April 25, 2020
incomplete
2. The IIT itself interviewed 20 persons of interest, including alleged victims, during this
phase of its work. Since the incidents under investigation took place in the same
geographical area and within seven days of each other, most of the persons of interest
were able to provide information for more than one incident.
(including the one that was clearly invented retroactively - not just unverified civilian witnesses, militant ones, possible militants speaking as White Helmets (day job), but also to … the White Helmets as a group, a bunch of Syrian opposition groups who collate the same kind of allegations, and various European agencies and NGOs that collate those collations and are taken as lending credence in the process (not that it was needed...)
These interviews were considered in conjunction with statements previously provided to the FFM and other entities. In relation to other entities that were willing to provide information, or
provide leads for the investigation, the general approach of the IIT has been to request
access to information that the IIT considered could be obtained from those entities,
and to assess it together with the rest of the information already at the IIT’s disposal.
In its investigation, the IIT reached out, among others, to the following entities:124
list:
1 The Center for Advanced Defense Studies (C4ADS);
2 Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria (CVDCS);
3 Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA);
4 Europol Analysis Project on Core International Crimes (AP CIC);
5 European Union Satellite Centre;
6 Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) – Peace and Security;
7 Human Rights Watch;
8 Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic;
9 Open Society Justice Initiative;
10 Peace SOS;
11 Syria Civil Defence (SCD);
12 Syria Justice and Accountability Centre;
13 Syrian Archive;
14 Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR);
15 Syrian NGO Alliance,
16 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) - relevant if the meteorological data was manipulated
Not: SOHR, any Syrian non-opposition groups like ... ones that have existed, still might, but I'd have to check.
1 The Center for Advanced Defense Studies (C4ADS);
- ?
2 Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria (CVDCS);
- interesting history, etc.
-- ...
3 Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA);
- Assad Files: hoax
-- https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/10/11/revolution-unraveled-assad-files-now-an-achilles-heel-for-war-crimes-narrative/
- http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2016/04/regarding-those-assad-files.html
- star witness who helped fill in the gaps
-- https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/03/some-different-opinions-on-retun-of.html
4 Europol Analysis Project on Core International Crimes (AP CIC);
- sounds sure to be unbiassed (sarcasm)
5 European Union Satellite Centre;
- relevant if the meteorological data was manipulated
6 Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) – Peace and Security;
- compiled the most inflated, dishonest collation of CW allegations against Syria to date
-- https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-change-of-thinking-on-douma-chemical.html
7 Human Rights Watch;
- identified KhAB-250 by looking at it inside out, other incompetence
-- https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/02/on-opcw-bellingcat-collaboration.html
8 Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic;
- uniquely Syrian CW weapon, etc. Bellingcat collaboration?
-- https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/02/on-opcw-bellingcat-collaboration.html
- e.g. reliance on bogus OPCW findings like 'no wind theory' and location fudging to make their spread seem to work
-- https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2017/07/idlib-chemical-massacre-4-4-17-wind.html
9 Open Society Justice Initiative;
- no research of my own - what can a Soros-run compiler of allegations really add?
10 Peace SOS;
- sounds cuddly - don't know them
11 Syria Civil Defence (SCD);
- would surely be in on any staged scenario, which they considered, and found against, based on things and stories "SCD" handed them
12 Syria Justice and Accountability Centre;
- https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-clearer-view-on-assad-files.html
13 Syrian Archive;
- just video archiving? some commentary attached, maybe more?
14 Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR);
- long record, no overview of my own, several good articles by others
-- ...
15 Syrian NGO Alliance,
- ?
16 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) - relevant if the meteorological data was manipulated
The Site that Asks: Is the "dictator" justifying intervention by killing innocents? Or is someone else doing it for him? (previously The Libyan Civil War: Critical Views)
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Thursday, April 16, 2020
COVID19 "Experts" and Fake Curve-Flattening
Adam Larson (aka Caustic Logic)
April 16-17, 2020
rough, incomplete
adds April 20, 21, 23
Note 4-21: Apologies for this post's rambling sloppiness - I think I should leave this as-is and perhaps re-write the points more clearly somewhere else. It won't be at 21st Century Wire, that's for sure. Ideally, maybe someone with more reach than I who gets these points - especially Mather's graphing trick/error - could raise them anew to help fight this contagious idiocy.
---
So I've been making some enemies jumping into the COVID19 subject and controversies. A depressing number of otherwise intelligent, skeptical people now suffer from an excess of skepticism, and it's a moderate public health danger. I've argued the points so many times already, here short form: question are fine, but ask honestly. The wisdom of the current lockdown reactions of nearly all world governments are validly debatable, but two important points:
1 it's not a global conspiracy where millions of nurses, doctors, patients and fatalities are faked or exaggerated by compiling other deaths, etc. From Communist China to Theocratic Iran, hyper-capitalist US and UK and virtually every government on Earth - everyone who would agree too much death at once and a crashed medical system is no good, but neither is a wrecked economy - all consulted all their best experts on health, science, and the economy and decided on what they did. Maybe all of them are wrong, but …
2 … this suggests the danger is real, and the measures these armchair experts call terrible mistakes or an evil plot have a reasonable basis anyway. The rules should be followed absent some rather good reasons, as long as they're reasonable and not abusive (and you might not be able to easily tell which ones are and aren't).
Critics tend to focus on the actions of the home government they distrust, and taking that in isolation, find it easy to see it as the start of a horrible dystopic future, for which they had their elite "experts" fake a simple flu up into a compelling panic. They try not to lose a step over every other regime with all their varied interests doing the same thing at the same time - the Iranian scientists and the Russians etc. are also controlled, somehow. And all their doctors and fake patients involved in staging the "crisis" there … all their news media, etc. Everyone's in on it - they guess.
These independent minds aren't swayed by "science-ism" and official "experts" - but to back up their hunches, they cite other "experts" - some 20 of them or more known to oppose the status quo, who explain things like how COVID19 doesn't seem to kill anyone - people just drop dead from other things after allegedly getting it. That's reportedly been happening with thousands a day worldwide, close to 1,000/day just in the UK, but maybe the numbers are faked, or whatever.
And they say it's not that many; spotting early on how the low numbers (existing then) looked like normal tallies for a whole flu season, some predicted that would be the end of it, and it'd be like a normal flu season - which I hear kills thousands a day frequently, so hospital SHOULDN'T be extra-swamped. They don't seem to believe the reports that hospitals have been and are overwhelmed in many areas, and the fear is how much worse it could get seems ill-founded, to these skeptical minds. And of course not that many would die (not) from the virus - most are old, ill, were about to die anyway in the following weeks to decades. And they warn therefore POLICE STATE RESIST, etc.
Anyway, I've found this annoying and worth combatting, so I'm a "gate-keeper" and all that. Fine. Here I'll share a look at two expert (mathematician) views involving predictions that popped out for being cited at me recently. I close the gate on them (as if they'll actually be stopped by MY gate), and here's why.
First, on sources: I'm using what seems to be the standard running tallies provided by the WHO that everyone else uses, as tracked by Bing - https://www.bing.com/covid This has been called Bill Gates' fear machine and not trustworthy, but it seems to use the same numbers everyone else does, and it's handy. There is an odd issue I've noted where most graphs (but not all) are missing the date April 1, showing instead a sharp spike between May 31 and April 2. This error is variously ignored, crudely repaired, or not present in the graphs I use here. It doesn't seem to affect anything past that spot on each graph, but it raises some question... (the example here is from Brazil's graph) And of course there numbers aren't complete or gospel, include false positives, exclude false negatives and, unconfirmed cases, etc. To some minds they also include lies or exaggerations, and I admit I can't rule that out. So, grains of salt and all that, we proceed.
Mather/Peerless Reads: Fake Not Facts
On April 5 I was informed by an exasperated Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire): "growth stage is over, growth rate hump and curling over now, so 'crisis' is over." Therefore, no justification for the ongoing repression of the people of the UK, contrary to what I kept arguing. He cited this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUHmwHN96U
"Coronavirus Fact Not Fear - Chart Update 1st April 2020" by "Peerless Reads" - which I see is run by "Andrew Mather, a 60 year old British mathematician, financier, author, techie."
I don't think I understand "curling," but mostly followed what Mather says. The UK government's prediction of 500,000+ death there, shifted to 5,7000 if people comply with the Orwellian lockdown - that was all baldfaced scare tactics, he concludes after a calm look at the facts. Comparing reported trends between "Hubei (finished), Italy, Germany, Norway, and UK charts without lockdown," he finds all of them will level off, or already have, at a certain rational point where the virus wears out, gets bored, stops being contagious, or manages to have all active copies die or fall completely through the cracks between people that would naturally emerge.
Mather's projected final deaths in UK:
* 4,508 if it spread and killed naturally as it did in Hubei, China
* 6,064 if it killed as it had so far in Italy
* 10,269 if it killed as projected by some in Italy.
And after killing that many, the virus would get bored or whatever and go back to being mundane. That's the natural progression, Mather somehow decided. Therefore, "we were always headed for 3,500 - 10,000 (deaths), nothing like the 530,000 we were told to be scared of."
Well it's been two weeks. We can't check what WOULD have happened, so far, with no lockdown, except to say it'd be worse than what we see. First, a scaled-down example in Washington State (where I live) with my own inexpert guess at a reasonable spread without gov. Inslee's orders. Whatever the scale, that's the idea - distancing and lockdown seem to be helpful at keeping the levels lower.
Current UK deaths:12,868 13,729 as of the 16th, and rising some 600-800/day (most days - it's ranged from ~400 up to nearly 1,400 in a day). Apparently, the UK never was headed for 3,500 to 10,000 deaths in total (nor to 5,700). Luckily, preventive measures have kept it from
exceeding those predictions by a ridiculous margin - yet.
Here's the graph shown - dotted lines start at prediction time, April 1, and note that's where they start leveling - in his imagination. The curves before should be based on real numbers, presumably graphed right, but … they seem to have dramatically varying shapes compared the ones I'm seeing - they turn hard left, then hard right in a way that makes me wonder. We'll come back to that.
As for the comparisons, which of these nations did and did not use lockdown is worth more review. China - Hubei included - enacted strict lockdown and other containment measures. People were chased inside by drones, dragged off to quarantine centers in vans, etc. This is NOT the natural progression to compare to; this is actually more like the model of a lockdown response we'll only want to emulate in part.
This is quite similar to what Mather takes as the natural progression. But he might have noticed the boot imprint on the Chinese lines (gold, gray, gray in his graph) as something he shouldn't presume with the others - those would show the actual natural flattening he imagines, not the Communists' barely-truncated version, with that barely-needed boot. Also note there's been a recent spike of cases not shown here, linked to Chinese workers returning from Russia - another thing Mather doesn't seem to predict as natural. I mean, does the virus get bored of being bored after a while? (and add 4-17: China just reported they had under-reported deaths in Hubei hugely - add some 1,290 further deaths, a 38% increase of what's shown here, and what Mather used as a baseline.)
The numbers of cases Mather predicted wind up not too far off from what we see, but these follow on lockdown measures, and might well reflect them, even enormously. His assertion the same would have happened naturally is what hasn't been proven. And as I'll show, he underestimated its lethality, so a similar number of cases in the UK led to a higher death rate already in excess of his highest final prediction (in fact nearly 50% over his high end), and still it's still rising quickly.
But even if the numbers aren't so wrong, it's the visual graph most people will walk away with. That has colors and shapes and tells a story you can see. And it's confusing or even deceptive, and also makes it hard to make out what the predicted numbers are. Do notice those rises can't be read the normal way, but more like a Richter scale in reverse. I don't know if he did this to be tricky, but each rise is exponential, at least according to the numbers on the left edge: the top bar represents a spread of 900,000 (100,000 to 1 million), while the one below spans just 9,000, the one below that 900, then 90, 9. The bottom line shows a rise from 1 case to 10 cases. The top line looking all flat there should actually rise 100,000 TIMES as high as it does to be proportional to the bottom line. Obviously that calls for a different scale that does NOT create a false appearance of sudden onset followed by inevitable and swift flattening. This is what we want to happen for real, not in an optical illusion on the computer screen.
I tried a rough re-proportioning just from the screengrab. It's not easily do-able, but just for a basic idea what it should look like, see below - the top line is way taller than the one below and so on. But the difference evolves over the box, so it just keeps getting flatter as you go up and hence - the virus is getting bored (hence, my proportional numbers on the right aren't right). From there down I squeezed lines down, but fudged that too, to keep things even visible.
Adding: I watched the rest of the video - it compares other nations on the same exponential scale, showing the same "flattening" once the numbers get high enough to get more compressed. "Curlover" is the "curvature" or "flattening" that he says "says the growth is slowing down." But the flattening we SEE mainly means the growth is being shown more squished. I tried again to reproportion the thing better, with each line at least partly reflecting its own vertical distortion. I just skipped the bottom two rows, and again fudged the two above that. Far from exact but closer, I decided all lines stop about 1/4 of the way up from 100k to 1m, so below the marked 325,000 line. By this, his projections come out something like:
- Italy: 295k
- UK 220k
- Norway 170k
Again, the numbers there are per 100 million (so divide by 100 for the more common per million). By Mather's prediction, vs. as of today (April 16) per https://www.google.com/covid19-map/:
* UK (pink/magenta) should be at about 1,700/million and still rising, set to level around 2,2000/m over the next two weeks. vs. current cases 1,552/million - not that much off, but rising faster than predicted, even with current measures, while this was a prediction for without them.
* Italy (green): fully leveled at about 2,950/million predicted vs. 2,741.46/million current - it progressed slower than predicted, but still is not leveled off. Is something slowing it down? But yet it's not leveling off completely, on its own or with the help? What gives?
* Norway (blue): fully leveled at ~1,700 vs. 1,276 and still rising, just slower than predicted. Same questions as with Italy.
* Germany (red): no projection shown vs. 1,630.19
So he's not so far off from current numbers, but denies these are low due to lockdown measures - AND he decided they'd be final numbers in a closing story, rather than early points in a crisis that's still unfolding dramatically. Here's how this illusion-based claim (green boxes) - and the next "expert" claim (blue) - compares to actual running trends in the UK:
(add 4-17: record deaths in the UK just now: +1,708 deaths in a 24-hour span (now 14,576), +10,216 news cases. Also US deaths hit a record: +6,801 in 24 hours.)
(add 4-20: now past 120,000 confirmed cases and 16,000 fatalities - adding a lot of notes and Forsyth prediction)
The 40 and 70-day markers there take us to the other expert view I looked into...
An Israeli 40-Day-40-Night Theory
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-israeli-prof-claims-simple-stats-show-virus-plays-itself-out-after-70-days/
Times of Israel reported on 14 April the findings of Isaac Ben-Israel, who is: "a prominent Israeli mathematician, analyst and former general," "head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University and the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development" and "who also heads Israel’s Space Agency." Wow. Another mathematician, but one presumably dedicated to the safety and well-being if the nation he serves, and highly competent. And here he slams economic closures as disproportionate responses to a virus that apparently gets bored and stops bothering people in a certain country after a few weeks. Maybe he's hoping the idea catches on in Iran.
He "claims simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days" (and thus, 40 nights) and then "declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it."
As the article notes, Ben-Israel "is not a medical expert," and cannot explain why his findings should be true; "Asked to explain the phenomenon, Ben-Israel, who also heads Israel’s Space Agency, later said: “I have no explanation. There are all kinds of speculations. Maybe it’s related to climate ("no matter where it strikes"?), or the virus has a life-span of its own (all active copies die on some cue?)” A "leading doctor dismisses his claims" - and that's Gabi Barbash, a hospital director and the former Health Ministry director general, and that's besides all those more relevant experts consulted by the Israeli government, the Iranian and Chinese ones, virtually all governments that exist, on balance firmly disagreeing with his premise. I'm not buying it either.
"... research he conducted with a fellow professor, analyzing the growth and decline of new cases in countries around the world, showed repeatedly that “there’s a set pattern” and “the numbers speak for themselves.” He "claims simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days" (and thus, 40 nights) and then "declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it."
He was interviewed about this on Israel’s Channel 12 (Hebrew), where Prof. Gabi Barbash, a hospital director and the former Health Ministry director general, strongly disagreed, arguing that the death toll would have been far higher if world governments had not taken the preventive measures Ben-Israel was griping about. That mammoth blind spot seems to have also skewed Mr. Mather's outlook.
The article cites "countries, such as Singapore, Taiwan, and Sweden, which did not take such radical measures to shutter their economies" as those where the mathematician saw the pattern clearest. That lets us narrow-down some double-checking.
Taiwan: The first case was announced on 21 January 2020. March 1 is 40 days in – Bing graph has a sudden start only on 3-17, at 77 cases, 1 death. By 3-31 it's at day 70 and should level off to zero, but it's risen to 322 cases, 5 fatalities. Maybe it slows down a bit late? We can check 15 days later – 4-15 it was 395 cases, 6 deaths, and rising but only very slowly - only 7 cases added in a day.
Taiwan and the PRC - the two version of China - are perhaps the best examples for a curve that flattens, whatever the cause. They both show roughly what he describes. But neither is a typical case, even among those few he cited.
Singapore offers another example similar to Taiwan - an island near China with some heads-up and aggressive early controls that kept the number of cases to manage quite small. Day 1 is Jan. 25, with 3 cases confirmed at once. 40 days in is 3-5, 305 cases and no deaths yet. It should be peaking and then leveling to zero by about day 70 days - that's 4-4: 1,189 cases, 6 deaths. If it's close to zero new cases/day by then, there should not be some 2,500 added in 11 days by 4-15, as there was.
Sweden: with its notably libertarian stance … 1st case 02-02. 40 days in is 3-13, when they had 620 cases, no deaths yet. It should be leveling, and another 30 days in it should be nearing zero new cases/day. 70 days is 4-12: 10,483 cases, 899 fatalities (up 332 from the day before - a bit slower than surrounding days). And it's still rising sharply at 70 days. 3 more days on, it's hit 11,927 cases, 1,203 deaths and still rising - now with day 74 still not fully tallied, there's 12,540 cases and growing fast, 1,333 fatalities and set to keep rising for a while.
Update 4-21 on tallies to April 20:
* Taiwan, day 87: 425 cases, 6 deaths: still mellow, without lockdown. They had good luck, but were prepared for bad luck too: "Taiwan hasn’t needed lockdowns to fight the coronavirus, but it simulated one anyway" https://finance.yahoo.com/news/taiwan-hasn-t-needed-lockdowns-092940133.html
* Singapore, day 86: 8,014 cases, 11 deaths - "Singapore extends lockdown after sharp rise," etc.
* Sweden, day 78: 14,777 1,580 - "anger in Sweden as elderly pay the price for coronavirus strategy" - still the price is not as high as it could be - they have many controls in place, Swedes police themselves fairly well as to hygiene, distancing, etc., and they may have good luck there, like the deadlier strain(s) not arriving (yet).
Not mentioned by either of these experts: the record on other non-lockdown nations: Brazil, Turkey, Belarus. Have a look at these things I've been working on (40 + 70 day marks not added):
Brazil (4-17 update) is the only county considered here that's in the southern hemisphere, so NOT even in its flu season. It spreads badly anyway, but to let it get this bad in April is probably an epic failure by the "Trump of the Tropics."
Turkey (4-17 update): see here for a post I did on the Greek border issue (blue boxes above)
Belarus (4-20 update) was faced with the same temptation as every state: keep things normal and hope this passes with minimal damage. They also have a low population, less global travel, less early cases, decent management of the few they cases they knew of, and hardly any problem until recently. Even now at 42 deaths total, it might seem laughable to think it'll ever get out of hand. But then see where all these other countries got to once the numbers start rising that fast, and recall this is another nation of millions. They will have at least 3x this many cases, maybe 10x. The deaths will follow, and they'll go deep onto the hundreds, likely low thousands, depending how good their medical system is (not sure, but might be good - former Soviet republic, etc.)
Add 4-20: they may be not reporting new cases? Something wrong with the tallies not changing ...
Above, the UK chart shows 40 and 70 day markers that absolutely do not correspond to leveling of rates, even if we shift day 1 to some later point. New York state was mentioned; Prof. Barbash cited it as showing Ben-Israel wrong, but the latter "noted the latest indications from New York were precisely in line with his statistics that indicate daily new cases figures peaking and starting to fall after about 40 days." Checking that: 1st case 3-01. 40 days to 3-31 = a rise of 180,457 cases, and 8,627 deaths. And then it's slowing and starting to level? A bit early to say for sure, but ... no. 3 days later (April 14) Ben-Israel says he's seen a decline, but it's not there, and 4 days later the state has 213,779 cases, 14,030 dead, and still climbing petty sharply. The last 24 hours alone saw +18,847 in active cases, +1,473 deaths (a 24-hours span jut hours ago had included 3,196 deaths). So day 70 is still up in the air. With any luck and enough people taking it seriously, it may be close to zero growth by then. God knows they'll need it by then, but they probably won't get it - it'll probably just be hitting that "40-day" peak, and the "70-day" wrap-up will take another 100-150 days. And hopefully by then there will be a vaccine and better treatments, making the remainder of the lockdown program unnecessary (or less useful, anyway).
Back to Mather - and wait, why is a mathematician name "Mather" - pure luck? He had UK infections set to level around 2,630/million, Italy at 4,000/m, Norway at 1,400. This was his varying natural point where
the virus would get bored. Well it's not done yet in New York and it's at (New York State: pop ~20 million vs. 222,284 cases = ) 11,114/million, nearly three times the highest rate he predicted, for Italy. And looking at the curve, you can see that's not even close to the final answer either. And this is WITH CURRENT MEASURES, weeks of lockdown adding up so it's not 2, 3, 5 times worse than this - as it would likely be by now if we sat around waiting for the virus to get bored, or sat around waiting for the predictions of these "experts" to come true. (And an upside to the quick growth of infections is these guys get proved wrong quickly - they could be confusing people for longer, and causing more damage than they are.)
So to summarize … shit's serious, and those guys are wrong, expert or not. Take that into due consideration as you weigh policies against the risks. Questions do need asked in this time of unprecedented upheaval, but they need to be asked rationally and honestly.
Follow-up: comment left at Mathers' video, in case he doesn't allow it: Could have checked the typos, but EH.
There are tiny numbers in there to show what it's passing and we can see how deceptive this is. If you take visual rise as the indicator of trouble, you'd see a drastic climb from 2 to 8 (cases per 100 million), or from 10 to 100, and then see a slightly mellower climb from 100 to 1,000 then 1,000 to 10,000 - each over a similar time to the drastic climbs - then an even mellower slide through a TENFOLD increase over a longer time, 10,000 to 100,000. After 100,000 it's barely worth charting it's so uselessly horizontal. Passing from 100,000 towards 1,000,000, that'll take quite a bit longer and look super-flat, despite being another tenfold increase in nothing like tenfold the time. You could roll a baby carriage up that slope with no effort, lay down on it and take a nap without rolling downhill at all. And you can wonder why all these hospitals are griping over a piddling 900,000 further cases.
Speaking to his viewers without waiting in another comment in this later video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tugj3jmv5n0
So Mr. Mather created an optical illusion with his charts; they use an exponential scale to artificially flatten numbers more the higher they go. See the labels at left and note a dramatic climb from 1-10 (per 100m) occupies the same vertical space and similar time as a leisurely hike from 10,000 to 100,000. Passing 100k now, the climb to 1 million will be virtually flat, good job.
But that was not leisurely in the real world, because 9 is not the same as 90,000 or 900,000. He acts as if this illusion reflects something real, but it's not lining up. He predicted 3, 6, maybe 10,000 deaths total, even without lockdown. But even with it, it's near 16,000 UK deaths already and still rising about 800+/day, because the infection rate is NOT "curling over" except in his special magic system. But we don't live there. Alright? It's a hoax. Quit being dumb, people. http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid19-experts-and-fake-curve.html
https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1251340173608194049
Kobs: see logarithm plotting for Italy - that's the scale and the effect of it - I might have known that's what you call this trick. Linear: that's what people expect to see, apparently think they ARE seeing.
The later video has a PDF form of all the slides (I guess his others do too)
https://peerlessreads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CV19FNF_UKIndepth_2004010d.pdf
Methodology explained there:
slide 10: "Here’s what I had to work with. Raw data from the WHO DSR painstakingly typed in. And for this, I typed in every day for a few key countries (Italy, Germany, Norway, UK, US and Canada) rather than data every three days as suffices normally for chart updates."
11: "Noting each country’s population in millions, I then scale up or down to cases (total) per 100m population" (still not clear why he converts the numbers to /100m - just to make it harder to follow? FWIW he uses 66m for UK, lower than the 67.8m figure I use for /m calcs)
12: "Subtracting the previous day’s total from the next day’s figure, I get the cases declared on that day."
(Then something about plotting the numbers, choosing the scale, what he intends it to show - no details given here) and finally:
13: "The end result is some rather jagged charts as you see below" (all sharing a tendency to easily plateau, especially the higher they get)
Skipping ahead, he frets over the UK curve still creeping up and down despite his distortions, mumbling about an end point he didn't like, and concludes in slide 21 "I ignored the end point for good reason: it’s an outlier, a data point that can’t be relied upon and which disrupts a perfectly sensible picture." Yeah, tomorrow's will do the same, etc.
Add 4-20:
Another try at visually explaining the lie:
UK Column, April 3: Mather hoaxes Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmyHP5szGY
Letting them know:
https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1251488775466659840
https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1252212050102587392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEjgPLsSJgc
Another Mather video explains curves for dummies as if it's all you need to read his graphs - all curves shown ae labeled and graphed in "linear" mode, and he emphasizes how utterly simple this all is - nothing tricky to it at all! Just graph the data - a curve is a curve - and then his important graph is algorithmic, NOT linear, something he never did explain, leaving you to see it as a linear-literal curve reflecting real-world changes.
I'm convinced this mathematician (and Mensa member, I hear - a genius) did this all on purpose, not accidentally. He'll know an algorithmic generated curve when he sees it, having just (as he says) manually entered the much higher numbers. I left another comment at that video (in reply to one of his) calling him a sick person who should stop his joke now that 16k UK residents have died and it's rising. He keeps replying to fawning praise comments with shy thanks, urges to keep spreading his message of "sanity" - I'm sure he's seen mine, but has no reply so far.
4-21: a more readable (still confusing) comparison graph - note the gap between lines with magenta higher than orange just reflects the different units (cases per 100mil, calculated from 66 million rounded off UK pop) vs. plain old cases (out of what I'd call 67.8 mil, and would put his converted points a hair lower). That's what I plot in orange - the original, unconverted WHO case numbers. Gap aside, they should and do meet right at his scale cutoff lines (same base data), then vary between - his follows the overall distortion and mine maps that level's averaged scale with a traditional linear curve, on five scales, for five separate curves telling very different stories, as shown by the numbers if not the shapes.
These overall slope shapes could be called rope up the stairs (orange) vs. snake up the stairs (because it has a spine, muscles - and if snake is leading … it's leading in the right way.)
Hoax Cancelled? New York's Numbers Break Mather's Scale
add 4-23: Mather had predicted low deaths in the US as well before the virus got bored. I'd have to dig for the number he gave, but at 48k already and growing steadily, it's sure to have surpassed that by far. New York State has led in cases and deaths from nearly the start, at time having more than the rest of the nation combined. He seems to have no clue how viruses spread - seeing the numbers grow exponentially in New Yok City, he finds it implausible and probably a sign of fakery.
April 22: "Coronavirus or Cuomovirus? Twilight Zone New York under Governor Cuomo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDa5HEgYaPU
In this video he's just talking on a bench outdoors (rebel!) presaging the terrible, exhausting lie he was about to reveal about NY governor Mario Cuomo's "fantastical battle." A whole new class of lies emerged, painting the virus as 5-10 times worse than it had been anywhere else (according to his optical illusions, anyway). He says he "cannot afford to be wrong" so has been taking his time.
Next, "Coronavirus Cuomovirus Cuomo and New York Virus Fraud" (also April 22)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKDkS3coKJM
then not talking at all, just showing the horror. The text reads in part: "Two [sic] tired to discuss what I'm discovering and revealing" and at the end "I've pushed it as far as I can" According to this data, NY had something 30x worse than coronavirus "the Cuomovirus?" He finds a span where NY had more cases than the rest of the US combined especially unlikely. (note the new charts have a label the old ones didn't: "LOG SCALE" (logarithmic, like the numbers always said))
Another comparison shows how close are the total for NY state, NY city, and the rest of the US. It looks odd, but this is on the high end of the scale - those differences are larger than they appear. At the end it's about 750k for the whole country (current 4-18/19), with well under half - 325k - being in NY (a bit higher than I see - 264k even now). About half of those (~150-160k) are in NYC (I see 146k now). That's 19.5% of all confirmed US cases - they may have higher confirmation than usual, but still may have 2-10 times as many cases un-identified.
I find that level slightly surprising, but exponential virus growth works best in dense urban areas, so it's not that strange NY city should lead the world and, once it's done that, to lead by a wide margin. It was by far the worst place on Earth to avoid COVID19, but will be getting better, as other places get worse. And Mather might be alarmed to find governor Cuomo may have collaborators; Gov. Phil Murphy oversees New Jersey, which is 2nd worst-off in the Union, part of a 2-state hot-spot. At almost exactly 100,000 cases for 8.88 million = 1,126,126 (1.13%). New York state has an average of about 1.35% confirmed.
Finally (?) "CvFNF ChartUpdate 200423a - Cancelled" 23rd April: there will be no chart update.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rxGexSEns8
He was beyond exhausted and planning to stay that way. He already gave us everything we need to "break three governments" - as he puts it the British one, and one headed by Justin Truedeau, and one by Bill Gates. In a comment, I said:
I get exhausted every day, but some sleep fixes it. You … I was wondering how long you would keep up this running joke. … (I explain again his hoax) ... But finally New Yok's numbers wouldn't fit - you were going to come explain how that was a huge lie, thought better of it and developed exhaustion. Please just stay exhausted, thanks."
In response, Mather's first reply to me: "wow - a troll - we see so few these days. Thank you for taking the time to reassure us they're not extinct" - nothing to rebut the facts.
What caused this natural exhaustion? I guessed New York fared far worse than anywhere else, so even his plotting trick could barely conceal the continued rise. It might even push past his 1 million mark into the 1-10 mil band he didn't even include previously. I converted some 1/3 of the daily totals to his units - cases per 100 million people. For a state of 19.5 mil, you times the case number by 5.128, so case #1 puts them at the 5 line. By that, on April 13 they broke the line of 1 million per 100 million, or 1% of New Yorkers confirmed infected. That was before he even looked, around the 20th, so he'd be dismayed and informed all at once. Here I compared my own plotting of nearly half the days (orange, labeled) on his diminishing scale, atop the first set of curves for UK, Italy, etc. This time I broke each line down about how he does, so I can plot it better (note: my graph or points got a bit messed up at the 100k line, so I fudged a smoother curve there only).
Even here it LOOKS like it's flattening just a bit higher and later than anywhere else. Mather could say it's mellowing, no help from lockdown, but ... when some 1.35% is confirmed as having it, maybe 3-10 times that many have had it, so many know someone who's died or came close or they can see hospitals overwhelmed, they might know it's taking about 7-800 dead per day, nearing 18k total. That's close to what all the UK has suffered in a little longer span. It's been steadily worsening, finally in recent days decreasing in its rate. People living in that (and there are a lot of them) just might balk if anyone tries to tell them "see, it's nearing exhaustion, just about to stop spreading. Why did you panic?" The people are closer to exhaustion than the virus, but most of them appreciate that - thanks to lockdown - it's not twice this bad or worse, like it could be.
Or - seeing it look flat on the computer screen isn't as convincing when you live the reality that 900,000 is just NOT the same thing as NINE.
postscript: maybe I provoked him, maybe he'll do the above, but he couldn't stay down even with this much blood potentially on his hands. But he had to come back with a longer video woking in New York ... ATM I'm too exhausted to even look, but …
CvFNF ChartUpdate Restored 200422a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPBkwi1uvQ
One among the cult-like comments shows just the effect Mather hoped to have in the UK and now in New York City and the whole world with his epic hoax (and there might be legal proceedings, we'll see):
April 16-17, 2020
rough, incomplete
adds April 20, 21, 23
Note 4-21: Apologies for this post's rambling sloppiness - I think I should leave this as-is and perhaps re-write the points more clearly somewhere else. It won't be at 21st Century Wire, that's for sure. Ideally, maybe someone with more reach than I who gets these points - especially Mather's graphing trick/error - could raise them anew to help fight this contagious idiocy.
---
So I've been making some enemies jumping into the COVID19 subject and controversies. A depressing number of otherwise intelligent, skeptical people now suffer from an excess of skepticism, and it's a moderate public health danger. I've argued the points so many times already, here short form: question are fine, but ask honestly. The wisdom of the current lockdown reactions of nearly all world governments are validly debatable, but two important points:
1 it's not a global conspiracy where millions of nurses, doctors, patients and fatalities are faked or exaggerated by compiling other deaths, etc. From Communist China to Theocratic Iran, hyper-capitalist US and UK and virtually every government on Earth - everyone who would agree too much death at once and a crashed medical system is no good, but neither is a wrecked economy - all consulted all their best experts on health, science, and the economy and decided on what they did. Maybe all of them are wrong, but …
2 … this suggests the danger is real, and the measures these armchair experts call terrible mistakes or an evil plot have a reasonable basis anyway. The rules should be followed absent some rather good reasons, as long as they're reasonable and not abusive (and you might not be able to easily tell which ones are and aren't).
Critics tend to focus on the actions of the home government they distrust, and taking that in isolation, find it easy to see it as the start of a horrible dystopic future, for which they had their elite "experts" fake a simple flu up into a compelling panic. They try not to lose a step over every other regime with all their varied interests doing the same thing at the same time - the Iranian scientists and the Russians etc. are also controlled, somehow. And all their doctors and fake patients involved in staging the "crisis" there … all their news media, etc. Everyone's in on it - they guess.
These independent minds aren't swayed by "science-ism" and official "experts" - but to back up their hunches, they cite other "experts" - some 20 of them or more known to oppose the status quo, who explain things like how COVID19 doesn't seem to kill anyone - people just drop dead from other things after allegedly getting it. That's reportedly been happening with thousands a day worldwide, close to 1,000/day just in the UK, but maybe the numbers are faked, or whatever.
And they say it's not that many; spotting early on how the low numbers (existing then) looked like normal tallies for a whole flu season, some predicted that would be the end of it, and it'd be like a normal flu season - which I hear kills thousands a day frequently, so hospital SHOULDN'T be extra-swamped. They don't seem to believe the reports that hospitals have been and are overwhelmed in many areas, and the fear is how much worse it could get seems ill-founded, to these skeptical minds. And of course not that many would die (not) from the virus - most are old, ill, were about to die anyway in the following weeks to decades. And they warn therefore POLICE STATE RESIST, etc.
Anyway, I've found this annoying and worth combatting, so I'm a "gate-keeper" and all that. Fine. Here I'll share a look at two expert (mathematician) views involving predictions that popped out for being cited at me recently. I close the gate on them (as if they'll actually be stopped by MY gate), and here's why.
Mather/Peerless Reads: Fake Not Facts
On April 5 I was informed by an exasperated Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire): "growth stage is over, growth rate hump and curling over now, so 'crisis' is over." Therefore, no justification for the ongoing repression of the people of the UK, contrary to what I kept arguing. He cited this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUHmwHN96U
"Coronavirus Fact Not Fear - Chart Update 1st April 2020" by "Peerless Reads" - which I see is run by "Andrew Mather, a 60 year old British mathematician, financier, author, techie."
I don't think I understand "curling," but mostly followed what Mather says. The UK government's prediction of 500,000+ death there, shifted to 5,7000 if people comply with the Orwellian lockdown - that was all baldfaced scare tactics, he concludes after a calm look at the facts. Comparing reported trends between "Hubei (finished), Italy, Germany, Norway, and UK charts without lockdown," he finds all of them will level off, or already have, at a certain rational point where the virus wears out, gets bored, stops being contagious, or manages to have all active copies die or fall completely through the cracks between people that would naturally emerge.
Mather's projected final deaths in UK:
* 4,508 if it spread and killed naturally as it did in Hubei, China
* 6,064 if it killed as it had so far in Italy
* 10,269 if it killed as projected by some in Italy.
And after killing that many, the virus would get bored or whatever and go back to being mundane. That's the natural progression, Mather somehow decided. Therefore, "we were always headed for 3,500 - 10,000 (deaths), nothing like the 530,000 we were told to be scared of."
Well it's been two weeks. We can't check what WOULD have happened, so far, with no lockdown, except to say it'd be worse than what we see. First, a scaled-down example in Washington State (where I live) with my own inexpert guess at a reasonable spread without gov. Inslee's orders. Whatever the scale, that's the idea - distancing and lockdown seem to be helpful at keeping the levels lower.
Current UK deaths:
Here's the graph shown - dotted lines start at prediction time, April 1, and note that's where they start leveling - in his imagination. The curves before should be based on real numbers, presumably graphed right, but … they seem to have dramatically varying shapes compared the ones I'm seeing - they turn hard left, then hard right in a way that makes me wonder. We'll come back to that.
As for the comparisons, which of these nations did and did not use lockdown is worth more review. China - Hubei included - enacted strict lockdown and other containment measures. People were chased inside by drones, dragged off to quarantine centers in vans, etc. This is NOT the natural progression to compare to; this is actually more like the model of a lockdown response we'll only want to emulate in part.
The numbers of cases Mather predicted wind up not too far off from what we see, but these follow on lockdown measures, and might well reflect them, even enormously. His assertion the same would have happened naturally is what hasn't been proven. And as I'll show, he underestimated its lethality, so a similar number of cases in the UK led to a higher death rate already in excess of his highest final prediction (in fact nearly 50% over his high end), and still it's still rising quickly.
But even if the numbers aren't so wrong, it's the visual graph most people will walk away with. That has colors and shapes and tells a story you can see. And it's confusing or even deceptive, and also makes it hard to make out what the predicted numbers are. Do notice those rises can't be read the normal way, but more like a Richter scale in reverse. I don't know if he did this to be tricky, but each rise is exponential, at least according to the numbers on the left edge: the top bar represents a spread of 900,000 (100,000 to 1 million), while the one below spans just 9,000, the one below that 900, then 90, 9. The bottom line shows a rise from 1 case to 10 cases. The top line looking all flat there should actually rise 100,000 TIMES as high as it does to be proportional to the bottom line. Obviously that calls for a different scale that does NOT create a false appearance of sudden onset followed by inevitable and swift flattening. This is what we want to happen for real, not in an optical illusion on the computer screen.
I tried a rough re-proportioning just from the screengrab. It's not easily do-able, but just for a basic idea what it should look like, see below - the top line is way taller than the one below and so on. But the difference evolves over the box, so it just keeps getting flatter as you go up and hence - the virus is getting bored (hence, my proportional numbers on the right aren't right). From there down I squeezed lines down, but fudged that too, to keep things even visible.
Adding: I watched the rest of the video - it compares other nations on the same exponential scale, showing the same "flattening" once the numbers get high enough to get more compressed. "Curlover" is the "curvature" or "flattening" that he says "says the growth is slowing down." But the flattening we SEE mainly means the growth is being shown more squished. I tried again to reproportion the thing better, with each line at least partly reflecting its own vertical distortion. I just skipped the bottom two rows, and again fudged the two above that. Far from exact but closer, I decided all lines stop about 1/4 of the way up from 100k to 1m, so below the marked 325,000 line. By this, his projections come out something like:
- Italy: 295k
- UK 220k
- Norway 170k
Again, the numbers there are per 100 million (so divide by 100 for the more common per million). By Mather's prediction, vs. as of today (April 16) per https://www.google.com/covid19-map/:
* UK (pink/magenta) should be at about 1,700/million and still rising, set to level around 2,2000/m over the next two weeks. vs. current cases 1,552/million - not that much off, but rising faster than predicted, even with current measures, while this was a prediction for without them.
* Italy (green): fully leveled at about 2,950/million predicted vs. 2,741.46/million current - it progressed slower than predicted, but still is not leveled off. Is something slowing it down? But yet it's not leveling off completely, on its own or with the help? What gives?
* Norway (blue): fully leveled at ~1,700 vs. 1,276 and still rising, just slower than predicted. Same questions as with Italy.
* Germany (red): no projection shown vs. 1,630.19
So he's not so far off from current numbers, but denies these are low due to lockdown measures - AND he decided they'd be final numbers in a closing story, rather than early points in a crisis that's still unfolding dramatically. Here's how this illusion-based claim (green boxes) - and the next "expert" claim (blue) - compares to actual running trends in the UK:
(add 4-17: record deaths in the UK just now: +1,708 deaths in a 24-hour span (now 14,576), +10,216 news cases. Also US deaths hit a record: +6,801 in 24 hours.)
(add 4-20: now past 120,000 confirmed cases and 16,000 fatalities - adding a lot of notes and Forsyth prediction)
The 40 and 70-day markers there take us to the other expert view I looked into...
An Israeli 40-Day-40-Night Theory
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-israeli-prof-claims-simple-stats-show-virus-plays-itself-out-after-70-days/
Times of Israel reported on 14 April the findings of Isaac Ben-Israel, who is: "a prominent Israeli mathematician, analyst and former general," "head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University and the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development" and "who also heads Israel’s Space Agency." Wow. Another mathematician, but one presumably dedicated to the safety and well-being if the nation he serves, and highly competent. And here he slams economic closures as disproportionate responses to a virus that apparently gets bored and stops bothering people in a certain country after a few weeks. Maybe he's hoping the idea catches on in Iran.
He "claims simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days" (and thus, 40 nights) and then "declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it."
As the article notes, Ben-Israel "is not a medical expert," and cannot explain why his findings should be true; "Asked to explain the phenomenon, Ben-Israel, who also heads Israel’s Space Agency, later said: “I have no explanation. There are all kinds of speculations. Maybe it’s related to climate ("no matter where it strikes"?), or the virus has a life-span of its own (all active copies die on some cue?)” A "leading doctor dismisses his claims" - and that's Gabi Barbash, a hospital director and the former Health Ministry director general, and that's besides all those more relevant experts consulted by the Israeli government, the Iranian and Chinese ones, virtually all governments that exist, on balance firmly disagreeing with his premise. I'm not buying it either.
"... research he conducted with a fellow professor, analyzing the growth and decline of new cases in countries around the world, showed repeatedly that “there’s a set pattern” and “the numbers speak for themselves.” He "claims simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days" (and thus, 40 nights) and then "declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it."
He was interviewed about this on Israel’s Channel 12 (Hebrew), where Prof. Gabi Barbash, a hospital director and the former Health Ministry director general, strongly disagreed, arguing that the death toll would have been far higher if world governments had not taken the preventive measures Ben-Israel was griping about. That mammoth blind spot seems to have also skewed Mr. Mather's outlook.
The article cites "countries, such as Singapore, Taiwan, and Sweden, which did not take such radical measures to shutter their economies" as those where the mathematician saw the pattern clearest. That lets us narrow-down some double-checking.
Taiwan: The first case was announced on 21 January 2020. March 1 is 40 days in – Bing graph has a sudden start only on 3-17, at 77 cases, 1 death. By 3-31 it's at day 70 and should level off to zero, but it's risen to 322 cases, 5 fatalities. Maybe it slows down a bit late? We can check 15 days later – 4-15 it was 395 cases, 6 deaths, and rising but only very slowly - only 7 cases added in a day.
Taiwan and the PRC - the two version of China - are perhaps the best examples for a curve that flattens, whatever the cause. They both show roughly what he describes. But neither is a typical case, even among those few he cited.
Singapore offers another example similar to Taiwan - an island near China with some heads-up and aggressive early controls that kept the number of cases to manage quite small. Day 1 is Jan. 25, with 3 cases confirmed at once. 40 days in is 3-5, 305 cases and no deaths yet. It should be peaking and then leveling to zero by about day 70 days - that's 4-4: 1,189 cases, 6 deaths. If it's close to zero new cases/day by then, there should not be some 2,500 added in 11 days by 4-15, as there was.
Sweden: with its notably libertarian stance … 1st case 02-02. 40 days in is 3-13, when they had 620 cases, no deaths yet. It should be leveling, and another 30 days in it should be nearing zero new cases/day. 70 days is 4-12: 10,483 cases, 899 fatalities (up 332 from the day before - a bit slower than surrounding days). And it's still rising sharply at 70 days. 3 more days on, it's hit 11,927 cases, 1,203 deaths and still rising - now with day 74 still not fully tallied, there's 12,540 cases and growing fast, 1,333 fatalities and set to keep rising for a while.
* Taiwan, day 87: 425 cases, 6 deaths: still mellow, without lockdown. They had good luck, but were prepared for bad luck too: "Taiwan hasn’t needed lockdowns to fight the coronavirus, but it simulated one anyway" https://finance.yahoo.com/news/taiwan-hasn-t-needed-lockdowns-092940133.html
* Singapore, day 86: 8,014 cases, 11 deaths - "Singapore extends lockdown after sharp rise," etc.
* Sweden, day 78: 14,777 1,580 - "anger in Sweden as elderly pay the price for coronavirus strategy" - still the price is not as high as it could be - they have many controls in place, Swedes police themselves fairly well as to hygiene, distancing, etc., and they may have good luck there, like the deadlier strain(s) not arriving (yet).
Not mentioned by either of these experts: the record on other non-lockdown nations: Brazil, Turkey, Belarus. Have a look at these things I've been working on (40 + 70 day marks not added):
Brazil (4-17 update) is the only county considered here that's in the southern hemisphere, so NOT even in its flu season. It spreads badly anyway, but to let it get this bad in April is probably an epic failure by the "Trump of the Tropics."
Add 4-20: they may be not reporting new cases? Something wrong with the tallies not changing ...
Above, the UK chart shows 40 and 70 day markers that absolutely do not correspond to leveling of rates, even if we shift day 1 to some later point. New York state was mentioned; Prof. Barbash cited it as showing Ben-Israel wrong, but the latter "noted the latest indications from New York were precisely in line with his statistics that indicate daily new cases figures peaking and starting to fall after about 40 days." Checking that: 1st case 3-01. 40 days to 3-31 = a rise of 180,457 cases, and 8,627 deaths. And then it's slowing and starting to level? A bit early to say for sure, but ... no. 3 days later (April 14) Ben-Israel says he's seen a decline, but it's not there, and 4 days later the state has 213,779 cases, 14,030 dead, and still climbing petty sharply. The last 24 hours alone saw +18,847 in active cases, +1,473 deaths (a 24-hours span jut hours ago had included 3,196 deaths). So day 70 is still up in the air. With any luck and enough people taking it seriously, it may be close to zero growth by then. God knows they'll need it by then, but they probably won't get it - it'll probably just be hitting that "40-day" peak, and the "70-day" wrap-up will take another 100-150 days. And hopefully by then there will be a vaccine and better treatments, making the remainder of the lockdown program unnecessary (or less useful, anyway).
Follow-up: comment left at Mathers' video, in case he doesn't allow it: Could have checked the typos, but EH.
If I might ask, why do your curves play out on a chart where each lines jump ten-fold in value from the line below? Se see a rise from 1 to 10 mapped the same vertically as a rise from 100,000 to 1,000,000. It's not clarified that this APPARENT flattening the higher it gets is separate from the real flattening you suggest is shown. I aske because they seem to be the same thing to me (the illusion=your reality, and since higher levels appear flatter and flatter, the illusion is somewhat OPPOSITE of reality) and because your predictions are being proven woefully wrong 2 weeks in. 14,576 UK deaths SO FAR and rising fast (+1,708/last 24h), and that's WITH lockdown, while you predicted 3,500-10,000 TOTAL, WITHOUT it. Maybe I'm just confused, so you can allow the question to stay public and then provide the answer. Sub-question: does each line have its own steady value, or as it seems, does the curve play out evenly across the chart?I expect it'll take him forever to admit that he saw the comment - or he'll delete it, possibly. I also did another graphic in more detail: here I get his magenta line and the actual plots to match at the stat and at April 1, and extend the red over (and up!) from there, at the same ratio. You can see how the actual numbers wind up looking different in the first part, and after 4-1 you can see the same distortion increasing across his projected rise. Also (it can be confusing) I split each row into its own internal scale, divided in 10 chunks of 9, 90, 900, etc. and mapped actual by-day numbers, connected into that orange line. You can see how each level show a natural section of the curve, but curving differently after bending at each sudden ten-fold decease in verticality. And the gap between red and pink should mainly reflect the difference between the numbers used - actual cases (red) vs. cases per 100 million (magenta).
There are tiny numbers in there to show what it's passing and we can see how deceptive this is. If you take visual rise as the indicator of trouble, you'd see a drastic climb from 2 to 8 (cases per 100 million), or from 10 to 100, and then see a slightly mellower climb from 100 to 1,000 then 1,000 to 10,000 - each over a similar time to the drastic climbs - then an even mellower slide through a TENFOLD increase over a longer time, 10,000 to 100,000. After 100,000 it's barely worth charting it's so uselessly horizontal. Passing from 100,000 towards 1,000,000, that'll take quite a bit longer and look super-flat, despite being another tenfold increase in nothing like tenfold the time. You could roll a baby carriage up that slope with no effort, lay down on it and take a nap without rolling downhill at all. And you can wonder why all these hospitals are griping over a piddling 900,000 further cases.
Speaking to his viewers without waiting in another comment in this later video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tugj3jmv5n0
So Mr. Mather created an optical illusion with his charts; they use an exponential scale to artificially flatten numbers more the higher they go. See the labels at left and note a dramatic climb from 1-10 (per 100m) occupies the same vertical space and similar time as a leisurely hike from 10,000 to 100,000. Passing 100k now, the climb to 1 million will be virtually flat, good job.
But that was not leisurely in the real world, because 9 is not the same as 90,000 or 900,000. He acts as if this illusion reflects something real, but it's not lining up. He predicted 3, 6, maybe 10,000 deaths total, even without lockdown. But even with it, it's near 16,000 UK deaths already and still rising about 800+/day, because the infection rate is NOT "curling over" except in his special magic system. But we don't live there. Alright? It's a hoax. Quit being dumb, people. http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid19-experts-and-fake-curve.html
https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1251340173608194049
Kobs: see logarithm plotting for Italy - that's the scale and the effect of it - I might have known that's what you call this trick. Linear: that's what people expect to see, apparently think they ARE seeing.
The later video has a PDF form of all the slides (I guess his others do too)
https://peerlessreads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CV19FNF_UKIndepth_2004010d.pdf
Methodology explained there:
slide 10: "Here’s what I had to work with. Raw data from the WHO DSR painstakingly typed in. And for this, I typed in every day for a few key countries (Italy, Germany, Norway, UK, US and Canada) rather than data every three days as suffices normally for chart updates."
11: "Noting each country’s population in millions, I then scale up or down to cases (total) per 100m population" (still not clear why he converts the numbers to /100m - just to make it harder to follow? FWIW he uses 66m for UK, lower than the 67.8m figure I use for /m calcs)
12: "Subtracting the previous day’s total from the next day’s figure, I get the cases declared on that day."
(Then something about plotting the numbers, choosing the scale, what he intends it to show - no details given here) and finally:
13: "The end result is some rather jagged charts as you see below" (all sharing a tendency to easily plateau, especially the higher they get)
Skipping ahead, he frets over the UK curve still creeping up and down despite his distortions, mumbling about an end point he didn't like, and concludes in slide 21 "I ignored the end point for good reason: it’s an outlier, a data point that can’t be relied upon and which disrupts a perfectly sensible picture." Yeah, tomorrow's will do the same, etc.
Add 4-20:
Another try at visually explaining the lie:
UK Column, April 3: Mather hoaxes Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmyHP5szGY
Letting them know:
https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1251488775466659840
https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1252212050102587392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEjgPLsSJgc
Another Mather video explains curves for dummies as if it's all you need to read his graphs - all curves shown ae labeled and graphed in "linear" mode, and he emphasizes how utterly simple this all is - nothing tricky to it at all! Just graph the data - a curve is a curve - and then his important graph is algorithmic, NOT linear, something he never did explain, leaving you to see it as a linear-literal curve reflecting real-world changes.
I'm convinced this mathematician (and Mensa member, I hear - a genius) did this all on purpose, not accidentally. He'll know an algorithmic generated curve when he sees it, having just (as he says) manually entered the much higher numbers. I left another comment at that video (in reply to one of his) calling him a sick person who should stop his joke now that 16k UK residents have died and it's rising. He keeps replying to fawning praise comments with shy thanks, urges to keep spreading his message of "sanity" - I'm sure he's seen mine, but has no reply so far.
4-21: a more readable (still confusing) comparison graph - note the gap between lines with magenta higher than orange just reflects the different units (cases per 100mil, calculated from 66 million rounded off UK pop) vs. plain old cases (out of what I'd call 67.8 mil, and would put his converted points a hair lower). That's what I plot in orange - the original, unconverted WHO case numbers. Gap aside, they should and do meet right at his scale cutoff lines (same base data), then vary between - his follows the overall distortion and mine maps that level's averaged scale with a traditional linear curve, on five scales, for five separate curves telling very different stories, as shown by the numbers if not the shapes.
These overall slope shapes could be called rope up the stairs (orange) vs. snake up the stairs (because it has a spine, muscles - and if snake is leading … it's leading in the right way.)
Hoax Cancelled? New York's Numbers Break Mather's Scale
add 4-23: Mather had predicted low deaths in the US as well before the virus got bored. I'd have to dig for the number he gave, but at 48k already and growing steadily, it's sure to have surpassed that by far. New York State has led in cases and deaths from nearly the start, at time having more than the rest of the nation combined. He seems to have no clue how viruses spread - seeing the numbers grow exponentially in New Yok City, he finds it implausible and probably a sign of fakery.
April 22: "Coronavirus or Cuomovirus? Twilight Zone New York under Governor Cuomo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDa5HEgYaPU
In this video he's just talking on a bench outdoors (rebel!) presaging the terrible, exhausting lie he was about to reveal about NY governor Mario Cuomo's "fantastical battle." A whole new class of lies emerged, painting the virus as 5-10 times worse than it had been anywhere else (according to his optical illusions, anyway). He says he "cannot afford to be wrong" so has been taking his time.
Next, "Coronavirus Cuomovirus Cuomo and New York Virus Fraud" (also April 22)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKDkS3coKJM
then not talking at all, just showing the horror. The text reads in part: "Two [sic] tired to discuss what I'm discovering and revealing" and at the end "I've pushed it as far as I can" According to this data, NY had something 30x worse than coronavirus "the Cuomovirus?" He finds a span where NY had more cases than the rest of the US combined especially unlikely. (note the new charts have a label the old ones didn't: "LOG SCALE" (logarithmic, like the numbers always said))
Another comparison shows how close are the total for NY state, NY city, and the rest of the US. It looks odd, but this is on the high end of the scale - those differences are larger than they appear. At the end it's about 750k for the whole country (current 4-18/19), with well under half - 325k - being in NY (a bit higher than I see - 264k even now). About half of those (~150-160k) are in NYC (I see 146k now). That's 19.5% of all confirmed US cases - they may have higher confirmation than usual, but still may have 2-10 times as many cases un-identified.
I find that level slightly surprising, but exponential virus growth works best in dense urban areas, so it's not that strange NY city should lead the world and, once it's done that, to lead by a wide margin. It was by far the worst place on Earth to avoid COVID19, but will be getting better, as other places get worse. And Mather might be alarmed to find governor Cuomo may have collaborators; Gov. Phil Murphy oversees New Jersey, which is 2nd worst-off in the Union, part of a 2-state hot-spot. At almost exactly 100,000 cases for 8.88 million = 1,126,126 (1.13%). New York state has an average of about 1.35% confirmed.
Finally (?) "CvFNF ChartUpdate 200423a - Cancelled" 23rd April: there will be no chart update.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rxGexSEns8
He was beyond exhausted and planning to stay that way. He already gave us everything we need to "break three governments" - as he puts it the British one, and one headed by Justin Truedeau, and one by Bill Gates. In a comment, I said:
I get exhausted every day, but some sleep fixes it. You … I was wondering how long you would keep up this running joke. … (I explain again his hoax) ... But finally New Yok's numbers wouldn't fit - you were going to come explain how that was a huge lie, thought better of it and developed exhaustion. Please just stay exhausted, thanks."
In response, Mather's first reply to me: "wow - a troll - we see so few these days. Thank you for taking the time to reassure us they're not extinct" - nothing to rebut the facts.
What caused this natural exhaustion? I guessed New York fared far worse than anywhere else, so even his plotting trick could barely conceal the continued rise. It might even push past his 1 million mark into the 1-10 mil band he didn't even include previously. I converted some 1/3 of the daily totals to his units - cases per 100 million people. For a state of 19.5 mil, you times the case number by 5.128, so case #1 puts them at the 5 line. By that, on April 13 they broke the line of 1 million per 100 million, or 1% of New Yorkers confirmed infected. That was before he even looked, around the 20th, so he'd be dismayed and informed all at once. Here I compared my own plotting of nearly half the days (orange, labeled) on his diminishing scale, atop the first set of curves for UK, Italy, etc. This time I broke each line down about how he does, so I can plot it better (note: my graph or points got a bit messed up at the 100k line, so I fudged a smoother curve there only).
Even here it LOOKS like it's flattening just a bit higher and later than anywhere else. Mather could say it's mellowing, no help from lockdown, but ... when some 1.35% is confirmed as having it, maybe 3-10 times that many have had it, so many know someone who's died or came close or they can see hospitals overwhelmed, they might know it's taking about 7-800 dead per day, nearing 18k total. That's close to what all the UK has suffered in a little longer span. It's been steadily worsening, finally in recent days decreasing in its rate. People living in that (and there are a lot of them) just might balk if anyone tries to tell them "see, it's nearing exhaustion, just about to stop spreading. Why did you panic?" The people are closer to exhaustion than the virus, but most of them appreciate that - thanks to lockdown - it's not twice this bad or worse, like it could be.
Or - seeing it look flat on the computer screen isn't as convincing when you live the reality that 900,000 is just NOT the same thing as NINE.
postscript: maybe I provoked him, maybe he'll do the above, but he couldn't stay down even with this much blood potentially on his hands. But he had to come back with a longer video woking in New York ... ATM I'm too exhausted to even look, but …
CvFNF ChartUpdate Restored 200422a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPBkwi1uvQ
One among the cult-like comments shows just the effect Mather hoped to have in the UK and now in New York City and the whole world with his epic hoax (and there might be legal proceedings, we'll see):
Friday, April 10, 2020
The OPCW's IIT Issues its First Report
April 9, 2020
rough, incomplete
edits April 12, 14...
So after much delay and coronavirus, the first report of IIT is released, just after the 2-year anniversary of the Douma chemical massacre (which it does not consider, by the way).
S/1867/2020
8 April 2020
Original: ENGLISH
NOTE BY THE TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT
FIRST REPORT BY THE OPCW INVESTIGATION AND IDENTIFICATION TEAM
PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 10 OF DECISION C-SS-4/DEC.3
“ADDRESSING THE THREAT FROM CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE”
LTAMENAH (SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC)
24, 25, AND 30 MARCH 2017
https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/04/opcw-releases-first-report-investigation-and-identification-team
The IIT had promised last year to consider nine incidents including Douma, one attack blamed on ISIS, and 7 others blamed so far on Damascus, ranging from 2014 to 2017. I took a good look at most of those with work assembled here. Three of those cases are covered in this initial report, the three in al-Lataminah, Hama, spanning about one week in March, 2017.
The motive aspect has never been very clear. the Syrian government has negative motive to have committed any of these attacks; they deny all of them and logically the denials should be true. It'll take some actual facts - not just authority - to show otherwise.
Bashar Assad learned that US president Obama had a "Red Line" over CW use; after Ghouta alleged sarin attack was taken as killing over 1,000, threats of war led to Syria joining the OPCW and surrendering its CW program. Allegedly, Assad spent the following years mainly avoiding deadlier agents like sarin, attacking instead with relatively harmless chlorine. Then in late 2016, after using chlorine to random effect in his efforts to re-take all of Aleppo city, he seemingly wondered if Trump had a sarin "red line" too, and started sneaking the deadly nerve agent back in. As soon as Trump was elected, a string of December 2016 attacks near Uqayribat, Hama (ISIS-held) killed nearly 100, it seems with sarin. This was reported, but to little protest and no action - maybe Trump just didn't want to be seen as bailing out ISIS. So Assad tries in "moderate" turf, replicating a near-100-dead sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April, just after signals the US administration would take a more favorable stance on Syria. Then he finds Trump has "many, many lines" that crossed, Washington's softer line was withheld, and US missiles fell on Syria, damaging an airfield.
Prior to that gamble, these 3 Lataminah attacks (among a few others) allegedly tested the waters:
3-24 a bomb with deadly sarin used near militant cave base, affects at least 16, kills no one - doesn't even get mentioned publicly by anyone. I reviewed that one here.
3-25 a cylinder with caustic chlorine used at a cave hospital, affects 30+ and kills 3 - moderate protest. I reviewed that one here
3-30 a bomb with deadly sarin near militant cave base affects 170 mostly militants, kills no one - mild protest, followed by friendly US signals (I did a review of the 3-30 evidence, which I'll use to flesh out a main post on that fairly soon.)
So we can see how Assad might be emboldened to try the Khan Sheikhoun stunt - if that made sense, etc.
In blaming these three incidents more explicitly on Syrian military aviation, the report explains "the IIT gradually came to these conclusions as the only ones that could reasonably be reached from the information obtained, taken as a whole." Huh.
…
Michael Kobs: After a first look at the IIT (OPCW) report, I have to say that it looks like a rebranding of old evidence to construct a somehow halfway credible narrative.
The opus revolves around the assertion that the SAA wanted to reclaim territories that it had lost to advancing HTS.
https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1248038976650391554
New details on 24-3:
- M-4000 identified from debris
- the one fragment shown might is the same exact one already used for the 30-3 incident ...
I wasted some time with this visual proof before reading the explanation that 04SDS does in fact = 04SDS. "7.29 Moreover, the IIT identified through videos and forensic analyses another fragment as originating from the area of the crater of 24 March 2017 (which the FFM marked as 04SDS when the object was handed over to it with samples related to the incident of 30 March 2017)."
Report S/1548/2017 gives 04SDS date of receipt 18-7 (meaning 17-8, after being recovered 30-7). That report being about the 30 March incident, it had seemed related to that, but nothing in there really specifies - it's not seen at the sarin impact point, and not given as being there either.
- Video of crater said to filmed 26-3 per metadata - can be faked, but logically 24-3 would be a bette date - likely filmed on 26-3, possibly because it didn't exist yet on 24-3, or not...
- soil collection said to be done then, possibly explaining how active sarin could be detected in it 10 months later.
Unseen Debris
Remnants and possible origin "7.18 On 19 February 2018,74 the FFM received metal fragments retrieved from the crater as remnants of munition parts related to the incident of 24 March 2017 in the southern outskirts of Ltamenah. These were later analysed by OPCW designated laboratories. The IIT assessed all six metal pieces retrieved from the crater and listed by the FFM. After consulting with munition specialists, the IIT reached the conclusion that, out of the six fragments, two can be linked to potential chemical weapons use. "
The other four were either inconclusive or perhaps even contradictory. Let's presume the former and move on to the two that seemed clearer on the point.
"The first of these two fragments, which the FFM identified as SDS28, consists of a very heavy thick metal cone-shaped part, with an attached metal sheet/liner.76 Forensic analysis of this fragment also shows traces of paint. According to munition specialists, the form and shapes of the fragment are consistent with the design of the nose part of Syrian chemical air-delivered bombs, namely the MYM6000 and the M4000 models."
This is not shown, but described as similar to 04SDS (see above): "both SDS28 and 04SDS originate from the same aerial bomb, “based on the similar steel layer assembly, thickness, curvature, and specific linear indentation in the steel liner”.
"7.25 The second fragment received by the FFM, SDS29,77 consists of a large corroded fragment of sheet metal of approximately 38 cm by 50 cm, with traces of dark green paint. According to munition specialists, the form and shape of this fragment are consistent with a fragment resulting from the explosion of an ordnance with limited explosive quantity, and fragments from the explosion of conventional explosives filled munitions would be smaller and have sharper edges. Some of its measurements lower the possibility that this is part of a chemical aerial bomb from the stockpile of the Syrian Arab Republic, and further analyses would be required to reach solid conclusions on the origin of this fragment. "
As described, this might be paneling similar to these partly-connected plates logged for 30-3, but one huge piece bigger than all these combined. The size was apparently an issue, and a big enough one they had to drop one of two rather vague pieces of evidence.
"7.26 The IIT, aware of the importance of the chain of custody in this type of investigation, pursued several lines of inquiry in order to establish it. However, in light of the uncertainty on the origin of this fragment, and as the IIT was unable to fully confirm its chain of custody, it did not pursue this second fragment in this area of inquiry. "
So - two fragments considered, then one discarded as a possible non-fit and unverified provenance, and neither is shown. But somehow there's more; it seems the other 4 recovered items are not described, and it's a coincidence that four other items are then discussed as also relevant, three of them seemingly not recovered. If so, that's 6 recovered plus the other 4 for 10 items. Otherwise, these are the other four:
"7.28 The IIT further considered three fragments that are visible in a video of a crater taken on 26 March 2017, which the IIT confirmed through witnesses and assessment by a specialised forensic institute as being the crater of the incident of 24 March 2017. Two of these remnants were partly buried. Although these large metal fragments are consistent with those created by an ordnance with limited explosive quantity, not enough details are available to confirm their origin. The third fragment, however, is more visible: it consists of what appears as a flat metal part with holes, some containing bolts, and a folded end. The specialists consulted by the IIT found that the visible characteristics of the fragment in the crater are consistent with a ring-shaped component used to attach the membrane of the M4000."
So 3 items seen in the video but not handed over, and the video frames aren't shared, so that's 5/6 all unseen. We've seen a partial support ring … I don't suppose this is the same item.
"7.29 Moreover, the IIT identified through videos and forensic analyses another fragment as originating from the area of the crater of 24 March 2017 (which the FFM marked as 04SDS when the object was handed over to it with samples related to the incident of 30 March 2017)."
And there's an item seen in the video, and handed over - but as recorded that was in August, 2017, as samples related to the 30 March incident were received. It was listed with them, seemed to be one of them. The two fragments they considered SDS28 and 29 were handed over (apparently with four others) on 19 February 2018, AS debris from the 24-3 crater, months after they had 04SDS. So this item was double-booked.
Report S/1548/2017 listed 04SDS(B) date: 18/7 (apparently with 18-7 swapped in for 17-8, as the report gives, noting some fragments were collected on 30 July). It had Sarin, DIMP, IMPA, MPA, MPFA, HFP, TPP, DIPF, hexamine.
04SDS was never seen at the sarin impact site for the 30-3 incident, and wasn't labeled or specified as being found there. Its appearance in situ at what's said to be another crater that could be geolocated clearly trumps any basis for inclusion in the other set. That is this item belongs with 24-3, not 30-3.
The only one they show is the one of six we've already seen, linked to two incidents now. The other was vague paneling that may not fit, and one piece seen on video SOUNDS interesting. No more filler caps, unique tail assembly, parts for a mixing arm, etc. In summary:
Soil returns and sarin samples
Previously it seems the soil sample that tested for sarin was only handed to the FFM on 19 February, 2018, perhaps after being collected recently, but possibly back to April, 2017. That could mean active sarin was found on samples that had weathered for nearly ten months, plus an unclear delay to actual analysis. But according to the new report, munition fragments were delivered in 2018, while the soil came in earlier, after being collected and sealed just days after the alleged attack. If true, that should make the later finding entirely plausible (which is not to say it was dropped there by a Syrian jet)
Paragraph 7.31 relates the two key areas the IIT verified sarin in relation to this incident:
"In relation to this incident, the IIT specifically–though not exclusively–focused on the analysis performed for the FFM by two OPCW designated laboratories of the fragment SDS28, for which the chain of custody was described above...."
(not clear why they didn't also cite the similar 04SDS seen in the same crater and tested to show sarin as well)
"... Moreover, the IIT requested two OPCW designated laboratories to carry out analyses for a subsample (denominated SLS35) of a sample which had been identified (but not analysed) by the FFM as 01SLS. ..."
Okay, the FFM had this soil sample (SLS) dubbed 01SLS, but didn't have it analyzed for some reason. The FFM or IIT sets out a subsample and gives it a name SLS35 - where the SLS switches order (as it does between uses, for reasons I'm not sure of).
".. This environmental sample from the crater was collected on 26 March 2017 and provided to the FFM on 12 August 2017."
S/1548/2017 (2 Nov. 2017) has SLS02, 03, 04, 05 - any SLS01 is missing from that, which makes sense, except … this shouldn't be included in that list of samples for 30-3 - its missing 01 should be a coincidence. But then again, debris from this incident (04SDS) shouldn't have been included there and it was. Maybe this is the same 01? It shouldn't be - the Next in line: 02SLS to 06SLS, came on 17 July - nearly a month before the IIT now say investigators were handed that 01SLS.
So presumably - or most innocently - that was 01 in its own system relating to the 24-3 incident. Report S/1636/2018 relates the acquisition of samples for the that incident, giving only the Feb. 2018 date. There's no SLS sample #01 OR #35 listed here. Instead it's SLS18 to SLS23, all with evidence numbers including the date 20180219. No sign of anything dating back to August. So where has this 01 and its subset 35 been since the FFM got it?
To risk adding to the confusion ... they say this 01SLS had a portion set aside called 35SLS. But was it the other way around? There is a 35SLS Soil, ostensibly from the sain impact point for the 30 March incident. Date of Receipt: 12/4/17. It was analyzed, found to have DIMP IMPA, MPA - no active sarin.
It might go like this:
- There were some 30 soil samples (SLS) that didn't matter, or they start counting at 30 instead of 0
- then 31-35 are logged in April
- the last has a portion set out and given the number 01SLS - because now they start at zero again?
- That sits in some limbo, later has its subest develop sarin and becomes the 24-3 soil described with a backwards origin story and an August date
- Later in July they get more from the 30-3 crater, under metal, and dub these SLS02 and so on.
Likely it didn't go like that - the same numbers might be used and passed in different systems, besides for each incident, allowing for confusing coincidences. But in this case, the lines between one incident and the other are so blurry, it seems likely they share the same numbered samples that came in whenever, described as whatever suited the day's purpose.
"Staging" considered
The IIT addresses the possibility of a false-flag incident or staged chemical attack for each of the three incidents. Previously when this was aired, it was rejected, said too close to attributing blame; we know who's hands those would be. To decide an object is falling from the air with a velocity is just as specific; we know who operates aircraft in Syria. But that line of investigation was not just allowed, but actively pursued even when the evidence didn't support it. https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-ffms-mysterious-mandate-to-blame.html
In light of last year's troubles and growing awareness of the OPCW's gross institutional bias, they bring it up - always in quotes as "staging" - and find that it would count as a "use" of weapons worthy of calling out: "“staging” of chemical attacks (or organising “false flag” chemical attacks, as this is at times described), if done through the use of chemical weapons as defined in this section of the report, would constitute “use” of chemical weapons under the Convention."
In contrast, the FFM had put manual placement (staging) as outside its mandate for being too blamey AND not being a "use" of CW, which is all they were tasked with finding. Now they explicitly consider it and talk about that, to clarify that's not off-the table. As we'll see, it's just set precariously at the table's edge and then knocked off - "gradually."
5.4 lists four scenarios "developed for this investigation" and "bearing in mind the specific circumstances of each specific incident"
(a) chemical weapons were prepared elsewhere, brought to–or around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM, and used; or
(b) chemical weapons were air-delivered on–or around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM; or
(c) chemical weapons were launched, spread, or deployed otherwise to–or-around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM; or
(d) no chemical weapons attack occurred, but conventional weapon(s) were deployed or brought to–or around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM, while chemicals were used at the sites later to “stage” a chemical attack and blame one side of the conflict.
I don't see this list as very helpful. It's not clear what a and c actually mean (CWs were "brought", or deployed by whom?), with ony two being clear on perpetrator. The choice is mainly between b (government airstrike) and d - the CWs were brought in order to blame someone else, perhaps planted via deployment (d via c). In other cases, I find the an option like that generally explains the evidence best.
The report helpfully gives some detail on how they presumed an option d might play out. 11.4 "... the aerial munitions used on both 24 and 30 March 2017 are very likely M4000 aerial bombs, developed and built only by the Syrian Arab Republic." 11.5-11.7 sarin made using the same formula of DF as Syria's (or one that yielded the same markers they were looking for). 11.9 ... the IIT could not find any information supporting the hypothesis that the Syrian Arab Republic lost control of its chemical weapons stockpile, whether aerial bombs or sarin and its precursors."
But it's still not clear the sarin they keep finding is made by Syria or even uses the same formula as them. The DF similaities seem to be genuine and might even be fairly specific, but even exact forumlas can be reverse-engineered and replicated by states or non-state actors who could get their counterfeit agent into the right hands in Syria to have the govenment framed. The main thing anyone has poven is the same kind of sarin keeps being used - they think by the authoities, but maybe it's the terrorists behind all these incidents. (see here).
As for the bomb, the IIT notes the Syrians claiming to have repurposed all their remaining M4000s in 2013 to carry conventional explosives and help in the fight against the foreign-backed militants. The IIT pointedly didn't agree to this, but didn't dispute that at least some M400s were so converted. Bellingcat noting two examples found totally or mostly intact were probably of this kind and had failed to detonate. Presumably others had been dropped, some of them would have worked, and they'd have scraps from these. There's no need to raid stockpiles when the things are falling into rebel hands, as I had noted here, sometimes from petty low altitudes (low enough it hadn't even settle on a nose-down position?).
Or maybe the one shows there HAD BEEN some raiding? It's also quite possible the militants used their skills and tools to fabricate their own copies of the M4000, as soon as the design was known to them. In fact the noted differences between the schematics and field examples always suggested this (but far from poved it - the authoritativeness of the schematic is unclear).
The IIT and its experts doubted the fragments were small and twisted enough to be from a TNT bomb that detonated, suggesting ather a limited-size CW bursting (or opening) charge but I think they were wrong. The small number, small size, and extreme distortion of some fragments might prove that to a true expert (the distortion might require partial melting like in a very high energy blast, and some of it seems to include black scorching as well). The back end didn't fare too poorly, but the rest of it seems to have nearly vaporized. Only the most solid and central bit(s) of the front survived, joined by almost nothing from the middle, or the bulk of its exterior. Be it a full load of TNT or just the opening charge, if it was so powerful to rip the bomb into such small pieces, how would it fail to vaporize the sarin blamed for sickening some 170 people? That's with what IIT calls the "overabundance of elements" from the most intact of three uses alleged, arguing this pointed to a limited-power opening charge. But that point doesn't hold up well with the other two alleged uses.
It's most likely these things were planted manually at each of the sites. With three filler caps seen between the 3 incidents, we're looking at parts of 2 bombs. But aside from the caps, the remnants might all be from one unit they just gathered the biggest pieces from and divvied them up unevenly between their two and then thee incidents.
The IIT seems to have considered just one method for getting M4000 scraps that could wind up testing positive for sarin:
"11.13 Finally, the IIT obtained information that, in any event, none of the aerial munitions tested at the testing range mentioned above contained sarin, and that the M4000 model (which experts assessed as being most likely the model from which the fragments found for both the 24 and 30 March 2017 incidents derived) was not tested by the Syrian Arab Republic with sarin, but rather with sulfur mustard. In light of various factors, including these considerations, the IIT considered this “staging” scenario as implausible."
So there wouldn't be sarin on the ten-year-old scraps anyway! The IIT didn't want to consider that the foreign-backed terrorists might have their own sarin to contaminate things with, having filled weapons with the stuff and fired them on soldiers several times (at Khan Al-Assal anyway, the UN-OPCW saus it's the same stuff used in Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun, these Lataminah attacks, and others). And as I've said, a more plausible way to get fragments of an M4000 is to have a repurposed one blow up after it's been dropped on you. They could also seize intact copies as they overrun a military installation, or even make their own, then possibly re-fill it themselves with sarin, and then modify it to be launched from a mortar. Maybe a catapult would work. The likelihoods vary, but there are countless possible ways this could be done. The IIT picked a lame one and then discounted it, leaving the remaining options as open as they ever were.
The IIT calls on a few specifics for each of the thee incidents, so I'll consider each in chronological order.
"Staging" dismissed: 24-3
They didn't have much to say against fakery here: 7.9 explains how the crater, "between 1 to 2 metres deep and approximately 2.5 metres in diameter, with a circular shape" was probably from a jet-dropped bomb; "The estimated size of the crater fits the scenario of an aerial bomb with a burster-type explosive charge, impacting the ground." But they note it "might also be consistent with an event “staged” on the ground, as long as the person(s) “staging” the attack were applying the correct amount of explosive to create similar crater characteristics, and had knowledge of the type of soil in the area." I suppose those points are both true; it could be explained by either option. The remaining evidence will help narrow down which it is.
As seen above, only two pieces of nosecone material and a possible large segment of outer skin, and no other fragments of the bomb were recovered - not a very good set-up to claim small-charge blast of an M4000. And as the scene doesn't support a larger blast, a problem appears.
"7.10 Flight data, including information from an early warning network, show that between 5:30 and 5:45 a Syrian Su-22 military airplane took off from Shayrat airbase and attacked Ltamenah. ..."
(I don't believe this Sentry Syria is radar-reliable or verifiable. They issue specific notices that don't seem entirely made-up, may be all true or partly untrue)
"... The attack was further confirmed by persons who either saw or heard a military airplane–with its distinctive sound–around the location of the site of the incident between 5:30 and 6:00 that morning, with one specifically recognising it as a warplane engaged in a diving manoeuvre described as typical of Syrian military aircraft."
(so they say, with an excess of condemnatory information )
"7.11 In assessing the information from witnesses to the event, the IIT sought and obtained additional information corroborating the accounts by the victims."
The witnesses - including sentry Syria - were supported by: "Su-22s were based at Shayrat, "flight data from 24, 25, and 30 March 2017 reveal that Su-22s departed from Shayrat airbase at least 19 times" and "the Su-22 is used in that theatre of operations only by the Syrian Arab Air Force." (7.12, 7.13)
11.4 In addition,... The IIT was provided with expert advice that the aerial munitions used on both 24 and 30 March 2017 are very likely M4000 aerial bombs, developed and built only by the Syrian Arab Republic."
and as noted above - falling into rebel hands, sometimes from not so high.
But it seems their favorite agument for this case simply inverts its biggest problem. This same move was made earlier by Eliot Higgins: "I've been unable to find any social media posts or open source reporting on the attack, so it doesn't really stand up that it's a false flag, because if it was why did no-one talk about it?" It doesn't "stand up" that it was real, at the time. Why else would no one talk about it? The IIT also seems to miss that point:
"11.11 With specific reference to the incident of 24 March 2017, such an intricate staging exercise is also at odds with an almost complete lack of publicity, not consistent with the complex and lengthy efforts which would have been necessary to retrieve from elsewhere, store, and prepare contaminated fragments for use and collection as samples. ..."
As Michael Kobs noted "After the OPCW report, however, Higgins hastily rowed back. How could it have been a 'false flag' operation if nobody talks or writes about it? Interestingly, the IIT report coughs up Eliot Higgins' argument. Coincidence? Certainly not."
Well it's hard to say if they did or would have come up with that thought on their own, but either way, it's a lame point. If the militants had faked it correctly at the time, it is almost certain they would have mentioned it. Therefore we conclude they staged it later, either because they did it wrong the first time didn't do it at all. Lacking a time machine, they had to stick with the existing lack of mention. I've suspected that they simply didn't think of the allegation at the time, and would therefore have done none of those "intricate" things. The IIT report adds reference to a video, which was never shown publicly. To the extent they may have filmed a video on the 26th (as the metadata says), maybe there was such a plan by then. But if so, their failure to follow up with mention is a problem, not a strength; it suggests the plan didn't work out right, perhaps leading them to delete the event and try it again a week later.
"... Even assuming that this was a case of “staging” an incident that did not fully work out as originally intended (because, for instance, the contaminated sarin was released in the wrong place or at the wrong time), had an armed group gone through the trouble of retrieving, storing safely, and preparing sarin-contaminated fragments of a weapon, it remains unclear why it would have then failed to properly publicise the intended message."
Uh ... IF the video proof or other aspect of their allegation didn't support the intended claims, the IIT wonders why they didn't just publicize the claims anyway. Probably because they wanted the video and a correct story for an important claim on the re-emergence of sarin. If the relevant story was mucked-up badly enough to ignore it, then it WAS mucked-up that badly, and that's why you didn't hear about it.
Perhaps the problem was with the 25-3 incident - maybe their use of sarin there was deemed problematic (I couldn't say just why), so they reported just the chlorine. But then they had sarin in the samples sent in, and at about that same time, had the 24-3 incident to explain it - patients had washed off there prior to treatment. It could be that anomaly was the central reason FOR the 24-3 incident to materialize.
To be clear, that "almost complete lack of publicity" is a TOTAL LACK, AFAIK, until the FFM got to break the story. The better question stemming from that was always why no one mentioned it then - except to say it DIDN'T HAPPEN - if it did happen? Because the "elaborate staging" was done long after the window for at-time reports had closed. This video from well-connected parties followed the 30 March incident and they still didn't know to mention this had also happened last week - they still say it's never happened before. From this, we can deduce the idea to claim a 24-3 incident still hadn't gelled even at this point. It was thought up by the time they mentioned it first to the FFM sometime afte 10 April, but not long before that.
Furthermore, if there were messed-up plan they didn't want talked about, people might conspicuously deny any such prior event But I don't see that as suggested; the few denials feel sporadic and natural, not the work of people told to deny it - the newness of a jet sarin attack is just another feature of it some mention but most don't. It seems as if the prior event just hadn't been thought up yet.
"Staging" dismissed: 25-3
…
"Staging" dismissed: 30-3
...
More to come ...
rough, incomplete
edits April 12, 14...
So after much delay and coronavirus, the first report of IIT is released, just after the 2-year anniversary of the Douma chemical massacre (which it does not consider, by the way).
S/1867/2020
8 April 2020
Original: ENGLISH
NOTE BY THE TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT
FIRST REPORT BY THE OPCW INVESTIGATION AND IDENTIFICATION TEAM
PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 10 OF DECISION C-SS-4/DEC.3
“ADDRESSING THE THREAT FROM CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE”
LTAMENAH (SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC)
24, 25, AND 30 MARCH 2017
https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/04/opcw-releases-first-report-investigation-and-identification-team
The IIT had promised last year to consider nine incidents including Douma, one attack blamed on ISIS, and 7 others blamed so far on Damascus, ranging from 2014 to 2017. I took a good look at most of those with work assembled here. Three of those cases are covered in this initial report, the three in al-Lataminah, Hama, spanning about one week in March, 2017.
The motive aspect has never been very clear. the Syrian government has negative motive to have committed any of these attacks; they deny all of them and logically the denials should be true. It'll take some actual facts - not just authority - to show otherwise.
Bashar Assad learned that US president Obama had a "Red Line" over CW use; after Ghouta alleged sarin attack was taken as killing over 1,000, threats of war led to Syria joining the OPCW and surrendering its CW program. Allegedly, Assad spent the following years mainly avoiding deadlier agents like sarin, attacking instead with relatively harmless chlorine. Then in late 2016, after using chlorine to random effect in his efforts to re-take all of Aleppo city, he seemingly wondered if Trump had a sarin "red line" too, and started sneaking the deadly nerve agent back in. As soon as Trump was elected, a string of December 2016 attacks near Uqayribat, Hama (ISIS-held) killed nearly 100, it seems with sarin. This was reported, but to little protest and no action - maybe Trump just didn't want to be seen as bailing out ISIS. So Assad tries in "moderate" turf, replicating a near-100-dead sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April, just after signals the US administration would take a more favorable stance on Syria. Then he finds Trump has "many, many lines" that crossed, Washington's softer line was withheld, and US missiles fell on Syria, damaging an airfield.
Prior to that gamble, these 3 Lataminah attacks (among a few others) allegedly tested the waters:
3-24 a bomb with deadly sarin used near militant cave base, affects at least 16, kills no one - doesn't even get mentioned publicly by anyone. I reviewed that one here.
3-25 a cylinder with caustic chlorine used at a cave hospital, affects 30+ and kills 3 - moderate protest. I reviewed that one here
3-30 a bomb with deadly sarin near militant cave base affects 170 mostly militants, kills no one - mild protest, followed by friendly US signals (I did a review of the 3-30 evidence, which I'll use to flesh out a main post on that fairly soon.)
So we can see how Assad might be emboldened to try the Khan Sheikhoun stunt - if that made sense, etc.
In blaming these three incidents more explicitly on Syrian military aviation, the report explains "the IIT gradually came to these conclusions as the only ones that could reasonably be reached from the information obtained, taken as a whole." Huh.
…
Michael Kobs: After a first look at the IIT (OPCW) report, I have to say that it looks like a rebranding of old evidence to construct a somehow halfway credible narrative.
The opus revolves around the assertion that the SAA wanted to reclaim territories that it had lost to advancing HTS.
https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/1248038976650391554
New details on 24-3:
- M-4000 identified from debris
- the one fragment shown might is the same exact one already used for the 30-3 incident ...
I wasted some time with this visual proof before reading the explanation that 04SDS does in fact = 04SDS. "7.29 Moreover, the IIT identified through videos and forensic analyses another fragment as originating from the area of the crater of 24 March 2017 (which the FFM marked as 04SDS when the object was handed over to it with samples related to the incident of 30 March 2017)."
Report S/1548/2017 gives 04SDS date of receipt 18-7 (meaning 17-8, after being recovered 30-7). That report being about the 30 March incident, it had seemed related to that, but nothing in there really specifies - it's not seen at the sarin impact point, and not given as being there either.
- Video of crater said to filmed 26-3 per metadata - can be faked, but logically 24-3 would be a bette date - likely filmed on 26-3, possibly because it didn't exist yet on 24-3, or not...
- soil collection said to be done then, possibly explaining how active sarin could be detected in it 10 months later.
Unseen Debris
Remnants and possible origin "7.18 On 19 February 2018,74 the FFM received metal fragments retrieved from the crater as remnants of munition parts related to the incident of 24 March 2017 in the southern outskirts of Ltamenah. These were later analysed by OPCW designated laboratories. The IIT assessed all six metal pieces retrieved from the crater and listed by the FFM. After consulting with munition specialists, the IIT reached the conclusion that, out of the six fragments, two can be linked to potential chemical weapons use. "
The other four were either inconclusive or perhaps even contradictory. Let's presume the former and move on to the two that seemed clearer on the point.
"The first of these two fragments, which the FFM identified as SDS28, consists of a very heavy thick metal cone-shaped part, with an attached metal sheet/liner.76 Forensic analysis of this fragment also shows traces of paint. According to munition specialists, the form and shapes of the fragment are consistent with the design of the nose part of Syrian chemical air-delivered bombs, namely the MYM6000 and the M4000 models."
This is not shown, but described as similar to 04SDS (see above): "both SDS28 and 04SDS originate from the same aerial bomb, “based on the similar steel layer assembly, thickness, curvature, and specific linear indentation in the steel liner”.
"7.25 The second fragment received by the FFM, SDS29,77 consists of a large corroded fragment of sheet metal of approximately 38 cm by 50 cm, with traces of dark green paint. According to munition specialists, the form and shape of this fragment are consistent with a fragment resulting from the explosion of an ordnance with limited explosive quantity, and fragments from the explosion of conventional explosives filled munitions would be smaller and have sharper edges. Some of its measurements lower the possibility that this is part of a chemical aerial bomb from the stockpile of the Syrian Arab Republic, and further analyses would be required to reach solid conclusions on the origin of this fragment. "
So - two fragments considered, then one discarded as a possible non-fit and unverified provenance, and neither is shown. But somehow there's more; it seems the other 4 recovered items are not described, and it's a coincidence that four other items are then discussed as also relevant, three of them seemingly not recovered. If so, that's 6 recovered plus the other 4 for 10 items. Otherwise, these are the other four:
"7.28 The IIT further considered three fragments that are visible in a video of a crater taken on 26 March 2017, which the IIT confirmed through witnesses and assessment by a specialised forensic institute as being the crater of the incident of 24 March 2017. Two of these remnants were partly buried. Although these large metal fragments are consistent with those created by an ordnance with limited explosive quantity, not enough details are available to confirm their origin. The third fragment, however, is more visible: it consists of what appears as a flat metal part with holes, some containing bolts, and a folded end. The specialists consulted by the IIT found that the visible characteristics of the fragment in the crater are consistent with a ring-shaped component used to attach the membrane of the M4000."
So 3 items seen in the video but not handed over, and the video frames aren't shared, so that's 5/6 all unseen. We've seen a partial support ring … I don't suppose this is the same item.
"7.29 Moreover, the IIT identified through videos and forensic analyses another fragment as originating from the area of the crater of 24 March 2017 (which the FFM marked as 04SDS when the object was handed over to it with samples related to the incident of 30 March 2017)."
And there's an item seen in the video, and handed over - but as recorded that was in August, 2017, as samples related to the 30 March incident were received. It was listed with them, seemed to be one of them. The two fragments they considered SDS28 and 29 were handed over (apparently with four others) on 19 February 2018, AS debris from the 24-3 crater, months after they had 04SDS. So this item was double-booked.
Report S/1548/2017 listed 04SDS(B) date: 18/7 (apparently with 18-7 swapped in for 17-8, as the report gives, noting some fragments were collected on 30 July). It had Sarin, DIMP, IMPA, MPA, MPFA, HFP, TPP, DIPF, hexamine.
04SDS was never seen at the sarin impact site for the 30-3 incident, and wasn't labeled or specified as being found there. Its appearance in situ at what's said to be another crater that could be geolocated clearly trumps any basis for inclusion in the other set. That is this item belongs with 24-3, not 30-3.
The only one they show is the one of six we've already seen, linked to two incidents now. The other was vague paneling that may not fit, and one piece seen on video SOUNDS interesting. No more filler caps, unique tail assembly, parts for a mixing arm, etc. In summary:
Soil returns and sarin samples
Previously it seems the soil sample that tested for sarin was only handed to the FFM on 19 February, 2018, perhaps after being collected recently, but possibly back to April, 2017. That could mean active sarin was found on samples that had weathered for nearly ten months, plus an unclear delay to actual analysis. But according to the new report, munition fragments were delivered in 2018, while the soil came in earlier, after being collected and sealed just days after the alleged attack. If true, that should make the later finding entirely plausible (which is not to say it was dropped there by a Syrian jet)
Paragraph 7.31 relates the two key areas the IIT verified sarin in relation to this incident:
"In relation to this incident, the IIT specifically–though not exclusively–focused on the analysis performed for the FFM by two OPCW designated laboratories of the fragment SDS28, for which the chain of custody was described above...."
(not clear why they didn't also cite the similar 04SDS seen in the same crater and tested to show sarin as well)
"... Moreover, the IIT requested two OPCW designated laboratories to carry out analyses for a subsample (denominated SLS35) of a sample which had been identified (but not analysed) by the FFM as 01SLS. ..."
Okay, the FFM had this soil sample (SLS) dubbed 01SLS, but didn't have it analyzed for some reason. The FFM or IIT sets out a subsample and gives it a name SLS35 - where the SLS switches order (as it does between uses, for reasons I'm not sure of).
".. This environmental sample from the crater was collected on 26 March 2017 and provided to the FFM on 12 August 2017."
S/1548/2017 (2 Nov. 2017) has SLS02, 03, 04, 05 - any SLS01 is missing from that, which makes sense, except … this shouldn't be included in that list of samples for 30-3 - its missing 01 should be a coincidence. But then again, debris from this incident (04SDS) shouldn't have been included there and it was. Maybe this is the same 01? It shouldn't be - the Next in line: 02SLS to 06SLS, came on 17 July - nearly a month before the IIT now say investigators were handed that 01SLS.
So presumably - or most innocently - that was 01 in its own system relating to the 24-3 incident. Report S/1636/2018 relates the acquisition of samples for the that incident, giving only the Feb. 2018 date. There's no SLS sample #01 OR #35 listed here. Instead it's SLS18 to SLS23, all with evidence numbers including the date 20180219. No sign of anything dating back to August. So where has this 01 and its subset 35 been since the FFM got it?
To risk adding to the confusion ... they say this 01SLS had a portion set aside called 35SLS. But was it the other way around? There is a 35SLS Soil, ostensibly from the sain impact point for the 30 March incident. Date of Receipt: 12/4/17. It was analyzed, found to have DIMP IMPA, MPA - no active sarin.
It might go like this:
- There were some 30 soil samples (SLS) that didn't matter, or they start counting at 30 instead of 0
- then 31-35 are logged in April
- the last has a portion set out and given the number 01SLS - because now they start at zero again?
- That sits in some limbo, later has its subest develop sarin and becomes the 24-3 soil described with a backwards origin story and an August date
- Later in July they get more from the 30-3 crater, under metal, and dub these SLS02 and so on.
Likely it didn't go like that - the same numbers might be used and passed in different systems, besides for each incident, allowing for confusing coincidences. But in this case, the lines between one incident and the other are so blurry, it seems likely they share the same numbered samples that came in whenever, described as whatever suited the day's purpose.
"Staging" considered
The IIT addresses the possibility of a false-flag incident or staged chemical attack for each of the three incidents. Previously when this was aired, it was rejected, said too close to attributing blame; we know who's hands those would be. To decide an object is falling from the air with a velocity is just as specific; we know who operates aircraft in Syria. But that line of investigation was not just allowed, but actively pursued even when the evidence didn't support it. https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-ffms-mysterious-mandate-to-blame.html
In light of last year's troubles and growing awareness of the OPCW's gross institutional bias, they bring it up - always in quotes as "staging" - and find that it would count as a "use" of weapons worthy of calling out: "“staging” of chemical attacks (or organising “false flag” chemical attacks, as this is at times described), if done through the use of chemical weapons as defined in this section of the report, would constitute “use” of chemical weapons under the Convention."
In contrast, the FFM had put manual placement (staging) as outside its mandate for being too blamey AND not being a "use" of CW, which is all they were tasked with finding. Now they explicitly consider it and talk about that, to clarify that's not off-the table. As we'll see, it's just set precariously at the table's edge and then knocked off - "gradually."
5.4 lists four scenarios "developed for this investigation" and "bearing in mind the specific circumstances of each specific incident"
(a) chemical weapons were prepared elsewhere, brought to–or around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM, and used; or
(b) chemical weapons were air-delivered on–or around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM; or
(c) chemical weapons were launched, spread, or deployed otherwise to–or-around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM; or
(d) no chemical weapons attack occurred, but conventional weapon(s) were deployed or brought to–or around–the sites of the incidents identified by the FFM, while chemicals were used at the sites later to “stage” a chemical attack and blame one side of the conflict.
I don't see this list as very helpful. It's not clear what a and c actually mean (CWs were "brought", or deployed by whom?), with ony two being clear on perpetrator. The choice is mainly between b (government airstrike) and d - the CWs were brought in order to blame someone else, perhaps planted via deployment (d via c). In other cases, I find the an option like that generally explains the evidence best.
The report helpfully gives some detail on how they presumed an option d might play out. 11.4 "... the aerial munitions used on both 24 and 30 March 2017 are very likely M4000 aerial bombs, developed and built only by the Syrian Arab Republic." 11.5-11.7 sarin made using the same formula of DF as Syria's (or one that yielded the same markers they were looking for). 11.9 ... the IIT could not find any information supporting the hypothesis that the Syrian Arab Republic lost control of its chemical weapons stockpile, whether aerial bombs or sarin and its precursors."
But it's still not clear the sarin they keep finding is made by Syria or even uses the same formula as them. The DF similaities seem to be genuine and might even be fairly specific, but even exact forumlas can be reverse-engineered and replicated by states or non-state actors who could get their counterfeit agent into the right hands in Syria to have the govenment framed. The main thing anyone has poven is the same kind of sarin keeps being used - they think by the authoities, but maybe it's the terrorists behind all these incidents. (see here).
As for the bomb, the IIT notes the Syrians claiming to have repurposed all their remaining M4000s in 2013 to carry conventional explosives and help in the fight against the foreign-backed militants. The IIT pointedly didn't agree to this, but didn't dispute that at least some M400s were so converted. Bellingcat noting two examples found totally or mostly intact were probably of this kind and had failed to detonate. Presumably others had been dropped, some of them would have worked, and they'd have scraps from these. There's no need to raid stockpiles when the things are falling into rebel hands, as I had noted here, sometimes from petty low altitudes (low enough it hadn't even settle on a nose-down position?).
Or maybe the one shows there HAD BEEN some raiding? It's also quite possible the militants used their skills and tools to fabricate their own copies of the M4000, as soon as the design was known to them. In fact the noted differences between the schematics and field examples always suggested this (but far from poved it - the authoritativeness of the schematic is unclear).
The IIT and its experts doubted the fragments were small and twisted enough to be from a TNT bomb that detonated, suggesting ather a limited-size CW bursting (or opening) charge but I think they were wrong. The small number, small size, and extreme distortion of some fragments might prove that to a true expert (the distortion might require partial melting like in a very high energy blast, and some of it seems to include black scorching as well). The back end didn't fare too poorly, but the rest of it seems to have nearly vaporized. Only the most solid and central bit(s) of the front survived, joined by almost nothing from the middle, or the bulk of its exterior. Be it a full load of TNT or just the opening charge, if it was so powerful to rip the bomb into such small pieces, how would it fail to vaporize the sarin blamed for sickening some 170 people? That's with what IIT calls the "overabundance of elements" from the most intact of three uses alleged, arguing this pointed to a limited-power opening charge. But that point doesn't hold up well with the other two alleged uses.
It's most likely these things were planted manually at each of the sites. With three filler caps seen between the 3 incidents, we're looking at parts of 2 bombs. But aside from the caps, the remnants might all be from one unit they just gathered the biggest pieces from and divvied them up unevenly between their two and then thee incidents.
The IIT seems to have considered just one method for getting M4000 scraps that could wind up testing positive for sarin:
11.10 The IIT further explored the possibility that armed groups could have retrieved used (fragments of) chemical weapons from sites where the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic had tested chemical weapons prior to accession to the Convention in order to “stage” chemical attacks. Such an act could in theory have enabled them to place contaminated fragments at the locations of the incidents of 24 and 30 March 2017, for example, in order to “stage” a chemical attack there.This is not the only scenario to consider, but it's one that fails, and the one they chose. It assumes sarin can only be deposited on fragments by the Syrian government, and remnants tested in or before to 2009 should have active sarin after planting in 2017? 8+ years? That's an absurd plan no one would have, and the IIT seem proud of themselves for showing it wrong. In fact, they identified a further defect of this straw-man argument:
In pursuing this line of inquiry, the IIT identified through its investigations only one such testing range where some warheads and aerial bombs were tested with sarin prior to and in 2009. The IIT obtained information that armed groups close to ISIL/Daesh reached the vicinity of this testing range in 2016 and early 2017, but was unable to confirm that they ever took over the facility. Moreover, the IIT considered the low likelihood of an armed group deciding to retrieve contaminated fragments from before 2009 or before, keeping them in the appropriate conditions, and then using them in March 2017 to “stage” an attack at the exact time when military airplanes of the Syrian Arab Republic were overflying the area of the incidents. However, such an armed group, even if it had succeeded in achieving all this through careful planning and execution, would not have been organised enough to ensure that the area was sufficiently secured to protect the fragments in question carefully collected and stored, or at least to ensure that an independent third party could sample the fragments shortly after the alleged incident. In other words, the planning and execution would have to have been carried out impeccably for the first part of this complex staging operation, while the group would have missed, or would not have been able to properly plan and carry out, the second–critical–aspect of the same operation (i.e., ensuring the proper chain of custody of the staged fragments and samples so as to promote their propaganda aims)."
"11.13 Finally, the IIT obtained information that, in any event, none of the aerial munitions tested at the testing range mentioned above contained sarin, and that the M4000 model (which experts assessed as being most likely the model from which the fragments found for both the 24 and 30 March 2017 incidents derived) was not tested by the Syrian Arab Republic with sarin, but rather with sulfur mustard. In light of various factors, including these considerations, the IIT considered this “staging” scenario as implausible."
So there wouldn't be sarin on the ten-year-old scraps anyway! The IIT didn't want to consider that the foreign-backed terrorists might have their own sarin to contaminate things with, having filled weapons with the stuff and fired them on soldiers several times (at Khan Al-Assal anyway, the UN-OPCW saus it's the same stuff used in Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun, these Lataminah attacks, and others). And as I've said, a more plausible way to get fragments of an M4000 is to have a repurposed one blow up after it's been dropped on you. They could also seize intact copies as they overrun a military installation, or even make their own, then possibly re-fill it themselves with sarin, and then modify it to be launched from a mortar. Maybe a catapult would work. The likelihoods vary, but there are countless possible ways this could be done. The IIT picked a lame one and then discounted it, leaving the remaining options as open as they ever were.
The IIT calls on a few specifics for each of the thee incidents, so I'll consider each in chronological order.
"Staging" dismissed: 24-3
They didn't have much to say against fakery here: 7.9 explains how the crater, "between 1 to 2 metres deep and approximately 2.5 metres in diameter, with a circular shape" was probably from a jet-dropped bomb; "The estimated size of the crater fits the scenario of an aerial bomb with a burster-type explosive charge, impacting the ground." But they note it "might also be consistent with an event “staged” on the ground, as long as the person(s) “staging” the attack were applying the correct amount of explosive to create similar crater characteristics, and had knowledge of the type of soil in the area." I suppose those points are both true; it could be explained by either option. The remaining evidence will help narrow down which it is.
As seen above, only two pieces of nosecone material and a possible large segment of outer skin, and no other fragments of the bomb were recovered - not a very good set-up to claim small-charge blast of an M4000. And as the scene doesn't support a larger blast, a problem appears.
"7.10 Flight data, including information from an early warning network, show that between 5:30 and 5:45 a Syrian Su-22 military airplane took off from Shayrat airbase and attacked Ltamenah. ..."
(I don't believe this Sentry Syria is radar-reliable or verifiable. They issue specific notices that don't seem entirely made-up, may be all true or partly untrue)
"... The attack was further confirmed by persons who either saw or heard a military airplane–with its distinctive sound–around the location of the site of the incident between 5:30 and 6:00 that morning, with one specifically recognising it as a warplane engaged in a diving manoeuvre described as typical of Syrian military aircraft."
(so they say, with an excess of condemnatory information )
"7.11 In assessing the information from witnesses to the event, the IIT sought and obtained additional information corroborating the accounts by the victims."
The witnesses - including sentry Syria - were supported by: "Su-22s were based at Shayrat, "flight data from 24, 25, and 30 March 2017 reveal that Su-22s departed from Shayrat airbase at least 19 times" and "the Su-22 is used in that theatre of operations only by the Syrian Arab Air Force." (7.12, 7.13)
11.4 In addition,... The IIT was provided with expert advice that the aerial munitions used on both 24 and 30 March 2017 are very likely M4000 aerial bombs, developed and built only by the Syrian Arab Republic."
and as noted above - falling into rebel hands, sometimes from not so high.
But it seems their favorite agument for this case simply inverts its biggest problem. This same move was made earlier by Eliot Higgins: "I've been unable to find any social media posts or open source reporting on the attack, so it doesn't really stand up that it's a false flag, because if it was why did no-one talk about it?" It doesn't "stand up" that it was real, at the time. Why else would no one talk about it? The IIT also seems to miss that point:
"11.11 With specific reference to the incident of 24 March 2017, such an intricate staging exercise is also at odds with an almost complete lack of publicity, not consistent with the complex and lengthy efforts which would have been necessary to retrieve from elsewhere, store, and prepare contaminated fragments for use and collection as samples. ..."
As Michael Kobs noted "After the OPCW report, however, Higgins hastily rowed back. How could it have been a 'false flag' operation if nobody talks or writes about it? Interestingly, the IIT report coughs up Eliot Higgins' argument. Coincidence? Certainly not."
Well it's hard to say if they did or would have come up with that thought on their own, but either way, it's a lame point. If the militants had faked it correctly at the time, it is almost certain they would have mentioned it. Therefore we conclude they staged it later, either because they did it wrong the first time didn't do it at all. Lacking a time machine, they had to stick with the existing lack of mention. I've suspected that they simply didn't think of the allegation at the time, and would therefore have done none of those "intricate" things. The IIT report adds reference to a video, which was never shown publicly. To the extent they may have filmed a video on the 26th (as the metadata says), maybe there was such a plan by then. But if so, their failure to follow up with mention is a problem, not a strength; it suggests the plan didn't work out right, perhaps leading them to delete the event and try it again a week later.
"... Even assuming that this was a case of “staging” an incident that did not fully work out as originally intended (because, for instance, the contaminated sarin was released in the wrong place or at the wrong time), had an armed group gone through the trouble of retrieving, storing safely, and preparing sarin-contaminated fragments of a weapon, it remains unclear why it would have then failed to properly publicise the intended message."
Uh ... IF the video proof or other aspect of their allegation didn't support the intended claims, the IIT wonders why they didn't just publicize the claims anyway. Probably because they wanted the video and a correct story for an important claim on the re-emergence of sarin. If the relevant story was mucked-up badly enough to ignore it, then it WAS mucked-up that badly, and that's why you didn't hear about it.
Perhaps the problem was with the 25-3 incident - maybe their use of sarin there was deemed problematic (I couldn't say just why), so they reported just the chlorine. But then they had sarin in the samples sent in, and at about that same time, had the 24-3 incident to explain it - patients had washed off there prior to treatment. It could be that anomaly was the central reason FOR the 24-3 incident to materialize.
To be clear, that "almost complete lack of publicity" is a TOTAL LACK, AFAIK, until the FFM got to break the story. The better question stemming from that was always why no one mentioned it then - except to say it DIDN'T HAPPEN - if it did happen? Because the "elaborate staging" was done long after the window for at-time reports had closed. This video from well-connected parties followed the 30 March incident and they still didn't know to mention this had also happened last week - they still say it's never happened before. From this, we can deduce the idea to claim a 24-3 incident still hadn't gelled even at this point. It was thought up by the time they mentioned it first to the FFM sometime afte 10 April, but not long before that.
Furthermore, if there were messed-up plan they didn't want talked about, people might conspicuously deny any such prior event But I don't see that as suggested; the few denials feel sporadic and natural, not the work of people told to deny it - the newness of a jet sarin attack is just another feature of it some mention but most don't. It seems as if the prior event just hadn't been thought up yet.
"Staging" dismissed: 25-3
…
"Staging" dismissed: 30-3
...
More to come ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)