feel free to respond to the detailed rebuttal to it in my article.
For some reason, I don’t think people are ready to just take your word that you’ve "verified its authenticity and its conclusions."
For some reason, I don’t think people are ready to just take your word that you’ve "verified its authenticity and its conclusions."
This is also extensively refuted in my article, which shows that this unsent draft letter text not only introduces a new claim not made in the OPCW’s final report, but is in fact inconsistent with what was acknowledged in the OPCW’s final report.
If Bellingcat disagrees, they should explain why. You don't make arguments by just declaring yourself to be correct. You have to show why and how. They now have my article & Whelan's April 2019 letter (thegrayzone.com/wp-content/upl…) to try to refute.
Preview: they won’t.
Preview: they won’t.
"Further, the final version of the letter released by The Grayzone supports this conclusion."
No, the final version — aka the actual version, not Bellingcat's false version — doesn’t address a single scientific point that Whelan raised, nor does it address the cover-up.
No, the final version — aka the actual version, not Bellingcat's false version — doesn’t address a single scientific point that Whelan raised, nor does it address the cover-up.
Anyone can verify this on their own:
Just compare the OPCW’s "final version" -- the actual letter: (thegrayzone.com/wp-content/upl…)
With the Whelan letter: (thegrayzone.com/wp-content/upl…)
The OPCW doesn't substantively address any of Whelan's points.
Just compare the OPCW’s "final version" -- the actual letter: (thegrayzone.com/wp-content/upl…)
With the Whelan letter: (thegrayzone.com/wp-content/upl…)
The OPCW doesn't substantively address any of Whelan's points.
Bellingcat article is disgraceful on so many levels:
- false premise
- accusing others of hiding info that was never actually delivered
- claiming vindication based on the flawed science of just 3 unsent paragraphs
- claiming that Russia & Syria secretly admitted guilt
- doxxing
- false premise
- accusing others of hiding info that was never actually delivered
- claiming vindication based on the flawed science of just 3 unsent paragraphs
- claiming that Russia & Syria secretly admitted guilt
- doxxing
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
