Two more victims of "unknown substance" in U.K.

Harry Palmr

Gatling wrote: »

Bellingcat strikes again ,
The have identified another suspect a Dr in the Russian intelligence noless

Alexander Petrov is Dr. Alexander Yevgenyevich Mishkin - according to Bellingcat investigators

The people running Bellingcat would do well to check under their beds and cars.

wexie

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The people running Bellingcat would do well to check under their beds and cars.

and door handles!!!

:pac:

Dohnjoe

wexie wrote: »

and door handles!!!

:pac:

and their cups of tea

Cheerful Spring

I think it's obvious now the Russians carried this out. Bellingcat also found a Ukraine connection for Miskan.

Which confirms why Skipral was a target for these two men.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Bellingcat strikes again ,
The have identified another suspect a Dr in the Russian intelligence noless

Alexander Petrov is Dr. Alexander Yevgenyevich Mishkin - according to Bellingcat investigators

Is it amazing a website does better work than people paid millions to do journalism on Sky News and the BBC.

Why don't they investigate the crimes of Saudi Arabia?

Find out what happened to this journalist who went inside the Saudi Embassy and never came back out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45775819

xckjoo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think it's obvious now the Russians carried this out. Bellingcat also found a Ukraine connection for Miskan.

Which confirms why Skipral was a target for these two men.

Fair play. You questioned but didn't get so stuck on your theory that you ignored all evidence to the contrary. Too many people these days are too obsessed with convincing themselves they're right that they're unable to learn.

Cheerful Spring

xckjoo wrote: »

Fair play. You questioned but didn't get so stuck on your theory that you ignored all evidence to the contrary. Too many people these days are too obsessed with convincing themselves they're right that they're unable to learn.

I don't see the point in doing that. If you wrong you better of admitting it. I left the door open in my posts it was Russia though but wanted better evidence first. I have seen enough now that convinces me it was carried out by these guys.

mcmoustache

Here are the comparison pictures for anyone interested. There's a link to the article here and they will be updating later with information on how they found out.

Alun

Whatever about Chepiga, you don't need any facial recognition software to see this is one and the same guy.

mcmoustache

Alun wrote: »

Whatever about Chepiga, you don't need any facial recognition software to see this is one and the same guy.

Yeah. The dimples are visible and the passports for Mishkin and Petrov have the same DOB and first names.

mcmoustache

xckjoo wrote: »

Fair play. You questioned but didn't get so stuck on your theory that you ignored all evidence to the contrary. Too many people these days are too obsessed with convincing themselves they're right that they're unable to learn.

And then you have people like Craig Murray who has managed to be so consistently wrong every step of the way on this. Even in one of the more recent articles he's claiming that the picture of Chepiga on the wall was faked - that wall, if you'll remember, is accessible to the public and has been photographed by loads of people. There are even photos of it on Russian state websites showing the picture.

So, what can we conclude about Craig Murray from this? Is he an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about? Is he paid by Russian media to push disinformation? Whatever it is, his blog is a useless source of information.

He's either thick or he's lying and hopefully people will understand this before using him as a source on here.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Is it amazing a website does better work than people paid millions to do journalism on Sky News and the BBC.

Those are news agencies which report international news, on a 24 hour basis. They are of differing quality, but they carry out many of their own investigations on a regular basis into a wide range of issues, from political scandals, to off-shore tax havens, to indepth press investigations, etc

You regularly dismiss them (whilst at the same time unquestioningly supporting e.g. random conspiracy blogs)

Bellingcat is a different type of outlet, they specifically focus on a far smaller range of events (e.g; MH17, Skripal poisoning)

Still a step in the right direction, although I suspect it's only because literally no one in the conspiracy community seems to be bothered to explain away the latest Skripal info with their usual imaginary horse**** - it's like they've just given up, along with the Kremlin

seamus

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

journalism on Sky News

LOL

mcmoustache

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why don't they investigate the crimes of Saudi Arabia?

Find out what happened to this journalist who went inside the Saudi Embassy and never came back out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45775819

They have been covering Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen. If you go to the website and click on the "MENA" (Middle East North Africa) section you'll see it.

As for the Journalist who disappeared in the Saudi consulate, Bellingcat might investigate it but this only happened a few days ago so it would be a few weeks before we would know. Also, they might not have many contacts/sources in Saudi Arabia or Turkey so it may be better to let other investigative organisations do it.

Even if they didn't write about Saudi Arabia, that wouldn't be a problem. A small news organisation can't put resources into investigating every country's fúckery. In the case of Bellincat, they seem to have good information, sources and expertise from Russia so that seems to be their main focus.

Billy86

Its probably worth noting that the mods on reddit.com/r/Ireland recently said they have been getting an infestation of Russian trolls who presumably don't know how ineffective a role our presidency is. Worth keeping in mind if boards gets an odd amount of new accounts in the lead on to our next general election.

Oh and (one of?) The troll factories got burned down the their day, seemingly from a Molotov cocktail.

Billy86

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

Bellingcat strikes again ,
The have identified another suspect a Dr in the Russian intelligence noless

Alexander Petrov is Dr. Alexander Yevgenyevich Mishkin - according to Bellingcat investigators

Is it amazing a website does better work than people paid millions to do journalism on Sky News and the BBC.

The BBC had the Bellingcat story st the top of their front page, and are reporting on this one too - https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-45791378

The name of the second suspect in the Salisbury case is actually Alexander Mishkin, the BBC understands.

The Bellingcat investigative website says the man who travelled under the alias Alexander Petrov is in reality a military doctor working for Russian intelligence, the GRU.

Last month, Bellingcat named the first suspect as Anatoliy Chepiga, a claim rejected by Russia.

When asked about the naming of Mr Mishkin, the Kremlin would not comment.

OK time to shift to complaining that the BBC cannot be trusted in 3... 2... 1...

wexie

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh and (one of?) The troll factories got burned down the their day, seemingly from a Molotov cocktail.

there's an odd sense of poetic justice there isn't there?

(although I believe it was Fins that named it that rather than Russians)

Dohnjoe

Apparently according to various sources in Russia, the head of the GRU has been put under serious pressure by Putin over it's handling of these affairs

mcmoustache

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This latest episode of propaganda will quickly die down and will be dropped by a compliant media within a day or two and this thread will also go very quiet accordingly. (like the Salisbury 'third suspect')
There will be a break for a time before the next episode of anti Russia propaganda is prepared for the masses.

Sergey Fedotov?

Were you trying to imply that the third suspect doesn't exist?

This thread has been very interesting and it has highlighted several important things.

First of all, Craig Murray is full of shít. I can't stress this enough.

Second, your "contributions" in trying to paint this as some anti-russian propaganda was very far off the mark. Even as evidence piled in, you persisted. I hope you learn from this and sort out whatever it is about yourself that made you come up with such an incorrect interpretation of what happened. Maybe you're getting your information from dodgy sources with a poor track record? Who knows, but your strategy of laying the blame everywhere but at the foot of Russia is clearly not helping your judgement.

And finally, disinformation is real.

Elmer Blooker

mcmoustache wrote: »

Sergey Fedotov?

Were you trying to imply that the third suspect doesn't exist?

This thread has been very interesting and it has highlighted several important things.

First of all, Craig Murray is full of sh I can't stress this enough.

Second, your "contributions" in trying to paint this as some anti-russian propaganda was very far off the mark. Even as evidence piled in, you persisted. I hope you learn from this and sort out whatever it is about yourself that made you come up with such an incorrect interpretation of what happened. Maybe you're getting your information from dodgy sources with a poor track record? Who knows, but your strategy of laying the blame everywhere but at the foot of Russia is clearly not helping your judgement.

And finally, disinformation is real.

What evidence and what happened?
I presume if the GRU wanted Skripal eliminated he would been have promptly eliminated so I have no idea who these two clowns who stayed in a cheap run down hotel and who took public transport are?
I am interested why the British media was full of stories of the Skripal-Christopher Steele connection in the days after the 'incident' on March 4th and why all references to this connection suddenly stopped?
Nice personal attack by the way but I'm used to it by now.

Dohnjoe

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I presume if the GRU wanted Skripal eliminated he would been have promptly eliminated

Argument from personal incredulity (again)

Why did they try and kill Litvinenko with Polonium 210? Almost as if they wanted him to have an agonizing public death, almost as if they wanted to leave absolutely no doubts he was killed by the Russian state, almost as if they want a deterrent to ex-spies and traitors giving away secrets

Likewise why would Kim Jong Un have his half-brother killed with VX nerve gas when it could have been done "quietly" in any number of ways

so I have no idea who these two clowns who stayed in a cheap run down hotel and who took public transport are?

The rest of the world has an idea who they are. Their neighbours/friends/(ex)colleagues (the one's told not to speak to the media) have an idea who they are. The Russian military records show they know who they are.

You have been asked several times but are unable to give an explanation. Likewise you are unable to provide credible evidence or facts to the contrary. You have no counter-argument.

You seem unable (or unwilling) to process facts/information which run counter to your personally held beliefs and world views, hence you engage in a never-ending stream of personal incredulity. That's fine, it represents the strength of your argument

mbur

I nearly crashed the van yesterday listening to Him of the double barrel name on RTE1 quoting the latest Bellincat findings. What next? Snopes? How pathetic. Of course this is all hearsay that will never see the inside of a couthouse. But as propaganda it seem to be working. It's called creating consent and it is all going well. But many of us are not so gullible. This guy for example.

watching from afar as the biggest criminal investigation Britain has ever seen is sub-contracted out to the Atlantic Council/Soros-sponsored website, Bellingcat. Pinch yourself once. Pinch yourself twice. Yes, it really is happening.

It is truly remarkable that having seen millions of pounds spent on an investigation which has failed to give consistent and logical answers to some of the biggest questions in the case, and which has been remarkably economical with the actualité on things like timelines, a website with dubious connections to various neo-conservative organisations has now ridden to the rescue to fill in the gaps which The Met has apparently missed (as an aside neo-conservative is of course a misnomer, since they don’t actually conserve anything. They are in reality neo-Trotskyists, since they are globalists and like destroying stuff). Any taxpayers out there feel like a refund?

The media seems to be having a field day quoting Bellingcat as if it were now the official mouthpiece of The Metropolitan Police and the Government

mcmoustache

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

What evidence and what happened?
I presume if the GRU wanted Skripal eliminated he would been have promptly eliminated so I have no idea who these two clowns who stayed in a cheap run down hotel and who took public transport are?
I am interested why the British media was full of stories of the Skripal-Christopher Steele connection in the days after the 'incident' on March 4th and why all references to this connection suddenly stopped?
Nice personal attack by the way but I'm used to it by now.

If you seriously still believe that they were there for the spire, which by the way is an amazing 123 meters tall, I don't think I believe you. Of all the evidence that we have, it would be one hell of a coincidence if these guys were constantly in the wrong place at the wrong time so many times.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

I nearly crashed the van yesterday listening to Him of the double barrel name on RTE1 quoting the latest Bellincat findings. What next? Snopes? How pathetic. Of course this is all hearsay that will never see the inside of a couthouse. But as propaganda it seem to be working. It's called creating consent and it is all going well. But many of us are not so gullible. This guy for example.

Okay, a religious blog. Interesting.

Care to share with the "sheeple" what really happened to the Skripals?

mcmoustache

mbur wrote: »

I nearly crashed the van yesterday listening to Him of the double barrel name on RTE1 quoting the latest Bellincat findings. What next? Snopes? How pathetic. Of course this is all hearsay that will never see the inside of a couthouse. But as propaganda it seem to be working. It's called creating consent and it is all going well. But many of us are not so gullible. This guy for example.

The bellingcat evidence is from open sources. That is, evidence that's already available from the internet from photos on social media and old, leaked russian databases. If you think that's impossible, that's fine but that's telling us more about yourself than their evidence. Sort of like flat earthers and sovereign citizens. you can check the evidence yourself or you can get your info from some guy's blog. Up to you.

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, a religious blog. Interesting.

I was about to check it out. Thanks for saving me the time. Is it as good as Craig "wrong all the time" Murray's blog?

Dohnjoe

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was about to check it out. Thanks for saving me the time. Is it as good as Craig "wrong all the time" Murray's blog?

This one is definitely a bit more nutty

"The Bible makes it abundantly clear that Jesus Christ will have dominion to the ends of the Earth, and not even anti-Christian fundamentalism can prevent this. Once the nihilistic presuppositions of secularism have brought forth all the kinds of rotten fruit that you might expect nihilistic presuppositions to produce, the nations that rejected God will one day return."

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This one is definitely a bit more nutty

"The Bible makes it abundantly clear that Jesus Christ will have dominion to the ends of the Earth, and not even anti-Christian fundamentalism can prevent this. Once the nihilistic presuppositions of secularism have brought forth all the kinds of rotten fruit that you might expect nihilistic presuppositions to produce, the nations that rejected God will one day return."

Mmm. Who to believe. Nutters or investigators who provide evidence, some of which is still available on official Russian websites? Yeah. It's a pickle.

mbur

mcmoustache wrote: »

The bellingcat evidence is from open sources. That is, evidence that's already available from the internet from photos on social media and old, leaked russian databases. If you think that's impossible, that's fine but that's telling us more about yourself than their evidence. Sort of like flat earthers and sovereign citizens. you can check the evidence yourself or you can get your info from some guy's blog. Up to you.

Sorry dude but yes, I do think it is impossible that there is a provable and reliable chain of evidence here. There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all. So cut it out with the veiled insults and stick with the facts for a change. As for getting your info from some guy's blog - Isn't that what you, The BBC, RTE etc, etc, are doing?

Oh and all that straw man stuff about Rob Slane's religious beliefs it does your case no credit. The way I see it, if a believer like him won't swallow the UK governments version of the Skripal case then who will. So lets just consider his many questions about the Skripal case. This in particular:

Even if the Bellingcat claims turn out to be true, it doesn’t alter this crucial point: The Metropolitan Police has so far failed to provide any convincing evidence that the two suspects they have named walked up to 47 Christie Miller Road and placed “Novichok” on the door handle. They have CCTV footage of the men in Salisbury on 3rd and 4th March. And yet the actual details of their movements that they have given out are in reality non-existent. Perhaps Bellingcat would like to answer the question of why this is. Since they appear to have taken over the investigation, that is.

So while we wait for Bellingcat's next revalation Consider this:

The truth is we don't know who these men are. we don't know if they are gru. but we know they weren't carrying the necessary safety equipment for the very toxic military grade novichok , since all they had was a small (day) backpack.

So tell me you're gru, you go to brit embassy for a visa, give them bio-metrics and your links to gru offices. and you travel on ‘spy’ passports and you make certain you are visible to cctv and then ensure that an armchair sleuth can seemingly identify you from military records .. So you've outed yourself and contained your future within Russia for the rest of your life. all for, on the face of it, an actor who left the limelight a decade ago.

this is the narrative that your high quality press is telling you and which you think is plausible.

All the while noting that the important actors in this saga have left the stage with the assistance of the UK government, The Skripals and the mysterious Det Sgt Nick Bailey.

Gatling

mbur wrote: »

Sorry dude but yes, I do think it is impossible that there is a provable and reliable chain of evidence here. There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all.

I take it your not a chemical weapons analysist ?


No



Seems to be plenty of evidence of Novichok was actually used , unlike the russians and their brightest supporters they can't get there stories or conspiracies straight

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all.

Porton Down and the OPCW independently claimed it was from the Novichok family. The emergency services and staff treated them for nerve agent exposure.

1. If you are so sure it wasn't Novichok, what was it?

2. What killed Dawn Sturgess and poisoned Charlie Rowley?

mcmoustache

mbur wrote: »

Sorry dude but yes, I do think it is impossible that there is a provable and reliable chain of evidence here. There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all. So cut it out with the veiled insults and stick with the facts for a change. As for getting your info from some guy's blog - Isn't that what you, The BBC, RTE etc, etc, are doing?

Oh and all that straw man stuff about Rob Slane's religious beliefs it does your case no credit. The way I see it, if a believer like him won't swallow the UK governments version of the Skripal case then who will. So lets just consider his many questions about the Skripal case. This in particular:



So while we wait for Bellingcat's next revalation Consider this:



All the while noting that the important actors in this saga have left the stage with the assistance of the UK government, The Skripals and the mysterious Det Sgt Nick Bailey.

I've already discussed this with people who share your opinion. They had different usernames but it was the same nonsense. Your ideas are not unique not are they any special insight. They're the usual guff that comes from listening to and reading nonsense that instills a warm sense of specialness and a hidden knowledge in their audience. They FEEL good but they're just ideas from some guy without a clue sounding clever to those who don't know any better.


Evidence has been presented throughout this thread and stupid ideas have been debunked. If you have some better insight than some guy's blog, I'll be patient enough to read it. If it's the same shíte that's already been shown to be nonsense earlier in the thread, I'll treat it as such.


It's up to you. Present something better than that conspiratorial nonsense.

Cheerful Spring

mbur wrote: »

Sorry dude but yes, I do think it is impossible that there is a provable and reliable chain of evidence here. There isn't even any reliable evidence that the Skripals were exposed to Novichok at all. So cut it out with the veiled insults and stick with the facts for a change. As for getting your info from some guy's blog - Isn't that what you, The BBC, RTE etc, etc, are doing?

Oh and all that straw man stuff about Rob Slane's religious beliefs it does your case no credit. The way I see it, if a believer like him won't swallow the UK governments version of the Skripal case then who will. So lets just consider his many questions about the Skripal case. This in particular:



So while we wait for Bellingcat's next revalation Consider this:



All the while noting that the important actors in this saga have left the stage with the assistance of the UK government, The Skripals and the mysterious Det Sgt Nick Bailey.

Well, you have to explain why two GRU agents pretending to be tourists were walking near Skipral home?

That Russia denied Colonel Anatoly Chepiga even existed pretty much confirms this was a botched operation.

There are some details not yet confirmed. What time did Skipral return home? This would clear up what time Skipral touched the door. It one thing that still not fully answered yet.

mbur

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, you have to explain why two GRU agents pretending to be tourists were walking near Skipral home?

That Russia denied Colonel Anatoly Chepiga even existed pretty much confirms this was a botched operation.

There are some details not yet confirmed. What time did Skipral return home? This would clear up what time Skipral touched the door. It one thing that still not fully answered yet.

Thank you for your polite reply Spring. No, I don't have to prove or explain anything. It is up to the British government to prove their claims. This they have abjectly failed to so do. The fact that the invested press have resorted to quoting random blogger X to prop up the story just proves to me just how far off the rails this train wreck has gone.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

No, I don't have to prove or explain anything

Actually the onus is on you, you are the one making the claim that all the information is false/insufficient

So far, you haven't provided anything credible to support this claim. Personally and subjectively "declaring" that the event is not as it seems, claiming that the authorities, investigators and press are all lying, then walking away refusing to debate any of it or provide any evidence is not an acceptable argument

mcmoustache

mbur wrote: »

Thank you for your polite reply Spring. No, I don't have to prove or explain anything. It is up to the British government to prove their claims. This they have abjectly failed to so do. The fact that the invested press have resorted to quoting random blogger X to prop up the story just proves to me just how far off the rails this train wreck has gone.

Chepiga's identity is publicly verifiable information. You can go to his militarily academy's website and see both his name and picture. His name pops up on other official websites too.

You can choose to ignore that if you like but at this point you may as well be arguing that Finland doesn't exist.

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Actually the onus is on you, you are the one making the claim that all the information is false/insufficient

So far, you haven't provided anything credible to support this claim. Personally and subjectively "declaring" that the event is not as it seems, claiming that the authorities, investigators and press are all lying, then walking away refusing to debate any of it or provide any evidence is not an acceptable argument

I have already provided a link to a blog which has plenty of questions for you to answer. You chose to ignore the issues raised and went straight into mockery mode. I'd walk away from you any day of the week.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, a religious blog. Interesting.

Care to share with the "sheeple" what really happened to the Skripals?

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was about to check it out. Thanks for saving me the time. Is it as good as Craig "wrong all the time" Murray's blog?

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

I have already provided a link to a blog

Yes, a religious blog, not exactly a credible source of information. For example, what qualifies his views over that of the investigators, experts and independent sources at the OPCW?

issues raised

I am not ignoring the issues, I am asking questions which you immediately appear to avoid

Also you are the one making the claims here. If you can't back up those claims, why should anyone take your views seriously?

If you at least prefaced your views with "these are just my opinions", but you don't, you state them as fact

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am not ignoring the issues,

That is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly so.

Here is a good round-up of the situation as I and others see it.

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?
2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.
3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.
4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?
5) where are the Skripals and why are they being detained incommunicado?
6) does anyone regard British security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

You'll find that comment and plenty more here with the latest from Craig Murray

I have just received confirmation from the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau that both the European Arrest Warrant and Interpol Red Notice remain in the names of Boshirov and Petrov, with the caveat that both are probably aliases. Nothing has been issued in the name of Chepiga or Mishkin.

As for Bellingcat’s “conclusive and definitive evidence”, Scotland Yard repeated to me this afternoon that their earlier statement on Bellingcat’s allegations remains in force: “we are not going to comment on speculation about their identities.”

You're welcome.

Billy86

mbur wrote: »

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?
2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.

4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?

I can think of two people that could probably answer all of those questions easily, though unfortunately one is keeping tight lipped and the other is no longer with us.

Gatling

mbur wrote: »

That is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly so.

Here is a good round-up of the situation as I and others see it.

*1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used( respected and independent sciencetists at portion down)
*2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.(Russia)
3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.
*4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?(Russian security and intelligence services)
*5) where are the Skripals (Currently in the UK)
*6) does anyone regard "Russian" security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?




You're welcome.

Fixed your post

Your welcome

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?

The condition of the Skripals indicated they have been exposed to a chemical or nerve agent. As confirmed by the hospital staff, doctors and professionals who treated them.
The agent was later found to be from the Novichok family (by Porton Down)
This was independently confirmed by the OPCW (this is the international body with 193 member states)

2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.

This is the big question, but we do have an idea. A strong idea.

3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.

We do know, it was confirmed to be the same agent that poisoned the Skripals. It was in a perfume bottle.

4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?

To send a very public message and a deterrent. Kim Jong Un is widely suspected to have been involved in the killing of his half brother using VX Nerve agent. Russia is widely suspected in the killing of ex-spy Litvinenko using Polonium 210 (the two suspects are Russians)

5) where are the Skripals and why are they being detained incommunicado?

Because someone tried to kill them with a powerful nerve agent. Yulia indicated in a video interview they wished their whereabouts to remain private

6) does anyone regard British security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

So far their information in this case has proved to be accurate. Also it's bolstered by the fact that many other nations (with their own intelligence services) have corroborated this information. Not to mention independent confirmation by organisations such as the OPCW

You'll find that comment and plenty more here with the latest from

Another blog. Craig Murray is not a valid source.

You're welcome.

I answered your questions, here are mine

1. If you are so sure it wasn't Novichok, what was it?

2. What killed Dawn Sturgess and poisoned Charlie Rowley?

and if you don't believe they were poisoned by GRU agents with Novichok, then care to explain what really happened?

mbur

Billy86 wrote: »

I can think of two people that could probably answer all of those questions easily, though unfortunately one is keeping tight lipped and the other is no longer with us.

Alexander Litvinenko was in no doubt who killed him. I have no reason to doubt his opinion.

There is no help for us here regarding question 1 and 2 in the Skripal case.

Maybe Sergei Skripal will be allowed to speak his mind in public.

I think the case rather proves point number 4. Nerve agents clearly unreliable and awkward to work with.

Strangulation on the other hand, slips right under the radar.

Do we need to ask the British government why that is so?

Cheerful Spring

mbur wrote: »

Thank you for your polite reply Spring. No, I don't have to prove or explain anything. It is up to the British government to prove their claims. This they have abjectly failed to so do. The fact that the invested press have resorted to quoting random blogger X to prop up the story just proves to me just how far off the rails this train wreck has gone.

What you have to accept right now is these two Russian men travelled to Salisbury and were using fake personas. It clear as day the men who appeared on RT are not fitness instructors. If they had nothing to hide they would not claim to be something they are not. They were involved in this poisoning of Skipral, and ease to claim that's true, as you got two Russian men travelling on fake passports to the UK and they were near a Skipral home on that day of the incident. Russia has to explain this not the UK authorities.

The only thing that not known yet when exactly did Skipral return home. There still some doubts if the attack took place at Skipral home or in the town of Salisbury itself? Skipral turned off his phone for four hours in the morning that's never been explained what exactly he was doing then?

But knowing these men have been involved in the incident, I see no reason to doubt the Skipral and his daughter was poisoned with the nerve agent Novichiok. If you don't believe that you are then claiming the hospital staff are also involved in lying about the symptoms shown? Maybe the Novichok was mixed another deadly chemical that's not improbable to me? But they definitely were attacked by a nerve agent.

Cheerful Spring

mbur wrote: »

That is exactly what you are doing, repeatedly so.

Here is a good round-up of the situation as I and others see it.

1) how do we know a deadly nerve agent was used?
2) if it was used, we have no idea who by.
3) god only knows what killed Sturgess.
4) why would anyone use nerve agents to kill (as opposed to other methods) when they’re clearly unreliable and awkward to work with?
5) where are the Skripals and why are they being detained incommunicado?
6) does anyone regard British security and intelligence services as honest and reliable sources?

You'll find that comment and plenty more here with the latest from Craig Murray



You're welcome.

Chepiga name was listed on a Russian military website. That pretty much confirms Bellingcat information is reliable. Russia denied a person of this name received a military award. Russia has themselves confirmed the allegations are true by denying Chepiga exists.

It was a botched operation. Who knows if was sanctioned by Putin? It was amateurish how they did it but maybe the GRU is not what used to be? Maybe they underfunded to carry out operations?

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Another blog. Craig Murray is not a valid source.

LOL Who is?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I answered your questions, here are mine

1. If you are so sure it wasn't Novichok, what was it?

2. What killed Dawn Sturgess and poisoned Charlie Rowley?

and if you don't believe they were poisoned by GRU agents with Novichok, then care to explain what really happened?.

I'm very flattered that you are so interested in my opinions and I am familiar with the official narrative thank you.

1. There are several candidates. I'm not in a position to pick one.

2. Something in the sealed bottle that he opened maybe?

I'm not a hard believer in any particular theory including the GRU one.
Hate to sound like a killjoy but lets see where the evidence takes us.

I came into this discussion because I wanted to share my amazement that so many outlets were taking the Bellincat revelations so seriously. I am glad to see that Scotland Yard seem to share my opinion that the so called revelations are only speculation.

The "unreliable" mr Murray does smell a rat you maybe interested in.

It is now a near certainty that Boshirov and Petrov are indeed fake identities. If the two were real people, it is inconceivable that by now their identities would not have been fully established with details of their history, lives, family and milieu. I do not apologise for exercising all due caution, rather than enthusiasm, about a narrative promoted to increase international tension with Russia, but am now convinced Petrov and Boshirov were not who they claimed.

Very fair I thought. I just hope we are not creating two more victims.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

LOL Who is?

A blogger on the internet is not a strong a source as e.g. the consensus between Porton Down lab and OPCW, both of which are experts on nerve agents

They had access to the evidence, blood samples, Craig Murray did not

PD and OPCW are separate sources which independently corroborated each other. Craig Murray is one person

Do you genuinely not see the difference between these sources?

I'm very flattered that you are so interested in my opinions and I am familiar with the official narrative thank you.

1. There are several candidates. I'm not in a position to pick one.

Which are?

2. Something in the sealed bottle that he opened maybe?

If it wasn't Novichok then what was it?

If you don't have any evidence of anything, then what is the basis of your belief that it was something else?

I came into this discussion because I wanted to share my amazement that so many outlets were taking the Bellincat revelations so seriously.

Bellingcat is an investigative organisation which has to date produced some strong cases with credible results, which are backed up by evidence

It's rated as having a "high factual reporting"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bellingcat/

mbur

This is interesting. It's the OPCW report on the Skripal case.

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf

It says that the toxic chemical is "allegedly a nerve agent" You'd think they would know.

It also says "the toxic chemical was of a high purity". Odd that there aren't more dead people.

But the kicker is section 12.

"The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to States Parties."

No mention of any Novichok. So it appears that neither Porton Down nor the OPCW has publicly confirmed that the poison was Novichok. The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Here is the Amesbury report.

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018/09/s-1671-2018(e)_0.pdf

Same chemical 97%-98% purity but maybe not the same batch.

Least dangerous “military grade” nerve agent ever and no evidence of where it came from..

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

It says that the toxic chemical is "allegedly a nerve agent" You'd think they would know.

They do know, they confirmed the findings of Porton Down

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/novichok-used-in-spy-poisoning-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-salisbury

They also confirmed that a "Novichok-type agent" was what affected Sturgess and Rowley

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-poison/chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-novichok-use-in-amesbury-idUSKCN1LK2I7

It also says "the toxic chemical was of a high purity". Odd that there aren't more dead people.

Depends on dosage. You can have extremely high purity Novichok that you can drink in a glass of water and be fine. Dosage is key.

Why are you avoiding the questions?

By the way we've been through all this in the thread, it's all in here

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They do know, they confirmed the findings of Porton Down

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/novichok-used-in-spy-poisoning-chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-salisbury

They also confirmed that a "Novichok-type agent" was what affected Sturgess and Rowley

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-poison/chemical-weapons-watchdog-confirms-novichok-use-in-amesbury-idUSKCN1LK2I7


Depends on dosage. You can have extremely high purity Novichok that you can drink in a glass of water and be fine. Dosage is key.

Why are you avoiding the questions?

By the way we've been through all this in the thread, it's all in here

If you are nice I'm sure we will get to answer all your question in time.

Don't be so impatient.

Did you read the articles you quoted or just the misleading headlines?

There is nothing in either article that contradicts what I have stated in my post above.
The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Oh and about the OPCW's "alleged nerve agent" statement. If they knew it was a nerve agent they would not have used that language. How do you know that they know when they clearly say that they don't?