3 ms·

It doesn't make a lot of sense (ie, if you accept the premise is true, would you expect the plot to play out as Hersh claims?), it includes several details that

by Lazare 4y ago

It doesn't make a lot of sense (ie, if you accept the premise is true, would you expect the plot to play out as Hersh claims?), it includes several details that are clearly incorrect, it isn't particulary supported by open source intel, and it relies, by it's own admission, on a single anonymous source. So the situation is essentially "Hersh claims that someone told him a story that we know is at least slightly untrue." Is it possible that the rest of it is true? Absolutely! ...but there's nothing I've seen to suggest that it's likely the rest of it is true. It's just another theory, of which there are many.

brutusborn 4y ago
What details are clearly incorrect? Also he only quotes a single anonymous source. He has stated before that he verifies info from multiple sources, and goes to great lengths to protect sources, so it is very likely that there are more but that he cannot give details without endangering them. https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1626289757020880896?s=20&t=WmBlXo3rqaIqltrWjX-EPQ https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/162628975702088089...
- nl 4y ago
  It's difficult to argue in circumstances where some elements of his story that appear to make it less likely are said to be untrue in order to defend that story. Notably there doesn't appear to be any reason for him to claim it was a single source when he could equally have claimed he verified it with multiple sources (even if there was only one additional source. It's no less untrue, right?) I think in these circumstances you can only look at Hersh's record. Since the turn of the millennium it really isn't very good. With the exception of the Abu Ghraib story (which he wasn't alone in breaking) I don't think any of his major stories have turned out to be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh (He was also very lucky to avoid publishing forged claims about Kennedy in the late 1990's).
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    It's definitely very murky territory. I don't think he claimed it was all from a single source, he just quoted a single source. It's interesting you question his record, I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? With the kind of reporting he does, I would have expected many more major mistakes to be made but he seems to make them very rarely.
    - nl 4y ago
      > I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? I linked Wikipedia, but to summarize some of his questionable claims: * There were plans under consideration in 2006 for a nuclear first strike on Iran. * Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by US Forces in a raid in Pakistan * The Syrian gas attack wasn't done by Syrian government forces * "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11" * That the Skripal poisoning wasn't done by Russian forces. Lots of these views have significant backers amongst conspiracy theorists. But unlike some of his other stories (say in the same time frame) there has been very little to no evidence showing he is anything like correct. Basically, post 2000 the only one of his stories which has turned out to be well supported was Abu Ghraib.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        Thanks for the summary, I read the Wikipedia article but it wasn't clear which stories were incorrect (I guess because there is no evidence either way). Classified info takes time to be released, so I wonder if the fact that his recent reporting hasn't been confirmed is more a function of freedom of information / declassification timelines than proof that he has dropped the ball.
        nl 4y ago
        I think the 9/11 and Bin Laden death stories are very clearly conspiracy theory fodder because of the amount of unclassified confirmation available.
  - 4y ago
- Lazare 4y ago
  > What details are clearly incorrect? There's a few, but as an example, Hersh claims the divers deployed off of an Alta-class minesweeper, which was taking part of the BALTOPS22 excercise. There was no Alta-class minsweeper taking part in the excercises. And while a similar Oksøy-class minesweeper did take part, it's AIS track doesn't put it in the right spot. When Hersh was challenged on this detail in an interview, he said "It was called the Alta, the ship was there. I mean that is just such a stupid lie." suggesting he meant that the ship was called the Alta, not that it was an Alta-class ship. But the Alta is an Alta-class ship, and also it was in the process of being scrapped at the time, and also wasin't taking part in the excercise. None of that means that divers didn't deploy off some ship at some point! But Hersh provided very specific details at what ship it was, when it happened, and how it happened, and those details are wrong, which raises the question of what else was wrong. Was it a minsweeper? Was it even actually a Norwegian ship? Was it actually during BALTOPS22? Did the incorrect details come from Hersh or from his source? If the source, was that the source trying to cover their tracks, or did the source, perhaps, not have direct knowledge either, but was just retelling a story they had heard? Etc.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't heard that problem before. It does seem strange that Hersh would publish that detail if it could be so easily debunked. I notice it was investigated by the same reporter who came up with the Rupture Catalyst theory.
    - Lazare 4y ago
      That's not really unusual for Hersh - he's always been prone to being a bit free with the details. Which hasn't stopped him from getting the big picture right in some very famous stories! ...but he also seems to have gotten it wrong in some other cases. Hersh is a fantastic investigative journalist (and a good writer and speaker to boot), but he has very limited credibility because he will make fantastic claims regardless of whether he has the ability to back them up. I mentioned them in one of my other comments but this is a decent (but long) roundup of Hersh's history: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ Or for quick summary (but without a lot of the details) see: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-the-story-with-seymour-hersh https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-the-story-with-se...

by Lazare 4y ago

brutusborn 4y ago

What details are clearly incorrect? Also he only quotes a single anonymous source. He has stated before that he verifies info from multiple sources, and goes to great lengths to protect sources, so it is very likely that there are more but that he cannot give details without endangering them. https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1626289757020880896?s=20&t=WmBlXo3rqaIqltrWjX-EPQ https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/162628975702088089...

nl 4y ago
It's difficult to argue in circumstances where some elements of his story that appear to make it less likely are said to be untrue in order to defend that story. Notably there doesn't appear to be any reason for him to claim it was a single source when he could equally have claimed he verified it with multiple sources (even if there was only one additional source. It's no less untrue, right?) I think in these circumstances you can only look at Hersh's record. Since the turn of the millennium it really isn't very good. With the exception of the Abu Ghraib story (which he wasn't alone in breaking) I don't think any of his major stories have turned out to be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh (He was also very lucky to avoid publishing forged claims about Kennedy in the late 1990's).
- brutusborn 4y ago
  It's definitely very murky territory. I don't think he claimed it was all from a single source, he just quoted a single source. It's interesting you question his record, I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? With the kind of reporting he does, I would have expected many more major mistakes to be made but he seems to make them very rarely.
  - nl 4y ago
    > I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? I linked Wikipedia, but to summarize some of his questionable claims: * There were plans under consideration in 2006 for a nuclear first strike on Iran. * Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by US Forces in a raid in Pakistan * The Syrian gas attack wasn't done by Syrian government forces * "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11" * That the Skripal poisoning wasn't done by Russian forces. Lots of these views have significant backers amongst conspiracy theorists. But unlike some of his other stories (say in the same time frame) there has been very little to no evidence showing he is anything like correct. Basically, post 2000 the only one of his stories which has turned out to be well supported was Abu Ghraib.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      Thanks for the summary, I read the Wikipedia article but it wasn't clear which stories were incorrect (I guess because there is no evidence either way). Classified info takes time to be released, so I wonder if the fact that his recent reporting hasn't been confirmed is more a function of freedom of information / declassification timelines than proof that he has dropped the ball.
      - nl 4y ago
        I think the 9/11 and Bin Laden death stories are very clearly conspiracy theory fodder because of the amount of unclassified confirmation available.
- 4y ago
Lazare 4y ago
> What details are clearly incorrect? There's a few, but as an example, Hersh claims the divers deployed off of an Alta-class minesweeper, which was taking part of the BALTOPS22 excercise. There was no Alta-class minsweeper taking part in the excercises. And while a similar Oksøy-class minesweeper did take part, it's AIS track doesn't put it in the right spot. When Hersh was challenged on this detail in an interview, he said "It was called the Alta, the ship was there. I mean that is just such a stupid lie." suggesting he meant that the ship was called the Alta, not that it was an Alta-class ship. But the Alta is an Alta-class ship, and also it was in the process of being scrapped at the time, and also wasin't taking part in the excercise. None of that means that divers didn't deploy off some ship at some point! But Hersh provided very specific details at what ship it was, when it happened, and how it happened, and those details are wrong, which raises the question of what else was wrong. Was it a minsweeper? Was it even actually a Norwegian ship? Was it actually during BALTOPS22? Did the incorrect details come from Hersh or from his source? If the source, was that the source trying to cover their tracks, or did the source, perhaps, not have direct knowledge either, but was just retelling a story they had heard? Etc.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't heard that problem before. It does seem strange that Hersh would publish that detail if it could be so easily debunked. I notice it was investigated by the same reporter who came up with the Rupture Catalyst theory.
  - Lazare 4y ago
    That's not really unusual for Hersh - he's always been prone to being a bit free with the details. Which hasn't stopped him from getting the big picture right in some very famous stories! ...but he also seems to have gotten it wrong in some other cases. Hersh is a fantastic investigative journalist (and a good writer and speaker to boot), but he has very limited credibility because he will make fantastic claims regardless of whether he has the ability to back them up. I mentioned them in one of my other comments but this is a decent (but long) roundup of Hersh's history: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/ Or for quick summary (but without a lot of the details) see: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-the-story-with-seymour-hersh https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-the-story-with-se...