Archives For propaganda

The BBC have replied to HRI’s initial complaint about their “Idlib double Tap Air Strike Russia says never happened” report, failing to apologise or issue a retraction whilst strengthening the case they have used faulty OSINT and deliberate video fakery to make the case that Russia was responsible for an alleged double- tap air strike in Maarat al Numan on 22 July 2019.

In response to HRI pointing out that they have used the same footage to make two different narratives (firstly that the White Helmets were arriving at the scene and secondly that a sun dial calculation immediately followed the alleged second strike.) the BBC have claimed that the footage was taken by an eyewitness called “Mohammed Sharawy”:

“We asked this eyewitness to send us his complete footage that day and we are able to follow his journey and match it to map and satellite imagery of the town. It is clear that he was very close to the attack and approached the back of the block that was destroyed. He hid in a building when the second strike took place alongside a White Helmets team and then ran and followed them into their ambulance which drove around the corner to the other side of the building where there was greater damage.  We did not show this ambulance footage for taste/decency reasons as it contained images of dead bodies and body parts.”

So, the BBC’s new narrative is that after running from his house in his pajamas, Sharawy hid in a house coincidentally with the White Helmets from where the second strike was filmed, before asking the White Helmets if he could take a lift to the scene of the bombing in the ambulance. They allowed him to do so despite the ambulance already containing body parts and bodies from the first strike. The ambulance, with a Mohammed and bodies on board, headed for the bomb location with its windscreen wipers on despite it being a completely dry day on 22 July.

This unlikely narrative poses a number of questions, not least why the BBC maintains Sharawy is independent of the White Helmets and why there is no footage of a cameraman wearing pajamas at the scene, but lets move on to a couple of points before getting to the main point of this article:

  1. The BBC fails to apologise or issue a correction for the obvious mistake in its geolocation of Sharawy’s initial footage.

One of the major flaws in the BBC report is the erroneous geolocation of Sharawy’s shots allegedly after the first strike.

In their response to HRI’s complaint, the BBC gloss over this, despite the fact it means there are major doubts over the verification measures over other shots in the report (in particular those supposedly showing the second strike).

Just to lay out the BBC’s error so it is crystal clear:

The BBC geolocate Sharawy’s footage at 02.29 (English version) here:

The footage which they now claim was taken by Sharawy after jumping out of the ambulance they geolocate here:

As we can see the BBC geolocations are in the same place, but the actual street scenes are radically different (from street shown at 02.29) as we can see from the continuation of the shot at 00:08:

So the BBC now tacitly admit their mistake saying, Sharawy approached the back of the block that was destroyed.”

The BBC also claim:

“We forensically analyse footage using a variety of techniques, including video verification, posting information and usually interviews with the people posting content.  We compare footage posted by different people claiming to show same incident with satellite imagery and with any other stills in the public domain. We use mapping techniques and identify individual identifiable buildings, or distinctive parts of buildings (such as doors or windows) in order to match the location where something was filmed with previously existing material in the area or otherwise. Using this process we are able to determine with a significant degree of accuracy the location of an incident.”

However, they have failed to correct their report, failed to explicitly admit to their mistake, failed to provide any geolocation evidence for the “back of the block” claim and failed to explain why they made the mistake after all the verification methods they claim to have in place.

This leads to the second point:

  • The BBC have shown no evidence as to the location from which the shots of the alleged second strike were taken.

Having failed to correctly verify Sharawy’s initial location we have no evidence the BBC has correctly verified the location of the shots showing the alleged second strike, They have provided no evidence they have even geolocated these shots. So how do we know this footage was not taken at a different place or a different time? – A strange omission as it should be easy enough for the BBC to prove the location.

So BBC Arabic – Let’s see the locations of the “distinctive parts of buildings (such as doors or windows)” which are shown in the shots of the alleged second strike:

If we freeze frame the second strike shots we can see that what first appears to be continuous footage includes a number of cuts and it is has to be doubted that the individual shots which are spliced together were taken at the same place and time.

Here are some freeze frames from the BBC report to illustrate the point (which may also be useful in geolocating the actual camera locations):

Shot within sky sequence showing top of building:

Apparently behind glass. Beginning of bomb noise (Bomb noise and fast movement of the camera are classic tricks used to disguise a cut):

End of bomb noise, behind window frame, no points of similarity in this frame (BBC Russian version):

How the BBC used fakery to persuade its audience of a Russian double tap.

It’s a tactic previously used by insurgent propagandists to splice two pieces of footage together in order to fake evidence of, for instance, a helicopter bomb drop. The audio sound tracks may be altered to try and deflect the viewers’ attention away from the cut.

So, have the BBC fallen for a similar technique, or even used it themselves?

Following the shots showing an alleged second strike, the camera person runs from the location and the narrator says:

“In the footage filmed by Mohammed immediately after the second hit, we can see the shadow cast by a rescuer, which we use as a sundial. 30 minutes after the reported time of the first strike – the “double tap”.”

The narrative is clearly at odds with the explanation the BBC have now given.

The BBC are now claiming the footage used for the sun dial to establish the time of the second strike was filmed after Mohammed asked the White Helmets for permission to ride in the ambulance with the body parts, after he and the White Helmets got into the ambulance and after the ambulance had driven to the location of the bombing at the front of the building from the location of the filming of the second strike.

So not “immediately” as the BBC claim in their report.

In what appears to be a deliberate technique to hide the relevant cut, the audio on the shot of people running out of the building after the second strike is synchronised with the audio of the White Helmet running leading up to the sun dial frame. This is done by having the sound of radio communication on both shots (around 03:27).

The BBC now implicitly admit, through their claim Mohammed traveled on the White Helmet’s ambulance, that the two shots they spliced together link two pieces of action separated by some time.

The exact same footage of the White Helmet running, used at the beginning of the BBC report (at 00:08), has no such radio communication noise on the audio track, but rather than sound of an ambulance.

Viewers are thus provided with audio clues which deceive them into perceiving that the action is continuous between the video of the second strike and the shot of the White Helmet whose shadow is used as a sun dial.

Viewers are indeed prompted to pay particular attention to the audio track, by the device of showing a graphic of the audio whilst Mohammed is talking.

The deception is achieved through a combination of the audio and video tracks and also because the narrator falsely (as we now know from the BBC’s own admission) claims that:

“In the footage filmed by Mohammed immediately after the second hit, we can see the shadow cast by a rescuer, which we use as a sundial. 30 minutes after the reported time of the first strike – the “double tap”.”

Conclusion

The BBC fail to admit the obvious flaws in their anti-Russia hit piece.

Their new narrative (in response to HRI’s complaint) is at odds with the narrative in their report.

The BBC have manipulated the video, audio and narrative to create a false impression of continuity between the supposed second air strike and the point at which they use the shadow of the White Helmet as a sun dial – which is their primary evidence of a second strike.

So what does the “Idlib double Tap Air Strike Russia says never happened” represent? It has nothing at all to do with journalism, educating or entertaining the public and everything to do with propaganda.

There is no consideration of alternative explanations of the incident including fakery and use of car bombs or VBIEDs.

The targets of the propaganda are not just the public, but also US and UK politicians and the timing can be seen in the light of the changing dynamic on the ground in Syria, which has been reflected in the USA having recently turned against members of the insurgent camp, no doubt much to the dismay of the regime change lobby.

The legal situation with such a broadcast, which has a propaganda intention rather than an intention to educate or entertain, is set out in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

With Al Qaeda on the back foot in Idlib, certain Western journalists haven’t lost their will to use the situation in the province for a bit of Russia bashing and many seem unconcerned that their efforts are ill-thought out and ridiculous as we see in this recent instance.

A few chosen journos (such as Alex Crawford) venture into the Al Qaeda-controlled area, guided by the likes of Hadi Abdallah and given (relatively) safe passage on the tacit understanding they will support the Jihadi propaganda effort. Now hacks at BBC Arabic have found a new angle, interspersing footage from insurgent propagandists such as the UK government funded White Helmets with some anti-Russian rhetoric which they no doubt feel will benefit their future careers.

The latest from the UK state-funded propaganda outfit is a 9:18 piece purporting to prove a Russian double tap strike on Maarat al Numan, a town which stands directly in the path of any attempts to rid Idlib of its foreign-funded al Qaeda problem. A double-tap strike is a technique employed, according to Wikipedia, by Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen and by the United States in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, so there may be an element of projection on the part of the BBC journos – perhaps aware, somewhere in the back of their minds, that the state for whose propaganda arm they work is instrumental in the ongoing destruction of Yemen.

Anyhow, a certain SM Nader, Producer, Investigations Unit, Digital Documentaries seems to be claiming the credit for the OSINT behind the “Idlib ‘double tap’ air strike Russia says never was” mini-doc.

So there are a number of problems with Nadar’s mini-doc. The first that sprang to view was that the proof of a double-tap seems to lie in the position of a shadow proving there was a second strike 30 minutes after the first. This conflicts with the 25 page report of the SN4HR group which said the second strike was just 5 minutes after the first.

It is difficult to see how such a large discrepancy can be explained but Nader appeared unconcerned saying “eyewitnesses” had said 15-20 minutes – which appears to do little to settle the issue.

The next problem lay in the identification of the target which the BBC team give as a vegetable market. The Russians claimed the Maarat al Numan vegetable market was undamaged but the BBC scoffed at this saying it was a different market – and they have a picture of a falafel stall next to a destroyed building to prove it.

Nadar had no reply when it was pointed out to him that Obada Zekra, the ubiquitous Director of the White Helmets for Maarat al Numan had said the attack took place at the end of the street leading to the vegetable market near a motorcycle repair shop.

Analysis of the BBC video threw up another couple of problems. The first is that the graphic showing where star witness Mohammed al-Sharawy was supposedly initially filming from in his pajamas appears to be in the wrong street.

But, more seriously for the credibility of the BBC’s work (if anyone still takes their work seriously) – and the main point of this article – is that there is an amazing coincidence of images from near the beginning and a few minutes into the mini-doc.

At 00.08 we see film from a cameraman exiting a White Helmet vehicle dashing to the scene. Still:

At 03.28 we are told we are seeing footage filmed by star witness Mohammed al-Sharawy as he runs from cover immediately after the 2nd hit. Still:

The problem being the cameraman is clearly one and the same – knocking the BBC narrative for six.

The BBC film concerned:

So, what we have is a very sloppy BBC attempt to blame the Russians for a war crime (of using the US and Saudi double-tap technique). The “evidence” is based on very poorly understood video, most likely provided to them by Al Qaeda-linked propagandists and their attempted use of OSINT – a shadow to ascertain the time of a purported second strike – actually throws even more doubt on the veracity of their whole narrative.

For details of the BBC response and further analysis see this later post

Evidence shows that photographic evidence is being misused to “prove” the presence of Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine. It is clear that corporate media are complicit, either through stupidity or design, in this attempt to mould perceptions of the situation in post-coup Ukraine. Continue Reading…

Seasons greetings to our readers! Our festivities are on temporary hold as we look at the Halfaya bakery massacre.

The main elements of the Halfaya bakery massacre reported by news agency Reuters, CNN, Al Arabiya and other media channels, are that Syrian MIG jets bombed a bakery in Halfaya killing more than a hundred (CNN) and at least 300 (Al Arabiya) people. Continue Reading…

As is now well documented, the rebellion in Libya began with violent attacks on police stations, such as this one in Al-Bayda where people locked inside were reportedly burnt to death:

An intensive propaganda campaign systematically distorted the facts on the ground, including in particular allegations that the Libyan airforce was bombing peaceful protestors and that Libyan soldiers were being massacred for not shooting on unarmed protestors (since proven to have been a false flag operation). This propaganada allowed a mobilisation of the international community and the passing of UN Resolution 1973 which imposed the No-Fly Zone.

It is UN Resolution 1973 which NATO argues provides the legal basis for the coalition operation in Libya as NATO makes clear in their Factsheet on Operation Unified Protector:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 mandates “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack. In line with this authorisation, NATO conducts reconnaissance, surveillance and information-gathering operations to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians and civilian-populated areas.

Notwithstanding this NATO supported the rebels as they escalated the level of violence directed against those who opposed them, civilians and guest workers with attacks using Grad rockets, artillery, tanks and mortars – in fact any weapons that could be looted from arms dumps or supplied by NATO, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Here is an early example from Misrata of rebel forces nonchantly firing mortars, in between drinking cups of tea:

With the brutal assault on Sirte, which is facing a bombardment from the air, surpassing Guernica, the indiscriminate assaults on civilian areas are now being taken to a higher level:

As we have seen, NATO’s official justification for their operations includes a requirement “to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians or civilian-populated areas.”

Ralph Jodice

Commander of Allied Air Command Izmir, Lieutenant General Ralph J. Jodice II (U.S. Air Force)

Furthermore the justification includes this:
Targeting depends on the decisions of operational commanders. Targets struck to date have included tanks, armoured personnel carriers, air-defence systems and artillery around and approaching key civilian areas including Misrata, Ajdabiyah and Zintan. [My emphasis]

Yet clearly NATO is supporting the rebel use of tanks and artillery around and approaching the key civilian area of Sirte; indeed NATO and its allies are almost certainly supplying the ammunition for these big guns.

Many journalists are having trouble processing this information, let alone communicating it to their readership, as it does not fit in with the overriding paradigm of an operation “intended to protect civilians.”

It remains to be seen, which journalists have the intelligence to realise that the old paradigm is dead and the courage to communicate this fact to their readers. A new paradigm is required, a new framework to understand the NATO war on Libya, one which recognises that the mantra of “responsibity to protect civilians” which NATO repeats at every press conference and in every press release is nothing more than:

1) A propaganda device, aimed at the fooling the public into supporting a war of aggression.

2) A legal device whereby the NATO command seeks to escape responsibility for war crimes.

The New York Times have published unsupported allegations that this blog is being funded by Qaddafi.

The allegation was made in a 3800 word article regarding the ongoing HRI investigation into the facts around the bombing of Misrata, the arms trade and the involvement of US and Spanish officials.

On 23rd April 2011 the New York Times published the allegation by “several readers” that HRI:

“is a Qaddafi-backed site, a Qaddafi mouthpiece or even a flat-out hoax, another Gay Girl in Damascus.”

The author of the article, ex-marine CJ Chivers (who regularly reports on military and intelligence affairs for the NYT) went on to admit that:

“I have not looked into these things, and have no evidence that HRI is any of these things”

Contacted by HRI, the office of the public editor of the New York Times, refused to remove the article or answer the question as to whether the NYT considered it ethical to publish allegations, for which even the author admitted there was no evidence. The publisher of the NYT, Arthur Sulzberger, has refused to comment.

There are a number of factual errors in the article, as will become clear as we release more information about the facts regarding the cluster bombing of Misrata and about the HRI investigation.

Updated 20 July

The issue of the short stub case, which was pretty central to the NYT article’s allegations against HRI is tackled here.

The issue of the Spanish government’s transparency regarding cluster munitions is dealt with here and here.

Mr Hiznay has failed to provide a copy of his memorandum.

More information to come.

The admission today by the White House that their initial statements regarding the details of Bin Laden’s killing were fabrications are important for human rights investigators to bear in mind.

The White House has admitted that the claims (made mainly by chief US counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan) were fabrications, specifically:

1) The claim that Bin Laden was armed and firing an AK47 was false – he was unarmed
2) The claim his wife was used as a human shield is false
3) The claim his wife is dead is false – she is still alive, although shot in the leg

The new statement comes from Mr Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney.

In the face of these falsehoods at the highest level, it is essential for human rights organisations to really examine carefully the propaganda they have been fed by the US government at every level and particularly in relation to US wars and undercover operations.

It is important to remember that John Brennan plays a very major role in the US administration – he is titular head of US undercover operations and a key adviser to President Obama.

The statement of Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the US should make public the “precise facts surrounding his killing” is welcome.

NATO Supreme Commander Europe (SACEUR) is Admiral James E Stavridis. His job encompasses the war on the land, air, on the sea and also the ‘information war.’ Admiral Stavridis is the first Navy man to hold this position.

On 21/07/2010 Admiral Stavridis picked this question out of the many sent to him on his social networks:

“What’s the best advice you can give to operational commanders to help with the information war, that is so critical in today’s environment?”

Continue Reading…