Ghouta Report Debunk Efforts: Still Not Refuted & More from Marschke

August 31, 2023

(rough - edits pending)

Still Un-Refuted 

I got sidetracked with this so it's now been 10 years and 10 days since the Ghouta chemical massacre in the wee hours of 21 August, 2013. The Syrian military allegedly fired rockets and shells containing sarin nerve gas on opposition-held areas in the Damascus suburbs of East and West Ghouta, killing hundreds of civilians - reportedly as many as 1,100, 1,429, or even 1,700. (I can attest to a visual minimum of around 500, mostly geolocated to Ghouta, and I suspect the true number is around or over 1,000) It was the deadliest chemical weapons attack of the war or ever, aside from Halabjah in 1988. 

And yet, as many now complain, no one has been held directly to account or adequately punished, assuming this would be the Syrian government. They did already have to surrender their CW program, at least supposedly, to avoid US military strikes, and military aid to the insurgents increased due to the incident, among other detrimental effects. But none of the economic sanctions saddling the Syrian people, for example, were directly in response to this attack, but that could well change. No arrest warrants have been issued over it. And of course Assad was not deposed - there was no "ultimate price" paid. Folks are saying that needs to change. 

The always-amazing Aaron Maté recently reminded his followers on Twitter (now "X") "Today is 10th anniversary of the Ghouta chemical massacre in Syria. US blamed Syrian gov't, but all evidence points to sectarian death squad rebels. That's why Obama didn't bomb. There are Western officials who know more about Ghouta than has been publicly disclosed. Just as the OPCW leaks exposed the Douma deception, perhaps they will find a way to tell the truth about Ghouta." 

He followed with a shorth thread, concluding it with this note: "A 2021 open-source study from @MichaKobs , @CL4Syr and others traced all missile impact locations in Ghouta back to the most likely launch spot where they all intersected: a small area within insurgent-controlled territory. No one has refuted it."

As one involved in that study (I'm CL4Syr), I can boast that this study (embodied in TWO reports) is not perfect but actually pretty damn amazing. The material writes itself with the unfolding of reality, which is apparently pretty damn amazing - we're just there to transcribe it. Improvements can and have been made, but it remains the definitive work on the E. Ghouta volcano rocket attack. 

A few people have disputed it, some of them many times, in many ways. But, although they pretend otherwise, they've disputed it very poorly and no one has come close to refuting the study. 

Here at this blog I assessed the initial efforts to discredit it (general) (Prof. Scott Lucas in some detail). These were mainly irrelevant ad-hominem attacks, suggestions that we were bad people so our work was probably all wrong, or whatever. Essentially: "the findings could be true, for all we care, but these are such bad people with such dubious motives and characters - [we were called "Nazis"] - that just to spite them, you should go ahead and assume it's all wrong, or just refuse to even care. Take the risk of approving and continuing the coverup of this crime - the deliberate chemical mass-murder of several hundred Syrian citizens, including hundreds of women and children. Don't even worry how likely that risk is."

Such people are keenly aware that "Assad" and his "regime" and the people of Syria that rely on them need to be held accountable and punished further - punish them more - steal more oil & wheat, forbid rebuilding or any business interactions or any normalization, then maybe bring the war back in. To that end, guilt for as many crimes of the war as possible needs to be kept on Assad, by whatever fake news stories or backroom deals that requires, - especially as the alternative blame would tend to fall on foreign-backed "opposition" fighters and terrorists. Why complicate that imperative with any size a question? 

And a question the size we offer ... these people don't want that in anyone's mind, nor any of its associated details. Discussing the evidence just breathes life into it. Better to embargo the evidence into silence, or you could say better to "suffocate the truth," Put it in a bag, perhaps mark it "Nazi," or something to that effect, and throw it in the river.

A few started to challenge the actual evidence early on (see general post), but not very well, considering the many supporting layers of it in our study. German (I think) regime-change activist Kostja Marschke is an extra-prolific critic who does engage the primary evidence, and at least pretends this is what drives him to the familiar blanket derision. His opinions don't matter much, but some. He's no slouch when it comes to declaring fraud over our work, even including a few valid questions raised along with dozens of bogus ones, with a pretty obvious gatekeeper kind of agenda. 

But his efforts have offered more passed tests than we've gotten from everyone else combined, and merited a whole post already, besides mentions in the first debunks post, and now this post as well. Technically, he's been at it for years. Just recently, he's raised several bogus points based on imagining hard facts from unclear pixelated satellite views (grass where there should be concrete, no grass where there should be), reading some 3D models too literally and pretending these win some conflicts with the cases they're made to illustrate, not to replace, and other stupid tricks to invent all kinds of supposed fatal flaws. 

He never stops to re-assess the balance of evidence in light of each debunk, pretending there never was any evidence except the one point he pretends to disprove at the moment, and maybe for comparison, a few others he remembers casually chuckling over. He'll say our "entire theory relies on" X which he finds wrong. And it also relies solely on Y, and on Z, he says at other times, and separately it relies totally on AA, BB, CC, and so on. Each basis is clearly and incredibly wrong, he says, with frequent typed indications of laughter. He makes a repeated show of kicking each solitary support out from under us, always supposedly knocking us down, when we've supposedly been down from blow 1. We should be ground deep into the dirt by now, to hear Kostja boast. Yet we remain worth all the effort to pretend, over and over, to have finally disrupted our actual, upright position.

Aaron Maté - in another recent reminder -  had noted how "No one has refuted" our study. Marschke replied that it is "one of the most laughable "studies" ever produced" and essentially refutes itself. This baseless hyperbole is typical of his whole performance. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Two Top Reasons

Marschke selected just 2 favorite arguments to show Aaron's readers how "laughable" our work is:

"1) The evidence for the field being "insurgent-controlled" is that a tank "cautiously" moved in an allegedly surrounding area 15 months after the attack. That's it, that's the entirety of the "evidence" for that claim." (post)

Also: "This is exactly why I've blocked Kobs: He's a liar. Look at his reply to my rebuttal: He just simply lies about the date of the tank video (The only "evidence" from his "study" supposedly showing opposition control). Not disclosed in the "study" either, by the way."

There is no reason to "disclose" any "lie" about the video date. Co-author Michael Kobs said in a separate tweet that the video in question (from ANNA News) is from "August 24, 2013." I've said the same on a few occasions, following his lead on a point I hadn't followed. That was wrong, but we honestly misunderstood co-author Chris Kabusk's explanation, as accurately put in the report, citing a relevant date wrongly. 

The video was posted about a year after the attack and might be recent or older - it compiles images of a whole military campaign to reclaim the wider area, running perhaps for months. But it shows damage to a certain building that, Kabusk decided and no one has disputed, did not exist yet in the August 23 Google Earth satellite view. So the video is from August 24, 2013 OR LATER, and perhaps months later. Someone more read-up on the course of the fighting could offer a decent guess for when, but it's not a pressing issue.

The salient point is the Syrian Arab Army was shooting towards this field from the north, as if opposition militants controlled the area, at some point at least 3 days after the chemical attack. That stands as evidence for opposition control on 21 August, although a longer time span would allow for possible back-and forth where the SAA - other details permitting - could have been in control of this field on the 21st.  

Marschke suggests regime troops might have had control or access on the night of the attack - but of course this field had nothing to do with the attack (right?), so ...  it just shows how wrong we are to make such a claim based on one video of unclear date. 

But it was never the only evidence. Michael and I got sloppy with this point partly because it was never major or central like Marschke pretends. It was just a bonus illustration of the well-informed and generally-agreed situation that Marschke is pretty well alone in questioning. The fact that he doesn't seem to realize that makes me feel I really wasted too much time on this poser.

Michael replied: "I love such attacks from behind a block. But your claim is BS. For eight years, hordes of investigators (including Eliot Higgins) have investigated the Ghouta attack, but you're the first to question the line of demarcation. Do you have any valid reason for this?" I think Kostja un-blocked Michael then - some debate ensued. Michael showed Charles Wood's 2014 map as used in both our reports and available at A Closer Look on Syria, but with approximate launch spot added. 

This map was based on numerous primary sources (published maps, reports, videos (notably by ANNA News), satellite imagery). As Wood explained for my report: “Contact lines are indications based on insurgent and ANNA videos and my training in basic infantry tactics. Narrow contact lines between Police College and Qaboun, and Syronics and Qaboun are an estimate based on no reported serious damage to either institution.”

The Eliot Higgins/Bellingcat take was based on similar study of the same open-source evidence, combined it on the map in almost totally the same exact way. Bellingcat excludes this field from their green island of government control in exactly the same way Wood's map did. 

Monitor on Massacre Marketing: Rocket Man: Some Government-Held Firing Spot or Other (libyancivilwar.blogspot.com)

The only real difference between these maps is in the upper part of black-dash area on Wood's map. This had tanks present on 23 August (Google Earth satellite view), likely a new development amid a fast-moving offensive that only started on the 20th. Bellingcat maps assume a presence here already on the 21st while Wood and I doubt it, although it is fairly possible, and likely enough in my opinion. 

That minor dispute is only somewhat near our field in question. Neither map includes the field in question as government-held. This isn't gospel or certain fact, but a well-informed guess, with the disputed ANNA video just going to support that this field was rebel-held that night, and for some time after, probably continuously.

This "entirety of the evidence" claim is so stupid and easy to disprove I suspect it's no conscious deception - Marschke just wasn't paying good attention. He saw the note that this was the only video we had so close to the field itself, took it to that to mean it was the only evidence there was regarding the local control situation. He should know better by now, if he knows this case like he pretends to, after years of supposedly disproving us over it. 

"2) The methodology on how the trajectories were "measured" by the study is laughable, too. Investigators on the ground couldn't measure the impact direction, but Kobs tried to do it using the size of bricks. Lol." https://twitter.com/KostjaMarschke/status/1688992180164001793

When I asked what he meant by "couldn't measure" - he meant the 2 sites out of 3 they visited in E. Ghouta but did no measure for, finding it "pointless," as he put it - not exactly impossible. https://twitter.com/KostjaMarschke/status/1692495054252728478 

They actually said the other 2 sites “do not present physical characteristics allowing a successful study of the trajectories followed by the rockets involved, due to the configuration of the impact places."” We found one impact to an apartment wall and balcony extremely vague, but the other on a rooftop more useful, pointing northwest - and the investigators apparently agreed somewhat, citing it to Joby Warrick as if they had used it to find the northwest firing area.  https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_553.pdf

The Syrians Executed the Most Deadly Chemical Weapons Attack in Generations—With U.N. Inspectors There (newsweek.com)

But this brick issue refers to the garden wall impact investigators never even looked at (above, Wall 2, in magenta). Using a brick as a handy measure works fine when you're looking at basic proportions to set a basic angle for mapping purposes. The rocket impact in the ground is about 3 bricks right of where the rocket punched through the wall, and about 1.8 bricks out from the wall. The actual brick size doesn't matter - the proportion is roughly 3 to 1.8 (also = 5:3) of whatever unit. 

People on the ground could do it better, but no one did, so this is the best we can do (Michael's work, and I follow and agree). It's not exact, but pretty good - a visual reading that sets an approximate angle that, like the others, points back roughly to the same field. Marschke doesn't even explicitly challenge the measure itself, or venture his own measure or method, Is it more like a 2:1 angle? Determined how? He doesn't care. It points to "hold Assad accountable" and it's politically biased and "insane" to look for yourself and find any differently. 

He: "Just listen to yourself with your 1.8 bricks as measurement. Listen to yourself and consider what a person who isn't incredibly politically motivated would think about this. It might explain your disagreements with [UN investigator Åke] Sellström."

Me: "Any person who wants to form a basic idea of what happened. What's wrong about that? I'm s'posed to feel shame or something? F off w/such efforts. Shame. my dude." 

He: "Any person who would want a "basic" idea" about what happened would start making insane measurements based on bricks?" He just couldn't explain what's actually insane about using a handy measurement unit to establish a basic proportional angle. He apparently doesn't even understand what we did here or how hollow his effort was. He just took another random chance to call us biased and insane. 

"Disagreements with Sellström"

On the side with the above, another thread emerged - my "disagreements with Sellstrom." Pressed to specify, Marschke explained: "You haven't noticed how your entire theory relies on Sellström being wrong about both measured impact angles"

No ... it INCLUDES the UN-OPCW report being wrong about the one. The other doesn't matter. Maybe he thinks we argue the D30 howitzer was firing on Moadamiyah, and that both fronts of attack were from this one field. I'm not sure where he heard that, as we did discuss it some, but I don't see where it made it into the final collective report, and it sure isn't in my side report. I for one never agreed to this point, but then I didn't follow the evidence closely. Maybe "Sellstrom" was wrong about that angle and maybe it was fired from here. Marschke says "The D-30 doesn't support the caliber used in Moadamiyah," so not if he's correct. I really don't know and don't greatly care. My own take on our theory has no reliance or opinion on this point. 

Anyway, our theory does include "Sellström" being wrong about the site 4 angle, and we definitely noticed that. We also noticed that he just signed off on it. The OPCW's representative, Mr. Scott Cairns, is a more likely source for the measurement and/or reporting of the rocket angle. And for what it's worth, Marschke - once adequately pressed - has to agree that this reading IS wrong after all. Did Marschke ever notice that his theory relies on "Sellström being wrong" about the same angle?

Me: "No more talk until after you've given some answer to the 8-degrees-blind-trust question. Review my latest tweets as needed. Otherwise, you've become completely pointless to me." 

I've asked him several times to affirm or refute this alleged reading or to comment on his ally Eliot Higgins doing both. Until this point, Marschke had ignored the requests to press his urgent interrogation about a supposed shadow or something.

begin reply: "...As for your question: I don't think that angle is either 8° or 39°." 

That's something I can my teeth into, finally. He thinks everyone was wrong until he had his layman's look. How clever! He gets to maintain we're wrong, even as he admits so was the UN-OPCW investigation - or at least he agrees that the printed and visible angles clearly do not match. Marschke hesitated for a while, but finally agreed his theory also includes Sellström being wrong. It's OK for him, he assumes, because he's still blaming "Assad" like good people do. He doesn't see a "conspiracy" to frame Assad. And neither do we, for sure. We admit it might be some coincidence in which they published an angle 30 degrees wrong that, intersected with their other angle, indicated a regime-controlled artillery base many sources like HRW and NYT pushed at the attack origin. It was a handy political effect, but possibly achieved on accident.

Kostja Marschke is not the first regime-changer to grudgingly or mutably acknowledge the fact of this angle mismatch. As related at Rocket Man: Just Blindly Trust the "UN Azimuth", Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins did as much in at least two comments from January, 2014, having seen all the images and some views of a quality 3D model produced by Chris Kabusk: "the UN azimuth for one of the rockets doesn't match the 3D model on those maps, seems 50 degrees off to the north." - "Based off the geolocated munitions the point of origin is from the north (even the UN one they said was from the NW)"

By September, Bellingcat was in effect and, perhaps coincidentally, Higgins had changed his tune. He seemed to be in basic agreement with Kabusk, until he noted this new estimate added to his emerging picture of NW origins, in fact near the site of an August 24 sarin attack on SAA troops - as the likely spot we identified in 2021 is. This had to be sitting poorly with Higgins. The overall angle, as Chris put it, is "like UN's presumed flight path but off a bit and 1.5-2.5km ranges." Higgins replied incredulously: "You still think the wall Volcano was measured wrong by the UN?" He was perplexed, if not appalled, to hear the real angles described as "off a bit" from what the trusted "UN" had reported. It's as if the reading had been shown correct somewhere since January, but that can hardly be. Higgins was insisting on deference to something he knew to be false. He would later accept praise from others for "replicating" the UN-OPCW finding with his open-source work that always pointed more to the north. And it was never very good - most of the good parts were copied from Kabusk (and 'til recently containing one of his errors we've since corrected).

Ok, back to Marschke. He gave some explanation for his disgreement with Sellstrom and everyone. 

"Why do I think that? The shadow of the rocket...is at an [angle] > 90 degrees relative to the wall. As a layman, [I would] think the sun would've had to come from an almost orthogonal direction relative to the rocket to achieve that, given how small the shadows of the inspectors are. Where did the sun come from, though?"

"That's tough to say, given that we don't have the [exact] time the video was taken. But there's a clue: We can see the inspectors take a soil sample a few seconds later. Only two soil samples from the report match that, taken at 14:34 and 14:38, respectively."

"That also explains why there's not much of a shadow from the wall.

It also passes my eye test better than your angle which, needless to say, is quite clownishky [sic] measured."

"Now, does that say definitely where the rockets come from? No." 

He was too responsible to specify an area or direction, of course, based on such limited information. But what WOULD his angle say? I read him wrong in haste, thinking he saw the rocket as roughly perpendicular to the wall like its shadow was. I had some laughs about that, then read it more carefully. ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - Global Radiation and Aerosols (noaa.gov) gives me, for August 24 at 2:34 PM a reverse azimuth (shadow angle on flat earth) about 27 degrees clockwise from north, or 20 deg clockwise from perpendicular with the wall. Orthogonal = at a right angle. A rocket orthogonal to that sunlight would be about 20 deg. from parallel. OK. I'm not sure how he reasoned it out, but that's actually not terrible. Not 8 or 39, but something like 20, right in between - just different enough to say no one got it right until Kostja had his look. Not even the trusted UN-OPCW inspectors.

Our "clownish way" - "needless to say" - includes now at least 4 ways total, in broad agreement. Others had read higher, partly from shadow illusions and a sense of "almost perpendicular" - 50-75°. Eliot Higgins saw it off by about 50° from the UN angle, so around 58°, similar to WhoGhouta, Richard Lloyd, and Chris Kabusk. That was based partly on Kabusk's model (see above the Jan. 2014 tweets). He's one of us on the 2021 study, so that's one of our 4 methods - the fanciest, but not the best (dark blue wedge w/Eliot's take down the middle in yellow). I did a rough visual study (see here) that said it was definitely less than 48°, with no clear bottom (43-48 shown here) - it seemed everyone else had read it a bit high. Later (at least from my end) Michael's flight-line view got 38°, and I had to be a butt and refine it to 38.5 rounded to 39 in my side-report, with a fair +/- of one degree. 

That's 3 ways. Just now I tried another method that occurred to me. The tail end is visible at a 45-ish angle. With the wall running basically ahead, the circular tail would appear at a 2:1 vertical-horizontal ratio at a proper 45° angle and 1:1 ratio if parallel and seen from behind. 1.8:1 as seen is 1/5 of the way between those, so I reason 9°. less than a 45, or around 36 degrees. Exact 3D details maybe notwithstanding, that's probably close to the facts, and very close to the excellent measure we still go by. Again, the "precise" measurement endorsed by the trusted UN-OPCW was about EIGHT degrees from parallel. We'd see that rocket almost entirely from behind.

Note this isn't a vertical object, ground not level - shadow cast too complex for me to read. Here's a modeling Michael did including the rocket angle we estimate and the angle of sun at the time, plus his estimate for mound shape, all seeming to explain the video view quite well. This might help understand why the "perpendicular shadow" is a misleading illusion.

We have 4 different ways to say the angle is 55-60, ~45, 38/39, or ~36. That's a wide spread, but this totally wins over a single quick estimate that lets Kostja Marschke pretend he's the first one to ever get it kind of right. This is, as I said, vague, disingenuous, and very poser-ish. I could ask Marschke to "Just listen to yourself with your "rocket is kind of at a right angle to the sun" and consider what person who isn't incredibly politically motivated would think about this. It might explain your disagreement with Sellström and everybody else." His theory relies on Sellström being wrong and, as he had just explained, such disagreements might be motivated by the same extreme political bias that has one undertaking crude measurements and making insanely bold claims. Huh. He might be onto something after all.

But he has a solution where the OPCW got it right and only Chris. Michael and I - along with Eliot Higgins, Richard Lloyd and WhoGhouta - got it wrong. Or actually, we got it right enough or not and it doesn't matter - the original angle was just as reported, and simply never seen. It's an article of faith.  

As I follow, he suggests the inspectors must've measured 105/285° "precisely" with "no form of lateral bending." first, then pulled the rocket aside, leaving it aligned 30° different than before - or he thinks more like 12° - and coincidentally pointing to the same field 7 other rockets point to - or he thinks pointing to a different spot, when the rest all point ... wherever we don't say they do. And then all known images were taken after that strange manipulation - the original correct angle Kostja proposes was never seen. It's mythical. And the photos and videos where it's 30° different, after whatever change ... it still shows no form of lateral bending nor any sign I've noticed of the engine having been pulled from its original angle.

That sounds plain absurd, but he had, in fact, just imagined this as a way around the whole problem. 

"The inspectors could've moved the rocket after measuring the azimuth, for example, to inspect the side of the warhead. That renders everything you and I said moot anyway." https://twitter.com/KostjaMarschke/status/1692581076395262063

It's a very imaginative solution that probably sounds soothing to his ears - it's all "moot", like it was just a dream. I bet he'll settle on it as the answer to this whole problem. Inspectors coincidentally MADE the tube wind up pointing to that field 2km away, even as 7 other rockets also point there. Oh, and the 7 others must've been moved around too, coincidentally to point back to the same spot, rather than to their actual origin(s), which ... 

He'll decided that the firing spot can never be known. It's way too complex and stuff, and will remain a mystery where faith alone matters. Kostja Marschke knows what good people should believe, and how that belief should "moot" the facts of the 3D world. Of course, we inhabit the 3D world, and are somehow interconnected with everyone else in it, and also with some hundreds of Syrian civilians who no longer inhabit it, after this not-so-mysterious crime 10 years and 10 days ago claimed their lives. 

Done Talking

Me: "bump on this as more interesting. @KostjaMarschke  what angle were you thinking, when you decided to question Sellstrom & everyone? 8 deg. from parallel would show the tail end at 1.2:1 ratio, and we see 1.8:1, = ~36 deg. or roughly what we got looking right down the tube (38/39)"

Marschke: "Nope, no more talk until we're done with the field."

We would never be done with the field until at least one of us stopped talking, and I was already just about ready to quit the game anyway. So I replied:

"Well I'm done with that, so we're done. I have you at something vague and disingenuous where you're the first person to get it right, but not specified, where the shadows and time mattered somehow, and you were apparently clueless. I'm good w/that." (I figured out the best reading, above, after that comment.)

He: "Of course you're done with that" because he was totally winning, listing absurdities in our work he claimed to have proven. 

Me: "yep, your big ol' list I finally got bored with. Go play with that."

He: "Of course, you're not out of arguments, you're just "bored"."

Me: "just sick of it, for a bit before that ultimatum. I know it could go on forever and you'll always "win." Let's just cut to it. You "win" as always."

Regarding How the Victims were Killed, by Whom, and Why

Douma Chemical Massacre 2018 Revisited, Part 3

Adam Larson 

February 12, 2023 

(last edits 2/18)

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES

The latest report from the OPCW's Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) on the 2018 Douma chemical massacre maintains the blame on Syria's government, and even offers clues to help narrow accountability efforts. It's been taken as another sound basis to pursue the 12-year regime change agenda, now by punishing the Syrian people with widening sanctions (both de jure AND de facto) for their general refusal to play along so far. This continues even as Syria reels from the massive earthquakes that killed thousands in both Government and Terrorist-held parts of Syria.

Continuing the tradition of the preceding FFM investigation, the IIT proposes a chlorine gas cylinder was dropped from a helicopter at "Location 2," impacting with a velocity too low to penetrate the ceiling but so high it blew the ceiling open much like a mortar shell would do. Then an optimally swift gas release caused acid injuries of an extreme nature, but with oddly limited visual signs, leading to a delayed-then-sudden paralysis or unconsciousness in 35 cases, when we should expect that in about zero cases. 

All these rather dubious conclusions were posed exclusively as "reasonable," as the IIT acted like every alternate explanation had been ruled out. 

My personal review tries to be open-minded, "chill," and long on concessions. Part 1 considered the alleged airdrop of the cylinder at Location 2. The best explanation remains that it was manually placed next to two existing mortar shell impacts. Part 2 went through the likely release and possible concentration of chlorine gas in Location 2, and how it could not well explain those 35 fatalities. The victims were quite possibly killed somewhere else and then arranged beneath the cylinder "impact" for an entirely staged crime scene. Nothing in the IIT report adequately addresses my arguments, although it did entertain some other theories that were suggested to them. 

All of that would mean this crime remains unsolved. And that brings us to this part 3, to explore what else might have actually happened to those people. The truth can't be known with certainty, but the available evidence reveals signs of a managed and marketed massacre of civilians, held prisoner by foreign-backed terrorists. Unusual signs suggest the toxic agent used was probably not chlorine. I propose it might have been diesel exhaust. The same signs also point to direct bondage at the time of exposure, probably in what we call a gas chamber. Finally, there's a strong case the ruling Jaysh al-Islam saw the specific victims as enemies, including a central targeted family whose members they might have kidnapped and later executed. I'm not saying they "gassed their own people."

This all runs long enough it could made into a part 3 and 4, but I feel all this needs to be seen together here, for the full impact it deserves.

A Managed Massacre Was Ruled Out?

In his IIT report review thread, OPCW coverup helper Eliot Higgins said: "some of the loudest voices in Douma denialism claim the victims were killed elsewhere and placed at the site, rather than killed by chlorine gas exposure at the site. The OPCW IIT makes clear this is a fabrication." 

How? As covered in part 2, they decided on a chlorine gas level that killed swiftly, probably based on a prior assumption the people died swiftly (circular reasoning). But that wouldn't be swift enough, so they also suggest some unexplained instant immobility making escape "impossible" and death certain. They only made a case - a possible but not a compelling one. 

But, as Higgins also noted, "The OPCW IIT again addresses the claim bodies were moved to the site at location 2, a claim from the tankies that unsurprisingly is not supported by any real evidence." He cited a passage from the report to explain. Summarized: The victims were not shot, stabbed or bludgeoned. They died around the time of the alleged chemical attack. The IIT haven't seen any videos of bodies being planted, and they never noticed any visual evidence for it. Therefore, the victims most likely died at Location 2, from chlorine exposure, as implausible as that is in reality. 

Full passage (optional):

"Finally, with regard to the alternative scenario in which the fatalities would have been killed elsewhere and subsequently moved to Location 2 in an attempt to “stage” an attack, the IIT notes that signs of blunt-force trauma or penetrating trauma are not visible in any of the fatalities observed in verified videos and images from Location 2, and that neither witnesses nor medical personnel recount observing blunt-force trauma or penetrating trauma in any of the fatalities, and that those signs are not observed in verified videos and images from Location 2 either. Furthermore, fully established rigor mortis, observed in fatalities being carried out of Location 2 in the early hours of 8 April 2018, indicates that the time since death was no more than approximately 9 to 16 hours. The IIT also notes that it did not obtain from the Syrian Arab Republic or other States Parties, nor was it able to identify, any evidence—including videos, photographs, satellite or drone imagery, open-source information etc.—which would corroborate that the aforementioned staging actions were performed at Location 2."

Now compare that to my own long-standing take: 

* I've always proposed the victims were truly dead, and were killed with a toxic gas, to explain the observed pulmonary edema and other signs. Chlorine was a distinct possibility until some signs, discussed below, pointed away from it.

* The victims were probably held in captivity, explaining the prolonged exposure to a toxic agent they never fled from, and explaining some very unusual clinical signs. 

* I noted a case of developing "tache noir" of the sclera that placed time of death pretty close to the reported one (somewhere between 7 and 9 PM), and rigor mortis always seemed to agree. Activists reported the deaths wrongly, but they got the time about right. 

* The massacre managers, aligned with approved media and medical crews (White Helmets, etc.)  did not film their massacre of the victims or their staging of the "attack" scene, or they never published the video if so. That might be why there were no videos for the IIT to see. It's not clear why the IIT would expect any different, if they actually entertained this scenario in a meaningful way. 

* There are supportive clues I and others have noted in the visual record, all of which the FFM and IIT have also seen but didn't recognize. I highly doubt they ever tried. I'll relate some of these. 

Four bodies are laid by the curb at the entrance, one of them on a stretcher, and another laid as if being carried head-first into the building, OR feet-first out of it. This looks like an interrupted body planting OR an interrupted rescue, depending. All 4 bodies are there from the first images around 10PM, and not moved until daylight next day (see here - NEW images to me = new to most). If that was an early rescue, it's strange, and it was never resumed.

At least 5 doors at Location 2 were visibly forced and/or removed (see here), reportedly by rescuers. But at least one door, just inside on the ground floor, that had many bodies behind or next to it (right), would almost have to be removed by the victims (immobilized or soon-to-be), or by some body managers. 

The bodies are seen in debatably unnatural positions - people just laid on their backs spread-eagle, etc. One victim (right) was laid by the removed door with skirts and socks askew, black soles free of dust after "walking" up those dusty stairs (but then again: knees? crawling?). Babies were left just lying there nowhere near any protective mother. Bodies were piled, left in strange poses, or re-arranged in different familial embraces, some with vanishing jewelry, as noted in Stephen McIntrye's useful timeline. 

Some bodies were seemingly piled on a rug (below, green) just inside that removed door, and the rug was dragged at an angle into the shower, presumably to aid the widespread and mysterious washing of faces and hair shortly before the first videos. We see rags, discarded gloves, even a green respirator mask likely used in that unexplained process. 

Activists had surmised and "witnesses" had claimed the victims washed their own faces before they finally couldn't move. But that's kind of absurd, and all this wet hair is seen 2.5 to 3 hours or more after their alleged deaths. 

Some victims had been coated with soot, but some of it was washed off their faces, perhaps, using soot-smeared water basins. It seems they were also trying but failing to erase the unusual yellow-brown skin discoloration  beneath that (we'll come back to this).

So to be clear, scene and body manipulation aren't certain, but they are supported as possibilities by plenty of evidence. 

It's been argued that if bodies were planted, someone in the neighborhood would almost surely witness the crime, and they would report it, perhaps with video documentation. That certainly is a risk, but an overrated one. 

This part of Douma was largely in ruins and seriously depopulated by then. It was under active bombardment that had people sheltering, and there had been orders communicated to stay inside and away from windows, due to the shelling and the toxic gas allegedly coating the whole area. Furthermore, if anyone saw the perpetrators - and were seen seeing them - they could be arrested or killed on the spot. 

We don't know where the victims would be killed. It could be somewhere inside Location 2, but there was no sign of another lethal chemical (and the evidence points away from chlorine - see below). It would probably be a remote place never tested by the OPCW, and the bodies were likely brought to Location 2 via the underground tunnels, which are big enough to allow pickup trucks. The tunnels open some 50 meters from Location 2, and the last stretch would be traveled under cover of dusk (sunset 6:59PM vs. rep. attack ~7:30, on average of a few versions). 

So it would run a risk, but no guaranteed exposure, and this does nothing to prove there was no planting. The evidence for it cannot be dismissed.

The OPCW FFM consulted some German toxicologists who doubted simple chlorine would explain the scene. The chief expert suggested on his own that the bodies could instead be part of a "propaganda exercise," offering some unspecified "elaboration." It's not clear why the OPCW was consulting "tankies" like that, but they were clearly unhappy with the results. 

Finally, grubby hands and clothing - in many but not all cases - might indicate captivity under poor conditions, which could have extended to murder. 

But whatever your doubts or questions about this circumstantial evidence, the evidence we'll consider below strongly suggests the victims were prisoners, were deliberately poisoned, and did have their bodies planted here. 

The "Mask of Death" Clues

One issue I noticed immediately was a very unusual yellow-to-brown discoloration on some of the victims' upper faces, and assorted issues in the same area of other faces. I established the basic cause quickly, as explained in some detail at the post Douma's Mask of Death (2019 re-write). I stand by that assessment, which I'll re-explain here with important expansions. 

The discolored area seems to correlate with the flow of pulmonary edema fluid, originating at the nose and mouth. They would cough this out trying to breathe, but from there it seems to flow over the face in a pattern similar to a "domino" mask. This is most evident on a woman dubbed W7 in my system (see here), also called Mask 1. She's widely seen, including in the IIT report (see below). This extract shows what should normally not be there, without the disgusting foam and terrified eyes we don't need to see here (and minus some details hidden under the foam). 

If that face gives you the spooks like it does me, realize that's not because Assad's chlorine is so especially evil. It's because part of you realizes that is truly bizarre, and something might be EXTRA-wrong here. 

I've been looking at alleged chemical attacks in Syria and associated fatalities since December 2012, and I've never seen anything else like this. But in Douma, some form of this mysterious skin effect and/or its "mask" pattern appears on some two thirds of the seen victims. I'll show some of them below. Some show it strongly and some fainty, and others not at all. But all 35 victims at Location 2, and 3 others also seen most likely suffered the same fate (as did the full reported 43 - if not even more). 

Note this discoloration is not really a stain, but rather a process inside the skin, frequently accompanied by or replaced with a rash-like irritation in the same area. It seems the edema fluid has a strange effect on the skin. We'll come back to that.

Almost all details of all cases suggest this fluid flowed primarily "up" their face from the nose and/or mouth, avoiding the chin and lower cheeks. Of course fluids can only flow down under gravity, so this requires a certain position with the victims' faces upside-down, or with their bodies fully suspended upside down at the time of exposure, presumably bound to stay that way and so they could not wipe their faces of the edema fluids, allowing for this readable pattern. 

What a terrible detail. This is not something people at liberty would be doing in their home at Location 2. Some other points in favor of this: some display cyanosis that's often worst at the upper face and ears - some burst capillaries in the face - hair needing washed along with faces.

The skin effect is deeper in areas where, it seems, the fluid moved the slowest, lingering in its contact. Here's mask 1 extract again, flipped so we can see it how gravity would have: the flow was quickest at the origin, for less staining at the mouth and nostrils, and slower where it was obstructed and piled up - intensely along her nose, and less so in a widening area "up" the mid-cheeks. The clear lines here across the cheeks and crossing at the bridge of the nose are unusual - likely straps in her case, slowing the fluid on her nose. 

But almost every case is like hers in that the color is somehow deepest right under the eyes, around the outer rims, and a bit along the top, trailing off before the middle. Finally, discoloration appears at other points including the temples and spots across the forehead, perhaps a lowest point where the fluid would pool up before dripping off, for some lingering contact there. 

Note, 2/13: to drip from these forehead points would almost require the victims were suspended upside-down AND craning their necks to face the floor (like at right, or more so). That was probably the best way to cough the fluid out, but you can see how some of it might roll "up" the face as well. I've seen boards JaI used to strap people to. These turned upside-down might explain it, or maybe leaned against the wall at an angle - whatever best explains it. And if the gas used were heavier than air, any position like this would keep their heads down in the worst of it. End note.

There are unclear cases and a few exceptions; a pregnant woman (W5), an infant girl (or toddler? G10), and a younger infant (I2) at least, seem laid just on their backs, with fluid to the sides "across" the cheeks and ears, on the back of their clothing, over the chin, and less "up" the face. We also see effects of later flow matching different body positions in Location 2 (see Mask 2), so these only testify to body arrangement after the killing.

The OPCW's early FFM final report made the briefest note of a "periorbital discoloration" which they found "is not associated with any specific known toxic exposure." It was a mystery. "To determine whether it is due to a physiologic response to exposure to a toxic substance or simply post-mortem changes would require additional steps." (8.101) It's not clear if those steps were ever taken, by them. The IIT report twice lists symptoms including "discoloration of the skin" - no longer "periorbital" - as supporting reports of a chlorine attack, and as unlikely to result from simple dust inhalation. Nothing else of what I'll cover here was even noted by either investigation.

I could find no information about chlorine discoloring the skin like this, across the upper face or anywhere. As far as I could find, there is no post-mortem "masca mortis" like this, and there's no other cause I could find or think of that wasn't some kind of strange. And an important distinction helps us get on track; the "periorbital" part is not so relevant. This is a skin effect where edema fluid ran "up" their faces, including around the eyes, in an area better called peri-periorbital. In fact, there is a total LACK of skin effect within the actual periorbital area (immediately around the eyes, or inside the eye socket). 

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES BEGIN HERE

The completely clear patch immediately around the eyes has exactly the shape and size of swimming goggles, everywhere the shape can be discerned. Victim G6 aka Mask 5 is especially typical. There's usually a full and sharp outline on the bottom, where fluids rolling "up" the cheeks would accumulate against the projecting lenses, thence rolling over and around them, but more slowly. A wide backup with deep skin effect continues for the entire curve, and then there's a clear outline around the outer rim where it would flow "up," and a thinner line along the top up to the middle. Any fluids clinging to the curved rim might drip off under gravity here, or just roll up the brow quickly, leaving little sign until the forehead spots.  

The unknown agent presumably caused the pulmonary edema observed. This is usually caused by an irritant or corrosive substance - including but not limited to chlorine. Any such thing would probably affect the eyes much like chlorine would, but as I have noted in part 2, the victims' eyes totally lack redness to indicate such contact. The skin around the eyes is also unaffected, and the shape of this area suggests just how it was all shielded - with goggles. And this would explain the fluid slowdown marring the upper cheeks so badly. All these mysteries click together. 

4 other clearest examples of varied issues surrounding ovals of no such issues at right, Masks 2, 3, 5 & 6. (Examples were numbered upon identification, with #4 less clear) Images saturation and contrast enhanced to clarify, and some "smart blur" to smooth out artifacts, but nothing added. What unifies them is the shape of the affected area - widening up from the mouth and nose, and most extreme around the implied goggle lenses and the bridge of the nose where they would secure.

Mask 1 displays the colors of burning toast, and in these other cases, the mask area is filled with: yellow discoloration with a red rash surrounding it (Mask 2), skin turned almost black and seemingly hardened, perhaps with blood involved (Mask 3), vivid orange-brown surrounded by mottled and purple-shifted irritation (Mask 5), and a late-appearing red rash with just faint yellow (Mask 6). 

Several others of differing clarity were identified for a total of 11 cases I call "mask" (with #11 just now added - see below) + another 13 with no visible mask but some mixture of the related signs (called PPR) = 24. What made for Mask vs. PPR was a bit arbitrary, but 24 total out of 38 seen victims (35 from Location 2 + 3 others seen later) = almost 2/3 of them. Some of them display it mildly, others display it not at all, and some just aren't seen well enough to say. But they probably all suffered the same fate. They all suffocated, yet as far as we can see, they all have those white eyes.

We'll consider the effects in a bit more detail, but first, a few questions arise here....

Why Goggles? 

Why do I conclude they were used? The concave shape of the eye socket, the possibility of wiping or extreme squinting are among the other possibilities that could explain the lack of eye burning. But these don't seem to explain this clean and total an effect. It seems the evidence requires swimming goggles, or something of a very similar shape and similar effectiveness shielding the eyes, with enough thickness to cause the suggested fluid slow-down just "under" the eyes. Thin plastic or paper eye covers of the same size might explain it, but not as well. 

Other skin effect exclusions also seem related, maybe ways of securing the goggles with a tight fit: straps across the cheeks and crossing at the nose with Mask 1 - maybe straps up the outer cheek with the pregnant W5 and Mask 3 - some tab or lump of adhesive, perhaps, on the underside of the goggle shape (Masks 2 & 5), or the same on the top side (Mask 3). Previously I decided the goggles were not secured with the usual side straps. I revise that to say there may have been side straps, just not tight enough to the skin to interrupt the flow there.

Then a question I'll ask: Why would I want to make up something so strange?  I'm just following the evidence. Sometimes, they say fact is stranger than fiction. Maybe this is just one of those times.

Ok, it is strange, because the question is raised: Why would the killers apply eye protection to the people they were murdering? 

That's not obvious, but I have some guesses. They all stem from this crime being meant for display and propaganda - something about the visual impact it would have. Maybe the planners felt that acid-burned eyes would look wrong for a sarin-chlorine attack, for some confused reason. Maybe they wanted open eyes staring at the world for best effect, while chemical-injured eyes almost always squeeze tightly shut. One compelling and terrible possibility between those two emerged looking into events preceding this, as the ruling Jaysh al-Islam coalition was battered from Eastern Ghouta, one district after another. See blog post here for details - for just the relevant faces and a summary, see below.

* March 14, a chlorine attack in Hamouriya was reported with 2 young boys shown dead - the smaller one has tightly-closed, swollen eyes, perhaps suggesting irritant/corrosive exposure and that he wasn't given any goggles. The older boy's eyes look fine. No better detail seen. No CW fatalities listed by (now-defunct) VDC for this day. Opposition forces fled from Hamouriya by March 17 (per this map). If they had any civilian prisoners they didn't feel like transporting or setting free, they might kill them in the last days, just for convenience and minor propaganda points.

* Further back, one I just now ran across (not included in the linked post). February 19, a young child "killed in today’s heavy airstrikes on the rebel-held city of Douma" - infant with oral foam and swollen-looking eyes - blood on the face that is likely someone else's (it's a very bloody morgue scene). A uniform yellow skin color might suggest a prior illness, not directly related. No VDC database to check anymore. No chemical attack on this date had popped up in my earlier looks. No one was fleeing Douma yet.

https://twitter.com/sakirkhader/status/965722168427466753

* Then the one that stood out: A March 17 shelling attack in Ain Tarma got confused with a "chlorine attack" in Douma, but just the "shelling" is listed as leaving 3 children dead - likely of a Tarablisi family displaced from Jobar, as listed by the VDC. "Displaced" has often seemed to be code for "kidnapped," and Ain Tarma fell to Syrian forces after March 18 but before the 28th. Two older girls have signs of cyanosis, yellow suffocating foam, yellow or brown fluids on their clothing. One has open white eyes, but there's no visible staining to trace out any goggles they wore, or any fluid pattern. A baby boy shown with them clearly did NOT have goggles - he has red, raw, tightly-closed, badly swollen eyes, with separately burned eyelids,... cyanosis, with purple lips and upper face, white mucous or foam in the mouth and nose - dries yellow residue all over his face from the nose up, some fluid with a brown edge on his cheek (possibly blood-tinged mucous) - irritation but no yellow or brown staining of the skin.

Sorry, but it seemed worth showing all 3 puffy-eyed child martyrs:

There are various other causes for each of these signs that could, hypothetically, result from prior circumstances and the complex and variable event called "shelling." Two of these anyway were not supposed to be chemical attacks, and none of them is clear on being one. None of these clearly matches the effect seen with the April 7 chemical massacre, and they differ intriguingly with regard to eyes. But they're similar to what happened, with the suffocating edema and skin and eye irritation, and very close in time and space. 

This occular issue doesn't appear that I've seen with older children or adults. Any of them that were secretly gassed may have already been given eye protection. Perhaps the killers just didn't have any goggles in the smaller size these tykes would need. It could be these babies, especially the last one, were such horrible sights that the massacre planners finally located some protection in their size before trying the same thing again with a bigger number of victims.

Could Chlorine Explain the Mask?

The "Mask of Death" skin effect, again, is not evident in those last 3 faces or anywhere else I've seen, but it was widespread at Location 2. This effect is nowhere in the literature on chlorine, which produces hydrochloric (and hypochlorous) acid on contact with water. The only skin color it usually causes is that of the blood flushing the skin - regular irritation. And it happens wherever it contacts, not in a special area of the upper face. 

Closest matches: Chlorine gas can stain things its own yellow-green color, as seen at Location 4, but not a golden yellow or orange-brown. I've read reports (Hurst?) of some soldiers killed in WWI with faces stained chlorine color after a long stay in a dense cloud of the stuff. It's not something I've heard of anywhere else, and it would probably be all across the face and exposed skin, not in a mask shape like we see. 

Concentrated chlorine, as seen dripping on a pillow at location 4, does also oxidize to brown. The whole bed there gets stained green by the gas, and it all shifts brown. I haven't read about brown faces in WWI, but ... 

Considering all that, maybe it was the same blamed gas. If I were to learn chlorine can do this, as well as what's described below, then it could have been the poison after all. The mask shape would be chlorine in the air reacting with edema fluids flowing "up" the face, with all the points above: victims seemingly in captivity, upside-down in googles, with chlorine in the gas chamber. That's still not the reported story at Location 2. 

A Xanthoproteic Process?

But even then, there would be a contender, that for the moment stands alone as a specific, plausible explanation. This exact kind of skin discoloration is a classic effect of Nitric Acid. When it comes in contact with "aromatic amino acids," nitric acid (hereafter NA) initiates a "xanthoprotein reaction" (or "xanthoproteic reaction") - hereafter "XP reaction." 

The XP reaction is used in a laboratory setting as a test for amino acids; in a positive test, the solution turns from yellow to orange. https://warbletoncouncil.org/reaccion-xantoproteica-10005 It's also an effect of NA that just happens on the skin or anything with the right kind of proteins. It's most commonly seen in humans with accidental exposure to liquid NA, which has various industrial, chemical and military uses. 

As far as I know there might be 5 other chemical explanations, but I could find none yet. Here I'll relate why this fits the bill for the Location 2 fatalities. (also: I'm crowd-sourcing additional references and knowledge, be it pro, con, or whatever, or to propose an alternative cause - comments are open.) A few online sources give details matching what's seen in Douma:

The xanthoprotein reaction:

* stains the skin yellow and produces deep, painful burns

* causes mild irritation

* causes hardening of the skin

* When in contact with the eyes it is possible that severe burns and permanent damage result.

https://www.reference.com/science-technology/nitric-acid-stain-skin-yellow-9475502370e787b5

* causes "specific yellow- to brown-stained wounds with slower accumulation of eschar and slower demarcation compared with thermal burns."

The nitric acid burn trauma of the skin - PubMed (nih.gov)

* "Chemical skin burns induced by nitric acid initially showed a bright yellow to brown 

staining with surrounding red and oedematous swelling" 

sciencedirect.com

* A progression of the effect over time, with irritation deepening and color shifting from yellow to brown

A case study with example images - paywalled: I lost the copy I had, but this image can be shared. Victim splashed with liquid NA, direct skin contact - probably not what we see in Douma. The victim washed early, and effect initiated by then is mostly mild - just a golden yellow color, mainly around the facial hair where it might linger. A more brown color, albeit faint, can be seen at the forehead and presumably on the scalp - maybe he didn't rinse as well here and had wet, partly contaminated hair over his forehead for a while, for longer contact. Other areas show red irritation, maybe with slight hardening. White patches are probably from a topical treatment.

See also The Nitric acid burn trauma of the skin - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (jprasurg.com) and limited  abstracts: semanticscholar.org/ - sciencedirect.com/  Several cases of accidental exposures to liquid NA are described. Photos show "IIa-b chemical burn on day 1 with relatively pale staining" vs. "intensified yellow-brown staining" seen on day 2 (unclear if this is 24 hours after exposure, less than that, or more than that). This is from brief exposure with early treatment, maybe slowing the effect. A shoulder is shown with small liquid splashes all over, but connected by a burnt line along a shoulder seam that held more soaked-in liquid next to the skin, and it gets worse at the underarm creases. 

Some cases in Douma show a widening and deepening of the skin effects over time quite similar to this, but seemingly faster from a lack of early management: clear-looking areas grow an irritated red, red areas turn yellow, yellow ones shift to orange and brown, and brown to darker brown. 

Time-frame (approximate, worth refining): death rep. around 7:30 or as I found sometime between 7:00 and 9:00 - first seen 10:15-11 pm, then around 1 am, maybe later in the dark hours, in some inside view after sunrise and up to mid-day - then some bodies are seen outside Location 2 mid-day, including 12:30-1pm, then inside the tunnels, and finally at an underground collection spot near medical point 1, between 5 and 6pm. Some are seen for nearly 24 hours after death before being taken off to a secret burial.

Mask 1, icky foam included, specific areas compared: 

Here the expansion and deepening of the color are quite evident in images taken hours apart, but all at Location 2 (to pin down: best estimate of time between images). This victim is one of the few that's never seen again after the bodies were moved mid-day on April 8. The latest view is probably 14-18 hours after death. Again, the clear stripe in the middle of this is probably where a tight strap ran across her cheek. Also less affected: an odd spot on her nose might testify to other masking, or to something randomly stuck on there, shielding the skin from most of the fluid - even at the end it's partly unaffected.  

Her exceptionally dark pattern color suggests she had the fluid left on her face longer than most. Killed earlier? No. Observe - her face is in a similar position to what it was in bondage, so new foam here at Location 2 flows "up" her face in about the same way, adding to the earlier mask pattern in a way that perhaps no others do. By having "more of the same," she clarifies what they all had to start with, when they were killed.

Mask 2: 

2 views inside Location 2: early with almost no visible mask, but it's strong by the yellow-tinted photo - probably later, around noon, and different camera & lighting as well). 1 view outside with advanced mask, just before the dried foam cone was hosed away. In 2 PM views at Location 1, it's stronger yet. Last view is ~20-23 hours after death, and a bit longer since the skin exposure began. Note the later flow from the corner of the mouth sat longer than the original up-the-face fluid, for deeper brown stains along the edge vs. a deep-looking upper cheek burns just hitting the yellow-orange stage ... and one hopes he was upside down for less than the 15 hours before they hosed that foam away. 

Mask 6/G10 ("G9" in error): 

Just irritation, appearing late but aggressive, especially at a chin scratch, a cheek spot - discoloration strongly at the yellow left earlobe, just faintly on the face. No visible foam/fluids, and no additional skin effect to go with its flow. Location 2 views are hours apart - one well before 1 am and one well after (it was around 1am that she was picked up by a White Helmets "rescuer" for a photo opportunity, moved a few feet, and set back down on top of other bodies). Left view enhanced for best view of any issues - almost zero aside from that earlobe, faint pink at the chin scratch. Later: orange earlobe, faint yellow, intense rash filling in a partial mask pattern. Time frame: same as above.

M1: alleged survivor Nasr al-Hanan claims this is his brother Hamzah, whom he watched washing his face at the sink before he collapsed, at least 3 hours before this view with wet hair. He was left in a strange pose. Nasr showed a cell phone image taken later. I caught this late, not included in Mask of Death post, but he fits, with brownish color at the upper lip where his last foam had pooled up, and the usual area on the nose and upper cheeks, below unaffected, open, all-white eyes. He's Mask #11 then (unless I revise and demote #10, or #9 - both are kind of weak). Timespan unclear.

Mask 5 progression is shown below. Others also show some deepening of the effect, but let's move on. 

Compression and hardening of the skin also occurs with the XP reaction, and this is seen in at least some of the Douma victims with the more advanced effect. There is some indication with Mask 1, especially on the ring above the left eye, but it's more evident with mask 5, a girl, and mask 2, a boy.

Mask 5/G6 (left): sunken appearance, orange color fading to brown at the upper boundary below the eyes, but not past that line - seemingly pressing blood from the capillaries to create a mottled flushing of the cheeks well below the orange patch, outside of a wide ring of pallor along the mask's edge. Mask 2/B6 (right): deep yellow coloration under the eyes, perhaps blistered out, but likely compressed - a flushed area just below, with an extra-red band along the mask's edge, just overlapping the yellow - Some brown patches near the mouth appear sunken, with a narrow band of squeezed pallor separating them.

And note in these 2 cases that whatever the effect, it remains in the surface affected area and not in unaffected areas - blood is displaced mainly into tissue that's already flushed, with little to no creep into the undamaged skin. Clear skin is found lower on the face, sporadically in the middle, and inside those perfect goggle outlines. The boy has one spot of yellow beginning under his right eye, probably from after the goggles were removed, and nothing else inside those rims.

Finally, some points on the edema fluids that seemingly caused this.

IIT 6.105 "...some of the secretions observed were also pinkish/brown in colour, which is likely due to a combination of blood-tinged sputum and changes in its colour due to the time elapsed between when the exposure occurred and when the fatalities were documented."

FFM: "Some of the secretions also have an additional light brown colour, which is similar in appearance to gastric contents or blood tinged sputum." 

Perhaps all of it is the relevant yellow-brown; white foam is more an optical effect of many reflective bubbles than it is the true color. Collapsed to liquid, this can be seen on faces and the floor in golden yellow, brownish yellow and brown states. Fluid by victim B4 at least does include blood (it's seen on his face later), but most don't seem to. This is quite possibly from the XP reaction with proteins in the mucous. It may happen slower than it does in the skin. Mask 5/G6 has skin change drastically, as her pool of edema fluid expands but barely changes color from golden yellow. Mask 1 foam collapses for less glare, but also seems brown-shifted in the late view.

This is a detailed process that is not known to result from chlorine exposure. 

Diesel Exhaust? 

The evidence could suggest poisoning directly with pure liquid Nitric Acid, in a breathable vapor. But that might cause a quicker and bloodier death than we see. The NA was more likely produced secondarily to - for example - inhaling airborne NOx. NOx refers to nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), one of which turns to the other in rapid order. NOx creates nitric acid on contact with water. This is much like what chlorine does, but it's a different acid with different effects. The suggested skin contact is with NA only in a dilute form, in the edema fluids that were coughed up, but likely reacting further with particles still in the air. Eye contact, again, seems absent.

Atmospheric NOx can have many plausible sources, but perhaps most commonly, it comes from diesel exhaust. This is generated automatically as waste by all kinds of vehicles and machinery that burn diesel oil as fuel. Just fill the tank, turn the key, and the exhaust can be piped into a sealed room full of people.

The Nazis used this method in some of their extermination camps, including Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. As I've had explained to me, the diesel used then produced enough carbon monoxide that it was the primary cause of death in those gas chambers. As I gather, modern diesel produces much less CO and would, most likely, kill more slowly with the NOx it also produces. 

I'm no expert, but Diesel exhaust also seems a likely source for the black, sooty residue seen heavily on some victims. At right: Infant I2, seen above, embraced by a sooty water basin, here at Location 1 much later, with some developing rash on the nose, upper cheeks, at some cheek scratches. This baby looks like someone who climbed up a chimney. Others who don't look like that could just be the ones suspended across the gas chamber, further from the exhaust pipe. 

Impurities in diesel exhaust might also add to the viscosity of pulmonary edema fluids. The FFM had noted an unusually persistent foam in some cases. Mask 5 as shown above has foam that collapses into a gummy residue, almost like artificial whipped cream. Mask 2/B6 as seen here, B1 more notably, and several others have the foam dry into a cone that never collapses and had to be hosed away the next day.

Note 2/13: The basement at Location 2 might be worth another look. There was a sooty area, some details I forget, and would the OPCW even see diesel exhaust in their tests, or consider it an issue?

A New Method?

Again, I've never seen anything like this before. It may have been a new method with unexpected results. Consider: This appears alongside sarin claims that fell apart. Maybe they still had some sarin, had meant to kill the victims with it, and/or spike the scene with it. But say it was blown up en route, along with its handlers, amid Jaysh al-Islam's general military rout. If so, they might rig up a diesel exhaust gas chamber, and then find out about this downside later. Last-minute improvisation seems likely all around, and might explain a lot of the exposed seams. 

Or maybe it was a known method, one used before less visibly, but some additional mistakes or developments messed it up here. For example, the gas chamber might have been damaged by shelling, delaying body removal and cleanup. And there are other possibilities, of course including that I'm completely off base.

It could well be another agent than diesel caused the NA. Maybe there was no NA and there's another explanation for the process we see. Perhaps there's another way to explain the skin effect, the flow pattern and/or the exclusions. But so far only one proposed scenario actually explains all this evidence.

When they stopped moving, I suppose the victims had their goggles and binding removed, were initially washed, and found to look fine. They were transported to Location 2, probably by truck via the underground tunnels, then carried and arranged inside. The chlorine cylinder was placed then if it wasn't already, and the valve was opened however it was, filling the site and leaving a chemical footprint. 

The gas release may have been rushed, causing the last body movers to drop and leave 4 bodies at the entrance because the gas cloud was coming. Maybe the mysterious 8 bodies of the reported 43 were simply in the bed of a pickup truck when the work team fled the scene. 

The process might have been rushed due to that deepening skin reaction - it looked wrong and was getting worse. Even then, by the time the gas was thin enough to work the scene again, W7 and B3 looked terrible and others were getting there. They tried and found it did not wash off, so the first photo shoot was rushed before they looked even worse, and included wet hair on most victims. Then some later views look worse anyway. 

Review of OPCW Consideration

I don't expect to convince many people, or any of the coverup helpers, of this exact hypothesis. They can confidently assume the features noted must have another explanation, even if none is evident. Like everything else, from the cylinder "impact" forward, it "must be" whatever allows a definite Syrian regime chlorine attack that's fit to impose new sanctions over.

But OPCW investigations never explained any of the related mysteries I've correlated here. The FFM considered the "periorbital discoloration" to be a mystery seemingly unrelated to chlorine. To find out what it was "would require additional steps" they probably never took before the IIT presented skin discoloration as probably some kind of chlorine effect after all. They listed it that way twice, alongside miosis, which also has nothing to do with chlorine. 

The IIT report's figure 6 shows a baby, a boy and a woman killed, labeled "PERSONS WHO DIED AS A CONCEQUENCE OF BEING EXPOSED TO CHLORINE." End "fact." The pixelated vs. clear areas indicate they want to show us clouded white eyes and edema foam, and perhaps the discoloration as well.

Shown: mask 6, mask 2, mask 1 with signs more consistent with death involving nitric acid instead of chlorine (which produced hydrochloric acid), and exceptionally clear mask patterns showing they died under bondage in a story the FFM/IIT "witnesses" - White Helmets and otherwise - would likely have known, but never told them about. 

But why would the "rebels" gas "their own people?"

Thought-impaired critics reflexively ask this, assuming the answer and assuming a faulty premise that the people running Douma at the time cared about the victims, considering them "their own." But in fact, the ruling militants of Jaysh al-Islam ("Army of Islam" - hereafter JaI) may have murdered some of their enemies among the Syrian people here, people whom the OPCW's flawed investigations claim to champion.

It's worth relating some backstory that, for a few paragraphs, might seem unrelated. I've never researched this deeper than presented here: Bakriyeh Family Deaths for a clunky, fuller explanation of what I summarize below, with sources linked. I probably have a few less-relevant details wrong. Feel free to read up double check me or learn more.

Jaysh al-Islam started out of Douma in 2011 as Liwa al-Islam ("Banner of Islam" - LaI), supported by Saudi Arabia to hopefully lead a march on Damascus and to head up a new government. They gained fame for some assassinations in mid-2012, and grew to control Douma by year's end, amid grisly and contested massacres. From this base they expanded across the Eastern Ghouta suburbs of Damascus and into the city too (Jobar). Along the way, they absorbed other groups until, in the Fall of 2013, LaI became the head part of the larger Jaysh al-Islam coalition. 

Just like its head, JaI was known as brutal, repressive, and anti-democratic. JaI was almost certainly behind the December, 2013 abduction & later killing of the "Douma 4" - local activists, including Razan Zaitouneh, who had criticized abuses of the militia and its founding leader Zahran Alloush. Alloush was the son of a preacher exiled in Saudi Arabia. He had openly expressed sectarian and genocidal views, promising to "cleanse" Syria of Alawites, Shi'ites, and people of Iranian ancestry. He walked those comments back, but LaI/JaI kidnapped civilians on sectarian lines by the thousands. In Adra alone, early December 2013, they teamed up with Al-Qaeda franchise Jabhat al-Nusra to commit a grisly massacre of unclear size, and then a mass kidnapping of several hundred (maybe over 1,000) mostly Alawite citizens. JaI kept the captives in squalid conditions and used them at will. They openly placed women in cages on rooftops to deter airstrikes, and used men for slave labor. Some died while digging a famed "tunnel city" beneath Douma and much Eastern Ghouta. 

These and other captives before and since may also have been killed at will to flesh out allegations, like the August 2015 Douma market "attack" (112 killed, almost all of them adult males) and the August 2013 Ghouta chemical massacre of several hundred (2021 Ghouta reports). Whatever all they did, it was met with occasional muted criticism from Western Human Rights groups and nothing from hostile governments, except maybe to blame some of their biggest crimes on the Syrian state. 

Jaysh al-Islam proudly opposed the Syrian government and ISIS, the Islamic State, claiming they were secret allies (along with Iran and the "Mahjoos" and maybe even the Israeli Jews). Besides that 2-front war, fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, and another waged on civilians they considered apostate ... and another on opposition activists who opposed them ... some of Jaysh al-Islam's endless struggles were with other Sunni Muslim opposition fighters. 

As they expanded from 2011 onward, they variously allied with, displaced, absorbed, or crushed other opposition groups. And sometimes they pushed it too far. The biggest rebellion JaI faced was called Jaysh al-Umma - Army of the Muslim Community (as opposed to the more abstract Islam). This was led by a prominent group called Douma Martyr's Brigade (DMB), but included others who had had enough. It ran at a low boil from September 2014 until Jaysh al-Islam formally declared war on the rebels in January 2015. They wiped out the rebellion in a few days of this, perhaps with Saudi intelligence help. 

Jaysh al-Umma fighters and leaders, of various original groups, were amnestied and re-absorbed, killed, arrested then killed, or left scattered in hiding. Those who escaped the purge stopped rebelling at all, and sided with the Syrian government in its fight against the Islamist monster ruling Douma and E. Ghouta. That's not a flattering story for the Jaysh al-Islam "freedom fighters" or the Saudi Kingdom backing them. It seems JaI were just too effective and too ruthless for their own good. 

Others whom Zahran Alloush rubbed the wrong way likely helped betray his position so the Syrian air force was able to kill him and several top commanders on December 25, 2015. Jaish al-Islam carried on with its control of Eastern Ghouta until the offensives of early 2018 whittled that down to Douma and then nothing. But Alloush's death seems to mark the start of a long slide from quite a height of power they held in 2014.

The Douma Martyr's Brigade was led during the rebellion by Majid Khayba. He took the helm 5 months earlier when its founding leader, Omar Diab Bakriyeh, was killed in fighting. When only those who cooperated with Jaysh al-Islam were allowed to exist, DMB cooperated. But Bakriyeh reportedly died in clashes with the Syrian army on April 4, 2014, when his JaI allies failed to get reinforcements to him in time. Or maybe their men got there and killed him. And maybe there wasn't even a battle that day. The true story can't be known. 

On the same day, 4/4/14, one Amjad Diab Bakrieh from Douma - the commander's likely brother by matching middle and last names names - was reportedly killed in unrelated "shelling." (an Arabic middle name is usually the father's first name). Bakriyeh is a rare local name. Per the database of the Douma-based VDC (now defunct), only two people named Bakriyeh had been killed in the whole Syrian  conflict from 2011 to then. It doubled to 4 that day. And from such a small pool, how many men named Diab Bakriyeh were there to have sons killed on the same day? Probably just one. This smells of family targeting, papered over with some falsified reporting.

After Bakriyeh's death, Majid Khayba took the helm at DMB until he was arrested and executed in 2015 following the rebellion. The open friction leading to that was yet to come when Bakriyeh was slain, but that might play in. Beyond his brother, the commander 's wider family might eventually be seen as targets, especially if other relatives continued annoying JaI. And that could matter since the OPCW's Location 2 with the 35 bodies was reportedly a home of several Bakriyeh families. As some media reports noted and as the Douma-based VDC listed them, 11 of the identified 35 fatalities were named Bakriyeh. With relations not all clear ("maiden" names are kept in marriage), some other victims will surely be related, and it could be that most or all of them were related. 

Commander Omar Diab Bakriyeh would likely have a son named Diab, in honor of his own father. But then so might any of his brothers. So these 2 girls found at Location 2 could be the commander's granddaughters or grand-nieces: Jouri Diab Bakriyeh (Child - Female), Qamar Diab Bakriyeh (Adult - Female). Others might relate, but middle names are left off in most cases.

It's not a common name. Including these 11, the VDC martyr's database listed a total of 17 Bakriyehs killed in the conflict from 2011 to 2018. Another source adds one more for 18. All but one clearly hailed from Douma, and the other likely does. Some 2/3 of them allegedly died under that one chlorine cylinder.

Side-note, optional: What seem to be two other relatives are telling. The VDC listed a Fahid Mohammad Dyab Bakrieh killed 3-23-2012, adult male, age 22, from Douma. Notes: "shot in the heart by a sniper's gunfire" - presumably a regime sniper, except that allegation is always dubious. Dual middle name makes the father clear, and commander Omar was also called "Abu Fahed." His son here was likely the main namesake of the Martyr's brigade as it set out rebelling, ultimately on 2 fronts. And this means at least 3/4 of the first Bakriyeh deaths were probably all related. Maybe it's 4/4. Then on April 14, 2018 - just a week after the chemical massacre, as it happens - a probable nephew of the fallen commander, Mustafa Muhammad Diab Bakiriyeh, from Douma, was killed fighting on the Aleppo front and/or with an "Aleppo Front" (Jabhat al-Halab), apparently allied with the Syrian Arab Army. Times change.

Let's return now to those two likely mortar shell impacts on the balcony at Location 2 (see part 1 as needed). The obvious culprits of this explosive shelling would be the Syrian Arab Army, but that's not so certain. Syrian forces engaged militants in a police and then military fashion only until October 2012 (IIRC), when they gave up on trying to control Douma. They probably engaged in some shelling then, but I don't think they ever got back in at short-range mortar distance of this building even at the end in 2018. I think SAA was fighting only on the outskirts of Douma, to the south and maybe east, when the surrender came down. As noted in part 1, the balcony damage suggests those shells came from the north, at a relatively short range. That is the SAA might be ruled out, meaning this damage had to come from opposition infighting.   

For example: following the crushed Jaysh Al-Umma uprising, Jaysh Al-Islam might have put out a fatwa (religious decree) ordering the arrest of the whole Bakriyeh family. Or maybe it came earlier, helping to spark that uprising. It could be some were nabbed at their various homes, but here at Location 2, the greatest number of Bakriyehs lived, alongside in-laws and maybe some family friends. Perhaps an armed few of them put up resistance when JaI came to take them.

A family sniper may have been holding attackers at bay up on that balcony and/or the room below. A larger punched hole (white box) allows for a limited but protected view, and maybe room for a rifle barrel to poke through. The NE corner next to that was unusually free of fragmentation marks (tan box). The shooter might have been there when the corner shell arrived, and his (or her?) body absorbed all the shrapnel directed into this corner. 

And at any rate, that's one possible cause that might relate to the fate of the families living there -  not because the chlorine cylinder landed there but because that's when they were kidnapped, after their defenders lost a fight. As far as I know, there's no clear evidence for or against that - nothing to prove they had been at liberty in their homes until that night, or to prove they were imprisoned. But they might have been held captive ever since, along with others captured before and after, coming to include all those faces we would see dead in 2018.

Perhaps the name link has no relevance to the Douma massacre, and true story is another one we don't know. But then this other story might be similar anyway, given the circumstances. And considering the probable staging of those cylinders, and that the victims were apparently killed under direct bondage, the finger of blame would best point to the brutal and deceptive maniacs in charge of Douma at the time.

But why would they gas even their enemies in such a brazen manner? 

To start, they would face almost no risk of exposure from Western and allied governments (including Suadi Arabia) or the international agencies, NGOs, mass media, and millions of private minds they exert control over. There would be very little risk to such a venture, and some potential gains. 

As they faced a final defeat even in Douma, JaI might pin some hopes on a Hail Mary move, a gamechanger to actually reverse that. The first reports on April 7 had a rising death toll stopping at 180-190 killed in what seemed a massive chlorine-sarin attack. Everyone who mattered initially reported this version, and 187 killed by chlorine AND sarin was later "confirmed" by some informed insiders (these death toll disagreements were ignored by the FFM/IIT as if they were obviously some simple confusion). 187 would be easily the second biggest CW death toll in Syria, trailing far behind Ghouta 2013. That's consistent with a serious try at a strong international reaction that might force the Syrian government to stop or be too distracted - or maybe even destroyed by massive airstrikes - to finish their push on Douma. 

Up to 200 dead from sarin is why Donald Trump launched his limited airstrikes - as he had done almost exactly one year earlier - just as OPCW investigators arrived. In the end it didn't bail the "Army of Islam" out of imminent defeat, but it might have seemed worth a try, 

The chemical "attack" and more dead babies certainly put a taint on Syria's final victory in Douma. And on the flip-side, it was a huge PR boost as a consolation prize for the defeated Islamists. Instead of simply being defeated and surrendering, they made a show of defiance and even provocation until the April 7 "chlorine attack," and only then agreed to surrender, as they said, to prevent a repeat and "save lives." 

Furthermore, Jaysh al-Islam members knew they would probably be taking a green bus to Idlib soon. They would have their families and some belongings, maybe allowed one pistol for self-defense but no heavy weapons, and certainly no kidnapped people. Part of the deal was that prisoners would be set free ... unless of course they were killed and buried first. A lucky 200 were released, but an unexplained 3,000 or so were NOT released as promised. These had probably been killed off over time, including at that last chance in April. 

If the scenario above were true, the decision-makers probably would not want the Bakriyeh prisoners released to tell their terrible part of an ultimately embarrassing story - how Zahran Alloush, Jaysh al-Islam and the Saudis ruined the rebellion in Damascus with their unhinged and unchecked brutality. And that might be why they were picked for poisoning and then brought back home one last time for a sick little PR stunt - used to people JaI's "chlorine attack" site.

This may be some of Jaysh al-Islam's brutality that still goes unchecked - and pointedly so - by "OSINT" hero Eliot Higgins. He leans and drools on the FFM and IIT findings, which he might have helped to shape with some heralded-then-denied "collaboration." He helps the IIT elevate the regime-blaming option with junk science and displays of confidence, with some permissible facts mixed in. They've got this piled atop all the other dismissed possibilities, almost surely including the actual truth. And so they just might assist - perhaps unintentionally - in a coverup of this hideous and reasonably well-illustrated Islamist massacre. 

I'll let Higgins have the last word, where he urges his readers - and now mine - "Just remember who was behind spreading and promoting these lies about a horrific war crime."