4 ms·

I thought bellingcat actually had a pretty decent track record, and they typically dump all their findings and their methods. They don't even have a "Controvers

I thought bellingcat actually had a pretty decent track record, and they typically dump all their findings and their methods. They don't even have a "Controversy" section on wikipedia, which is a half-decent litmus test.

potatototoo99 4y ago
I think they suffer from the same criticism as Wikileaks. They may only report on facts, but picking what facts to publish and pursue can still be politically motivated. Edit: for instance just looking at their Wikipedia pages, there doesn't seem to be any story that makes the leaders of five-eyes countries look bad, aside from Trump, but I can think of several suspicious things from Trudeau to laptops. I think it is valid criticism to suspect of such a focus around Russia.
- orwin 4y ago
  The reason why it's focused around russia is that russia have a really bad opsec for a major country. Sometimes they contradict themselves, use the wrong plane picture and manage to fail to remember the limits of plane URSS concieved (the MH17 was what pushed me to follow OSINT accounts btw). The last one i found egregious was Wagner going to a French FOB in Centrafrique (RCA) (the French army left a day prior) to bury african corpses. In daylight, speaking russian, not checking for camera, not jamming low-altitude drones. Obviously the French army kept the footage and waited to see who woultd publish the "French army killed locals and buried them" story. While when you have suspicions about recent USA operations (this leak non-wistanding), you find nothing. That's why i know for sure nord stream 1 and 2 were not done by Russia (we would have evidence already) and i suspect it's not the US that planned the destruction (or at least not the usual department) because of the boat we saw.
  - boeingUH60 4y ago
    Because of pervasive corruption, they’re also many Russians willing to leak information for a fee…like when Navalny’s team purchased the database of FGS officers sent to protect Putin on his alleged yacht (it’s officially owned by another oligarch but I guess Putin uses it whenever he wishes as the mafia boss).

potatototoo99 4y ago

I think they suffer from the same criticism as Wikileaks. They may only report on facts, but picking what facts to publish and pursue can still be politically motivated. Edit: for instance just looking at their Wikipedia pages, there doesn't seem to be any story that makes the leaders of five-eyes countries look bad, aside from Trump, but I can think of several suspicious things from Trudeau to laptops. I think it is valid criticism to suspect of such a focus around Russia.

orwin 4y ago
The reason why it's focused around russia is that russia have a really bad opsec for a major country. Sometimes they contradict themselves, use the wrong plane picture and manage to fail to remember the limits of plane URSS concieved (the MH17 was what pushed me to follow OSINT accounts btw). The last one i found egregious was Wagner going to a French FOB in Centrafrique (RCA) (the French army left a day prior) to bury african corpses. In daylight, speaking russian, not checking for camera, not jamming low-altitude drones. Obviously the French army kept the footage and waited to see who woultd publish the "French army killed locals and buried them" story. While when you have suspicions about recent USA operations (this leak non-wistanding), you find nothing. That's why i know for sure nord stream 1 and 2 were not done by Russia (we would have evidence already) and i suspect it's not the US that planned the destruction (or at least not the usual department) because of the boat we saw.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  Because of pervasive corruption, they’re also many Russians willing to leak information for a fee…like when Navalny’s team purchased the database of FGS officers sent to protect Putin on his alleged yacht (it’s officially owned by another oligarch but I guess Putin uses it whenever he wishes as the mafia boss).