Something is cooking...

[BIAD]

(Continued From Above) Edit: Apologies to Wallfire for not responding at once.

Here's an excellent alternative website that can give a reader an insight to what one particular mainstream
outlet (and sometimes others) does to propagate the established narrative.
.....................................................................

Skripal Case: Luke Harding’s latest work of fiction



Luke Harding likes writing books about things that he wasn’t really involved in and doesn’t really understand.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, that covers pretty much everything. His book about Snowden, for example,
was beautifully taken down by Julian Assange -a person who was actually there.

He’s priming the traumatised public for another of his works, this time about Sergei Skripal.
This one will probably be out by Christmas, unless he can find someone else’s work to plagiarise, in which case
he might get it done sooner.

It will have a snide and not especially clever title, perhaps a sort of pun –something like
“A Poison by Any Other Name: How Russian assassins contaminated the heart of rural England”.

It will relate, in jarring sub-sub-le Carre prose, a story of Russian malfeasance and evil beyond imagining, whilst
depicting the whole cast as bumbling caricatures, always held up for ridicule by the author and his smug readership.

There’s an extract in The Guardian today. It’s not listed as one, but trust me, it will be in the book.
It’s title, as predicted above, is sort of a pun (and will probably be a chapter heading):

"Planes, trains and fake names: the trail left by Skripal suspects"

You see? Like that film? I don’t really get it either but until someone else comes up with something clever he can copy,
Luke is left to his own rather meagre devices. It starts off surprisingly strong, waiting three whole sentences before
lurching violently into totally unsupported conjecture:

''The two men were dressed inconspicuously in jeans, fleece jackets and trainers
as they boarded the flight from Moscow to Gatwick. Their names, according to their
Russian passports, were Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov.

Both were around 40 years old. Neither looked suspicious...''

This is, as far as we know so far, true.

''...The plane trundled down the icy runway. In Moscow the temperatures had fallen
below -10C, not unusual for early March. In Britain it had been snowing...''

…and so is this. In fact, in googling “Moscow weather March 2018” Harding has displayed an uncharacteristically thorough
approach to research that was rarely (if ever) evidenced in his previous works.

''...They had also packed a bottle of what appeared to be the Nina Ricci perfume Premier Jour.
The box it came in was prettily decorated with flowers, it listed ingredients including alcohol
and it bore the words “Made in France”...''

This is where truth ends and guesses take over: there is no evidence, at all, that these two men had anything to do with
the “perfume bottle” allegedly found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th and allegedly containing a powerful nerve agent.

There is (as far as we know) no fingerprint or DNA evidence on the bottle, nobody saw them with the bottle, and there’s
no released CCTV footage of them holding or carrying the bottle.
Saying “it’s in their backpack” is meaningless without any evidence to back it up.

''....According to the Metropolitan police, the bottle in fact contained novichok, a lethal nerve agent
developed in the late Soviet Union. The bottle had been specially made to be leakproof and had
a customised applicator...''

Note he doesn’t feel the need to examine, question or even verify the words of the Metropolitan Police.
This is a recurring theme in Harding’s works – there are people who tell the truth (US) and people who lie (RUSSIANS).
Evidence is a complication you can live without.

''...Moscow’s notorious poisons factory run by the KGB made similar devices
throughout the cold war...''

Did they? Because he doesn’t show any evidence this is true.
One thing you can be sure of, if there had ever been even a whisper about a “modified perfume bottle” in any Soviet
archive or from any “whistleblower currently living in the United States”, it would be on the front page in big black letters.

''...Petrov and Boshirov were aliases, detectives believe.
Both men are suspected to be career officers with the GRU, Russia’s powerful and
highly secretive military intelligence service...''

Note use of the word “believe”, it makes regular appearances alongside it’s buddies: “suspect” and “probably”.

And yes, they “believe” they are aliases because IF they were assassins then obviously they used aliases.
There’s no evidence taken from their (currently totally theoretical) visa applications that point to forgery, nobody
at the time questioned their passports.

As of today, we have been given no reason to think they were aliases, except reasoning backwards from assumed
guilt…which isn’t how deduction works.

In fact, there’s more than enough reason to assume they aren’t aliases –Firstly, they passed the visa check, secondly
their passports were never questioned, thirdly they’ve used them before (see below), and finally…just WHY would a
Russian spy-come-assassin use a fake Russian name and a fake Russian passport? That’s ridiculous.

''...The officers’ assignment was covert.
They were coming to Britain not as tourists but as assassins...''

[citation needed]

''...Their target was Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer who spied for British intelligence,
got caught and was freed in a spy exchange in 2010.
They were heading for his home in provincial Salisbury...''

Luke doesn’t feel the need to dig down into the nitty gritty here –motive is a trifle, to be added in the footnotes or made
up on the spur of the moment when asked at a book signing.

I’m a bit more fussy than that –I feel the need to ask “Why did they release him in 2010 and then try to kill him in 2018?”
If they had wanted to kill him, why not just do it when he was in prison in Russia between 2006 and 2010?
If they wanted to kill him…why do it just weeks before the World Cup? What could they possibly have to gain?

Luke doesn’t know, and neither do I.

''...Their Aeroflot flight SU2588 touched down at 3pm on Friday 2 March.
They were recorded on CCTV going through passport control, Boshirov with dark hair
and a goatee beard, Petrov unshaven and wearing a blue gingham shirt.
Both were carrying satchels slung casually over the shoulder...''

This is all true, and completely unnecessary.
It’s what we in the industry call “filler” or “padding”. Totally meaningless and useless words that do nothing but take up space.
Without it, a lot of Luke’s books would only be about 700 words long.

''...According to police, the pair had visited the UK before...''

Way to bury the lead there, Luke.

This is actually quite important isn’t it? I mean, when did they visit the UK before? Did they visit Salisbury then too?
Did they have any contact with Sergei Skripal? Were they travelling under the same names? Were these visits linked
with other intelligence work? Were they just holidays?
What kind of assassins would use the SAME FAKE IDS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS?

These are all very important questions, but Luke doesn’t ask them.
Because Luke is a modern journalist, and they don’t interrogate the claims of the state, just report them.
To Guardian reporters a question mark is just that funny squiggle next to the shift key.

''...From Gatwick they caught the train to London Victoria station and then the tube to
east London, where they checked in to the City Stay hotel in Bow.
It was a low-profile choice of accommodation.

The red-brick Victorian building is next to a branch of Barclays bank, a busy train line
and a wall daubed with graffiti. Across the road is a car pound and a Texaco garage...''

This just more filler. Totally meaningless packaging material. The prose equivalent of All-Bran.

''...On hostile territory, Boshirov and Petrov operated in the manner of classic intelligence
operatives...''

In this instance “the manner of classic intelligence operatives” means,
flying direct to London from Moscow, using Russian names and Russian passports (which you’ve used before),
checking into a hotel with a CCTV camera on the front door, going straight to the hometown of an ex-double agent,
leaving a Russian poison his front door even though he’s already gone out, dumping your unused poison in a charity
bin on the high street, going back to your hotel, smearing poison around that too even though you already dumped it,
and then flying directly back to Moscow without even waiting to see if the plan worked and the target is dead.

This, in Luke’s head, is ace intelligence work.

''...On the day of the hit, according to detectives, the pair made a similar journey,
taking the 8.05am train from Waterloo to Salisbury and arriving at 11.48am...''

Yes, they arrived at 11.48, making it absolutely pointless to put poison on the Skripal’s door, as they had already gone out.

"...The perfume bottle was probably concealed in a light grey backpack carried by Petrov...''

It was “probably concealed” in that backpack because, as I said above, there’s no evidence either of those men ever
knew the perfume bottle existed. You never see it in their possession.

Oh, and the backpack would have to contain TWO bottles of perfume –because the police aren’t sure the bottle Rowley
found 3 months later was the same bottle, and Rowley reported it was unopened and wrapped in cellophane.

Perhaps Luke should have read the details of the case instead of trolling IMDB looking for movie titles with “plane” in them
or googling “insouciant” to see if he was using it right.

''...From Salisbury station the two men set off on foot. It was a short walk of about a
mile to Skripal’s semi-detached home in Christie Miller Road...''

…which doesn’t matter, because the Skripals weren’t there. They left at 9.15 and there is no evidence they ever returned.

''...At Skripal’s house the Russians smeared or sprayed novichok on to the front door
handle, police say...''

…which doesn’t matter, because the Skripals weren’t there. They left at 9.15 and there is no evidence they ever returned.

It doesn’t matter if Borishov and Petrov re-tiled the bathroom with novichok grouting or hid novichok in the battery compartment
of Sergei’s TV remote or replaced all his lightbulbs with novichok bombs that explode when you use the clapper….
according to everything we’ve been told so far Sergei and Julia were literally never in that house again.

Luke seems to write a lot about this case, considering he is barely acquainted with the most basic facts of it.

''...The moment went unobserved..''

True. There is not a single piece of footage, photograph or eyewitness placing these men within a hundred feet of the
Skripals, or their house. The “moment went unobserved” is an incredibly dishonest way of phrasing this, “the moment
is entirely theoretical” is rather fairer. Or, if you want to be honest “it’s possible none of this happened”.

''...At some point on their walk back they must have tossed away the bottle,
which at this point was too dangerous to try to smuggle back through customs...''

It’s all falling into place perfectly isn’t it?
At some point the two men, who we never see holding or carrying the bottle, must have thrown it away because three
months later someone else found it. They took it through customs once but couldn’t a second time, because reasons.

Also one of them was smiling a sort of “I just poisoned somebody” smile:

''...At 1.05pm the men were recorded in Fisherton Street on their way back to
the station. They appeared more relaxed, Petrov grinning even...''

Those evil bastards.

''...By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a
park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone...''

No Luke: By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench in the centre of
Salisbury later that afternoon, the ALLEGED poisoners were gone.
Alleged is an important word for example, there is a marked difference between being an ALLEGED plagiarist,
and being a plagiarist.

''...The visitors were captured on CCTV one more time, at Heathrow airport. It was 7.28pm
and both men were going through security, Petrov first, wheeling a small black case.
In his right hand was a shiny red object, his Russian passport.
Police believe the passport was genuine, his name not. In other words, that it was a sophisticated
espionage operation carried out by a state or state entities...''

You see? Nobody thought the passport was fake, which means it was a really good fake. So the Russian state must have
been in on it. This is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If the passport did look fake, that would be evidence that the
men were spies…and therefore the Russian state was in on it.

Harding has created a narrative where there is literally no development that could ever challenge his conclusions.

''...Seemingly, the GRU plan –executed two weeks before Russia’s presidential election
–had worked perfectly...''

This is an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy –two things happen at the same time, therefore they happen
for the same reason. It’s a maneuver we at OffG refer to as “the Harding”, where you state two separate assertions or facts one
after the other in such a way as to imply a relationship, without ever making a solid statement.

I’ll give you an example:
Luke Harding was born in 1968, mere weeks before the brutal assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Harding is suggesting some sort of connection between the election and the poisoning. He can’t STATE it, because then he has
to explain his reasoning –and there isn’t any. Putin, and Russia as a whole, had nothing to gain from poisoning an ex-spy they had
released nearly a decade earlier, especially on the eve of a Presidential election and mere weeks before the World Cup.

There’s no argument to be made, so he doesn’t attempt to make one, he just makes a snide and baseless insinuation.
In his defense, Luke might genuinely believe it, cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a favorite amongst paranoid personalities,
of which Luke is definitely a prime example.

''..Vladimir Putin, the man whom a public inquiry found in 2016 had “probably” signed off
on the operation to kill Litvinenko. The UK security services say a “body of evidence” points
to the GRU...''

“Probably” is also a big word. For example, there’s a marked difference between “probably being a plagiarist” and “being
a plagiarist”.

''...It seems clear that Moscow continues to view Britain as a playground for undercover
operations and is relatively insouciant about the consequences, diplomatic and political.

The Skripal attack may have misfired. But the message, mingling contempt and arrogance,
is there for all to see: we can smite our enemies whenever and wherever we want, and there
is nothing you can do about it...''

This is the second time Luke has used the word “insouciant” in two days, which means that word of the day calendar was a
probably sound investment, but he forgot to flip it over this morning.
Other than that, this final paragraph is nothing but paranoia.

The Russians were TRYING to make it obvious, to send a message.
But were also lazy and arrogant. And yet also left no solid evidence because they are experts at espionage.
They had no motive except being mean, and couldn’t even be bothered to make sure they did it right.
They want us all to know they did it, but will never admit it.

The actual truth of the situation can be summed up in a few bullet points. Currently:

*There is no evidence these men were using forged documents.

*There is no evidence these men were travelling under aliases or assumed names.

*There is no evidence these men ever had any contact with Sergei Skripal’s house.

*There is no evidence these men ever had any contact with Sergei Skripal or his daughter.

*There is no evidence these men were Russian intelligence assets or had any military training.

*There is no evidence these men ever possessed or had any contact with the perfume bottle
found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th.

*They have visited the UK before, not on intelligence business (as far as we know).

*Their movements don’t align with the timeline of Skripal’s illness.

The entire narrative is created around half a dozen screen caps of two (allegedly) Russian men, not behaving in any way illegally
or even suspiciously. All the rest is fiction, created by a hack to service an agenda.
This isn’t one of those “You couldn’t make it up” stories, it’s not that incredible. It’s just insulting and stupid.

You could make it up, and he did.

OFF GUARDIAN: