[Misc] Putin's Least Believable BS Yet?

[LlcoolJ]

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/

[emoji23]

 

[dingodan]

No, I'm not.
I am.
Of course that alone isn't enough, that would be ridiculous. If you think that's all the evidence is, you're mad.

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.

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

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.

Ok, when you said, "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.".

You were talking about this photo weren't you?

That's them going through the corridors after baggage reclaim I mentioned above.

Is there any CCTV of them at passport control queueing seperately?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

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"

Maybe if it was expressed in terms of 'percentage probability', it might aid in your gap in understanding?

 

[Triggaaar]

Ok, when you said, "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.".

You were talking about this photo weren't you?

No, I was talking about the reports that our government have claimed they went through separate passport control queues. I haven't seen the cctv of it.

That's them going through the corridors after baggage reclaim I mentioned above.

Yes, that's not the same thing.

Is there any CCTV of them at passport control queueing seperately?

I don't know, I think it was reported that they went through passport control separately.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

No, the argument that "they must have evidence" is not evidence. It means you are trusting what you are told, and fair enough, but it's not evidence.

I'm sure plenty of Russians are trusting what they are being told too, and if your argument is just that we are trustworthy good guys and they are untrustworthy bad guys, no that's not good enough for me. I trust each side about equally, which isn't very much to be honest.

Nations don't back each other on a case by case basis and based on evidence. Friends back friends and that's pretty much all there is to it, so I don't read much into who is siding with who, those things are entirely predictable and are based on politics far more than they are based on evidence.

(I don't know if this point has previously been raised as I haven't read all the responses to this post yet)

How many cases do the public get to hear all of the evidence before a trial takes place? - None

So why do you seem to want all of this information released for this case when it isn't normal working practice to release it?

It seems that you want to undermine the authorities in this country and make it clear that you have serious trust issues with them, and are trying to encourage others to develop the same mistrust because you are trying to claim a conspiracy is happening because they haven't released this information despite not releasing the information being the normal working practice - why should this be the exception when it comes to what information is put into the public domain before a trial?

And finally, isn't it entirely possible that the entire evidence and case has been shared with other partner agencies (like other country's intelligence agencies) and that has been used as the basis for their support for the conclusions reached by the authorities in this country?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]1040515476542107648[/tweet]

 

[LlcoolJ]

[tweet]1040515476542107648[/tweet]

You'll get in trouble posting links to that racist's Tweets.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

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.

There are doors and barriers in those corridors that they passed through, maybe they were both held at the barrier in neighbouring corridors and the doors to the barriers opened at the same time, meaning that they both start walking forward, in adjacent sections and would therefore be the similar distance along the corridor as seen in both pictures (looks like both are in the process of walking forward at the same time to me but people often assume both would be standing still, however it's possible they are both in a position in that corridor that means they have to stand still and at the same distance down the corridor - also the pausing at the same time could be down to the system displaying all lanes together rather than individually, so they all pause at once rather than individual lanes pausing when the operator does it)

There would be the whole video as I seriously doubt that the CCTV system would just be a series of random, occasional stills like the one released, however to show the suspects, they will release a photo where they are near the camera as it offers the best view of what they look like

The whole thing may be presented as evidence in court, but it doesn't need to be shown in full in public just to appease the doubters and conspiracy nuts

 

[dingodan]

No, I was talking about the reports that our government have claimed they went through separate passport control queues. I haven't seen the cctv of it.

Yes, that's not the same thing.

I don't know, I think it was reported that they went through passport control separately.

You said "There's cctv evidence" and you even felt able to say why they did it.

So far I've not seen any basis for saying that, I tried a google search but couldn't find anything to support it.

I'm more than willing to accept that it happened if it's reported somewhere, but if it isn't would you be willing to acknowledge that you made a mistake on that?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You'll get in trouble posting links to that racist's Tweets.

 

[dingodan]

(I don't know if this point has previously been raised as I haven't read all the responses to this post yet)

How many cases do the public get to hear all of the evidence before a trial takes place? - None

So why do you seem to want all of this information released for this case when it isn't normal working practice to release it?

It seems that you want to undermine the authorities in this country and make it clear that you have serious trust issues with them, and are trying to encourage others to develop the same mistrust because you are trying to claim a conspiracy is happening because they haven't released this information despite not releasing the information being the normal working practice - why should this be the exception when it comes to what information is put into the public domain before a trial?

And finally, isn't it entirely possible that the entire evidence and case has been shared with other partner agencies (like other country's intelligence agencies) and that has been used as the basis for their support for the conclusions reached by the authorities in this country?

You are way off, my only point has been that definate things need proving. There may be evidence which we don't know about, I fully accept that. But if you don't know about it, how can you at the same time be definate about it?

I'm looking forward to being definate about the fact these guys did it, genuinely. I just can't until I know it's a proven fact, and I think that's a pretty reasonable standard.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

You said "There's cctv evidence" and you even felt able to say why they did it.

So far I've not seen any basis for saying that, I tried a google search but couldn't find anything to support it.

I'm more than willing to accept that it happened if it's reported somewhere, but if it isn't would you be willing to acknowledge that you made a mistake on that?

Don't know when some of you last went through LGW, or any other airport anywhere, but I can report that EVERYONE goes through passport control seperately, whether that be the biometric line or the non-biometric queue. The second person has to stand behind a line about four foot away until the person in front has been processed. Them's the rules.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

https://twitter.com/PaoloWalnuts/status/1040214960478015489?s=19

 

[dingodan]

There are doors and barriers in those corridors that they passed through, maybe they were both held at the barrier in neighbouring corridors and the doors to the barriers opened at the same time, meaning that they both start walking forward, in adjacent sections and would therefore be the similar distance along the corridor as seen in both pictures (looks like both are in the process of walking forward at the same time to me but people often assume both would be standing still, however it's possible they are both in a position in that corridor that means they have to stand still and at the same distance down the corridor - also the pausing at the same time could be down to the system displaying all lanes together rather than individually, so they all pause at once rather than individual lanes pausing when the operator does it)

There would be the whole video as I seriously doubt that the CCTV system would just be a series of random, occasional stills like the one released, however to show the suspects, they will release a photo where they are near the camera as it offers the best view of what they look like

The whole thing may be presented as evidence in court, but it doesn't need to be shown in full in public just to appease the doubters and conspiracy nuts

I don't know what point you are arguing here. I have no problem with what that image shows, it shows what happened. They split up at the start of the corridors to go through seperately (as you have to) at the same time. My point was only that it doesn't mean they were trying to avoid being seen together. Apparently I wrongly thought this was what [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] was referring to about them seperating themselves deliberately.

 

[dingodan]

Don't know when some of you last went through LGW, or any other airport anywhere, but I can report that EVERYONE goes through passport control seperately, whether that be the biometric line or the non-biometric queue. The second person has to stand behind a line about four foot away until the person in front has been processed. Them's the rules.

I've done the same recently myself, you are correct.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Arguing about the CCTV footage is like discussing what sauce is best to have on your dogshit sandwich.

 

[dingodan]

Can people stop accusing me of conspiracy theory. I haven't suggested a conspiracy anywhere in this thread.

I've suggested that you accept as fact things which are proven. Things which seem pretty likely you treat as things which seem pretty likely.

Conspiracy theorists accept things as fact when they are not proven, usually because it's what they already believe (or want to believe).

Some of that kind of thinking is going on in this thread, but not by me.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I've done the same recently myself, you are correct.

And that cctv shot of them both going through together HAS to have been taken from the automated doors beyond passport control that presumably get closed at the push of a button should anyone decide to do what on the face of it is a runner to freedom past the passport control desk. On this point only, I'll concede that no inference of guilt or otherwise should be drawn on whether they went through those gates in single file or two abreast. We've all done one or the other or both.

 

[dingodan]

And that cctv shot of them both going through together HAS to have been taken from the automated doors beyond passport control that presumably get closed at the push of a button should anyone decide to do what on the face of it is a runner to freedom past the passport control desk. On this point only, I'll concede that no inference of guilt or otherwise should be drawn on whether they went through those gates in single file or two abreast. We've all done one or the other or both.

That was exactly my point. But it's also moot if it's not what [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] was talking about.

FYI it's after baggage reclaim apparently, so that people can only enter baggage reclaim from the aircraft, not from the arrivals lounge (presumably to stop people coming in and stealing luggage).

 

[Bry Nylon]

I'm looking forward to being definate about the fact these guys did it, genuinely. I just can't until I know it's a proven fact, and I think that's a pretty reasonable standard.

Then you are looking for a higher burden of proof than any UK criminal court would, in the absence of a confession of guilt.

A criminal conviction is secured if guilt is deemed to be beyond reasonable doubt, in the opinion of the jury.

Given the accumulated evidence of these guys movements during their time in the UK, combined with the utter implausibility of their stated purpose for visiting Salisbury, the known origin of the poison, the history of the intended victim and Russia's 'previous' in this MO, I firmly believe their involvement is beyond the doubt of any reasonable person.

Out of genuine interest, what would you accept as 'proven fact'? CCTV of them administering poison to the door handle? Or would you then say it might have been WD40 and they were doing an odd job as a favour for an old GRU pal? In the absence of a confession, what would you accept as definitive proof of their involvement?