[Misc] Putin's Least Believable BS Yet?

[The Clamp]

The way our secret services carry on we have no grounds to criticise.

 

[The Clamp]

Agreed. Dingodan's argument fell down the moment he wrote 'An honest English translation of "Almost certianly" = "Not certainly".' Very little in life is 100% certain these days, "almost certain" is usually as strong as anyone can go.

Dingodan is correct.

 

[Juan Albion]

Dingodan is correct.

Only in a black and white world.

 

[The Clamp]

Only in a black and white world.

He's correct in that "almost certainly" is a contradictory term. It makes no sense. He's almost certainly wrong about everything else.

 

[Juan Albion]

He's correct in that "almost certainly" is a contradictory term. It makes no sense. He's almost certainly wrong about everything else.

No, he's playing the kind of word game that conspiracy theorists thrive on. He's implying that "almost certain" is the same as "not certain". Just playing with words in a binary way. He's trying to imply that "almost certainly" can be translated as not at all certain. The sun is almost certain to rise here in the morning, but it isn't 100% certain because it could cease to exist in the few hours before that happens. But I bet it does, it's almost certainly going to happen. Conspiracy theorists try to convert everything to black and white but the world isn't like that. In a binary world, something is either certain or not certain, but those of us in reality know that such things exist on a likelihood scale of, say, 0% to 99% (and very occasionally 100%). "Almost certain" = "not certain" is conspiracy theory doublespeak that wants to give the lack of certainty much greater weight than was ever intended, just to muddy the water.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

 

[Boys 9d]

Does anyone believe that with all the media publicity and comments from politicians, the two suspects could have a fair trial in a British Court of Law or would they be condemned out of hand by a jury?

 

[The Clamp]

Spies killing spies.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Does anyone believe that with all the media publicity and comments from politicians, the two suspects could have a fair trial in a British Court of Law or would they be condemned out of hand by a jury?

What about the Hillsborough trials? Do you think the defendants will get a fair trial? I would suggest there has been a lot more media publicity, and comments from politicians about that.
Juries are directed to only accept evidence produced in court.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think people are slightly misunderstanding my point.

I don't begrudge anyone in thinking that it looks really likely that these two guys are Russian agents and are responsible for what happened. I tend to think the same.

Well that's a good start.

But I am also willing to distinguish between "looks really likely" and "is definately true". All I have actually said is that it may not have been these guys, and while something only "looks really likely", then it's also "possibly not the case". When people talk about this like it's a sure thing, what they are effectively saying is that they are willing to believe something without sufficient evidence to prove it, and I think that's unhealthy if you have any interest in what is true.

I am seeing a lot of confirmation bias when people talk about this. That is unhealthy is all I am saying.

That's all fair enough, I agree with you that it is good to hold on to some scepticism. As things are, I don't fully trust our government, I never will fully trust any government. Was the fact that they lied about Hillsborough really a shock to any of us?

However, it made sense that they were lying then. Obviously the UK haven't poisoned the Skripals (let's maintain some common sense in this). If they didn't have evidence, they'd have just said they felt it was an attempted assassination by Russia, and that would be it. The public here wouldn't have been demanding more, I wouldn't expect them to be able to find out all the details. But it's impressive how much they have been able to identify, including all the cctv of the two Russians, which the Russians haven't denied.

Now let's look at the alibi they've given. Does it make sense? Does it seem reasonable? No, and no. It's ridiculous. It's like walking into a room an seeing a 3 year old with cholcolate all around their mouth and listening to them explain that they haven't seen the chocolates. There's cctv evidence of them going through customs in separate queues (to avoid looking like they're together) and they've lied and said they went through together, they're always together. And then there's the footage of them near the Skripal's house, miles from the tourist attractions, with no possibility to get to the Cathedral in the time they were in Salisbury. They flew all the way from Moscow, went to Salisbury twice, and didn't have time to get to the Cathedral that they claim was the sole purpose of their visit. Pull the other one, it's got bells on. It's plane as day that they're guilty.

We went to see famous 123 metre tower

 

[LlcoolJ]

Did anyone else see the interview with the ex KGB bloke on Sky news last night? It was piss funny.

He babbled a load of nonsense and then agreed that the two blokes were clearly lying but that they were nothing to do with Russian secret services and were most likely to be "semi criminal couriers" who were also "probably gay".

Most bizarre thing I've seen in a while.

 

[dingodan]

Well that's a good start.

That's all fair enough, I agree with you that it is good to hold on to some scepticism. As things are, I don't fully trust our government, I never will fully trust any government. Was the fact that they lied about Hillsborough really a shock to any of us?

However, it made sense that they were lying then. Obviously the UK haven't poisoned the Skripals (let's maintain some common sense in this). If they didn't have evidence, they'd have just said they felt it was an attempted assassination by Russia, and that would be it. The public here wouldn't have been demanding more, I wouldn't expect them to be able to find out all the details. But it's impressive how much they have been able to identify, including all the cctv of the two Russians, which the Russians haven't denied.

Now let's look at the alibi they've given. Does it make sense? Does it seem reasonable? No, and no. It's ridiculous. It's like walking into a room an seeing a 3 year old with cholcolate all around their mouth and listening to them explain that they haven't seen the chocolates. There's cctv evidence of them going through customs in separate queues (to avoid looking like they're together) and they've lied and said they went through together, they're always together. And then there's the footage of them near the Skripal's house, miles from the tourist attractions, with no possibility to get to the Cathedral in the time they were in Salisbury. They flew all the way from Moscow, went to Salisbury twice, and didn't have time to get to the Cathedral that they claim was the sole purpose of their visit. Pull the other one, it's got bells on. It's plane as day that they're guilty.

We went to see famous 123 metre tower

You are still falling victim to confirmation bias. Try to understand that I am not saying that they didn't do it, a circumstantial case in terms of where they were and when seems reasonably suspicious.

But you have to be careful not to latch onto things in order to confirm what you already believe, you have to assess the evidence objectively. Two russians where found to be walking in the area on the day, it's also possible that you could find two Russians walking in any town or city in the country on any day of the week (or Americans, or Germans, or Saudis or any other nationality for that matter). So that fact alone isn't really good enough to make things "plain as day".

What you said about going through customs in separate queues is also confirmation bias. There was some controversy over the CCTV images because the time stamps were exactly the same on each photo. Some people suggested that this proved the CCTV images were fake. Of course they weren't fake, but they also prove that the two men went through at the same time, they were just seperated by the narrow channels which allow only one person through at a time, and it's perfectly normal for two people travelling together to go through different channels, that's what you would do.

The BBC explored this issue in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45454142

the non-return gates at Gatwick are a series of near-identical corridors that the two men could easily have passed down, adjacent to one another, at the same time.

So the time stamps being the same do not support the conspiracy theory that the images are fake, but they also don't support your assertion that the men were in "seperate queues" or that they wanted to "avoid looking like they were together". In order to pass through these channels at exactly the same second they must have been together right before hand, and together as soon as they came out the other side.

I find their overall "itinerary" as suspicious as you do, but you have to try to remain objective when assessing the evidence.

 

[Norman Potting]

Setting aside for a moment the distress that it caused those directly affected it has been a field day for the news satire sites my fave being...

http://newsthump.com/2018/09/14/luftwaffe-just-wanted-to-see-st-pauls-cathedral/

 

[pb21]

You are still falling victim to confirmation bias. Try to understand that I am not saying that they didn't do it, a circumstantial case in terms of where they were and when seems reasonably suspicious.

But you have to be careful not to latch onto things in order to confirm what you already believe, you have to assess the evidence objectively. Two russians where found to be walking in the area on the day, it's also possible that you could find two Russians walking in any town or city in the country on any day of the week (or Americans, or Germans, or Saudis or any other nationality for that matter). So that fact alone isn't really good enough to make things "plain as day".

What you said about going through customs in separate queues is also confirmation bias. There was some controversy over the CCTV images because the time stamps were exactly the same on each photo. Some people suggested that this proved the CCTV images were fake. Of course they weren't fake, but they also prove that the two men went through at the same time, they were just seperated by the narrow channels which allow only one person through at a time, and it's perfectly normal for two people travelling together to go through different channels, that's what you would do.

The BBC explored this issue in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45454142

So the time stamps being the same do not support the conspiracy theory that the images are fake, but they also don't support your assertion that the men were in "seperate queues" or that they wanted to "avoid looking like they were together". In order to pass through these channels at exactly the same second they must have been together right before hand, and together as soon as they came out the other side.

I find their overall "itinerary" as suspicious as you do, but you have to try to remain objective when assessing the evidence.

Putin could say he ordered it and these two could say they did it, but that still doesn't mean you can be certain they did it.

 

[dingodan]

Putin could say he ordered it and these two could say they did it, but that still doesn't mean they certainly did.

To be fair an admission of guilt does qualify as good quality evidence in my book.

 

[Horses Arse]

I hear they're claiming that Selhurst Park has an atmosphere, that the Palace support is legendary and unique and that their ultras will be there no matter what.

Just to take the heat off the BS surrounding the bungled Salisbury tour and make it sound more believable.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

You are still falling victim to confirmation bias. Try to understand that I am not saying that they didn't do it, a circumstantial case in terms of where they were and when seems reasonably suspicious.

But you have to be careful not to latch onto things in order to confirm what you already believe, you have to assess the evidence objectively. Two russians where found to be walking in the area on the day, it's also possible that you could find two Russians walking in any town or city in the country on any day of the week (or Americans, or Germans, or Saudis or any other nationality for that matter). So that fact alone isn't really good enough to make things "plain as day".

What you said about going through customs in separate queues is also confirmation bias. There was some controversy over the CCTV images because the time stamps were exactly the same on each photo. Some people suggested that this proved the CCTV images were fake. Of course they weren't fake, but they also prove that the two men went through at the same time, they were just seperated by the narrow channels which allow only one person through at a time, and it's perfectly normal for two people travelling together to go through different channels, that's what you would do.

The BBC explored this issue in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45454142

So the time stamps being the same do not support the conspiracy theory that the images are fake, but they also don't support your assertion that the men were in "seperate queues" or that they wanted to "avoid looking like they were together". In order to pass through these channels at exactly the same second they must have been together right before hand, and together as soon as they came out the other side.

I find their overall "itinerary" as suspicious as you do, but you have to try to remain objective when assessing the evidence.

You just keep falling back on your pompous 'confirmation bias' mantra if it makes you feel superior to the vast majority of level-headed people who examined the timelines - including the arrival of Skripal's daughter in the UK to visit her dad - and came to exactly the same conclusion as the rest of the non-Russian-state-sponsored world.

As somebody said up top of the thread, Russia got sloppy and got caught bang to rights by CCTV, despite their best efforts at obfuscating the paper trail of their movements. Two trips from London to Salisbury in two days on shitty trains to look at a cathedral spire their extremely odd friends had been nagging them for years to visit. I mean, REALLY?

Overall it's completely peurile spin. But keep banging on about 'confirmation bias' if it makes you feel smart

 

[Superseagull]

I reckon Putin made these two go on TV to try and talk their way out of it as a kind of punishment for totally cocking up the assination attempt. Getting caught on loads of CCTV, dumping the novochok where it could be found, travelling together, failing to kill the target, etc are all pretty basic fails in the spy industry. It makes Russia secret agents look like idiots. Putin will not be pleased with the efforts of these two.

 

[dingodan]

No, he's playing the kind of word game that conspiracy theorists thrive on. He's implying that "almost certain" is the same as "not certain". Just playing with words in a binary way. He's trying to imply that "almost certainly" can be translated as not at all certain. The sun is almost certain to rise here in the morning, but it isn't 100% certain because it could cease to exist in the few hours before that happens. But I bet it does, it's almost certainly going to happen. Conspiracy theorists try to convert everything to black and white but the world isn't like that. In a binary world, something is either certain or not certain, but those of us in reality know that such things exist on a likelihood scale of, say, 0% to 99% (and very occasionally 100%). "Almost certain" = "not certain" is conspiracy theory doublespeak that wants to give the lack of certainty much greater weight than was ever intended, just to muddy the water.

The one thing you can say about something which is "almost certain", is that it is "not certain".

That's not "doublespeak". Infact the term "almost certain" is actually a good example doublespeak.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are still falling victim to confirmation bias.

No, I'm not.

But you have to be careful not to latch onto things in order to confirm what you already believe, you have to assess the evidence objectively.

I am.

Two russians where found to be walking in the area on the day, it's also possible that you could find two Russians walking in any town or city in the country on any day of the week (or Americans, or Germans, or Saudis or any other nationality for that matter). So that fact alone isn't really good enough to make things "plain as day".

Of course that alone isn't enough, that would be ridiculous. If you think that's all the evidence is, you're mad.

What you said about going through customs in separate queues is also confirmation bias. There was some controversy over the CCTV images because the time stamps were exactly the same on each photo. Some people suggested that this proved the CCTV images were fake. Of course they weren't fake, but they also prove that the two men went through at the same time, they were just seperated by the narrow channels which allow only one person through at a time

No they did not prove that they went through customs at the same time. That's your confirmation bias right there. They went through that section of the airport at the same time. They're not standing one after the other, showing their passports to passport control.

So the time stamps being the same do not support the conspiracy theory that the images are fake, but they also don't support your assertion that the men were in "seperate queues" or that they wanted to "avoid looking like they were together". In order to pass through these channels at exactly the same second they must have been together right before hand, and together as soon as they came out the other side.

That's incorrect. It's when you hand over your passport and say why you're in the country that counts.

I find their overall "itinerary" as suspicious as you do, but you have to try to remain objective when assessing the evidence.

I am remaining objective. The itinerary is past suspicious though. Given where and when they were pictured, they didn't have time to see the Cathedral, which is their one reason for visiting. It shows that they're lying.