4 ms·

If it were a scientific article, I'd say that it's unconvincing. At all. Can they share raw data, and not just handwaiving? >During our investigation, we obta

by galkk 7y ago

If it were a scientific article, I'd say that it's unconvincing. At all. Can they share raw data, and not just handwaiving? >During our investigation, we obtained tens of thousands of previously unpublished audio recordings between Russian Air Force pilots and ground control officers in Syria. We also obtained months of flight data logged by a network of Syrian observers who have been tracking warplanes to warn civilians of impending airstrikes. The flight observations came with the time, location and general type of each aircraft spotted. Where? How? Can they be forged? Can we hear them? Can we trust them? Can we trust NYT?

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc. And, while we are at it: what's to say Google Earth is accurate? The audio recordings just sound russian to you! Does the Mig actually exist, or isn't all that just Hollywood special effects to invent a reason for the F-35 to exist? Point being: this is a good example proving how unrealistic this often-repeated HN cliché of "don't trust anyone" is. Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links.
- ex3ndr 7y ago
  Oh no, I really want to see audio where they got this incorrect word.
- keiferski 7y ago
  The difference is that the Times is proclaiming a fact (“How We Proved...”), not saying “our investigation concludes that is it very likely Russia was behind the attacks.” Considering the Times’ past pushing of Anti-Russian narratives, they need to have actual evidence if they want to avoid skepticism.
- galkk 7y ago
  > And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc I will be able to check it and have my own conclusions, if I'd like to. There were already comments in this chain that there is no word "Srabota" in Russian. It should be either "Srabotalo" or "Srabotala". I'm native Russian and Ukrainian speaker, so hearing the record could convince or unconvince me. > Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links. Of course I should trust the Book without doubts, it has everything written in in it, and it's the Truth! That's what you mean?
  - simonh 7y ago
    <insert generic objection that could apply to anything here> *But when there is sufficient evidence, shouldn’t we at least look deeper? <Ah, so you believe anything then?> Nice line of argument you’ve got going there.

by galkk 7y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc. And, while we are at it: what's to say Google Earth is accurate? The audio recordings just sound russian to you! Does the Mig actually exist, or isn't all that just Hollywood special effects to invent a reason for the F-35 to exist? Point being: this is a good example proving how unrealistic this often-repeated HN cliché of "don't trust anyone" is. Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links.

ex3ndr 7y ago
Oh no, I really want to see audio where they got this incorrect word.
keiferski 7y ago
The difference is that the Times is proclaiming a fact (“How We Proved...”), not saying “our investigation concludes that is it very likely Russia was behind the attacks.” Considering the Times’ past pushing of Anti-Russian narratives, they need to have actual evidence if they want to avoid skepticism.
galkk 7y ago
> And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some blockchain or other, etc I will be able to check it and have my own conclusions, if I'd like to. There were already comments in this chain that there is no word "Srabota" in Russian. It should be either "Srabotalo" or "Srabotala". I'm native Russian and Ukrainian speaker, so hearing the record could convince or unconvince me. > Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links. Of course I should trust the Book without doubts, it has everything written in in it, and it's the Truth! That's what you mean?
- simonh 7y ago
  <insert generic objection that could apply to anything here> *But when there is sufficient evidence, shouldn’t we at least look deeper? <Ah, so you believe anything then?> Nice line of argument you’ve got going there.