Today, Eliot Higgins drafted a report entitled; “Tulsi Gabbard’s Reports on Chemical Attacks in Syria – A Self-Contradictory Error Filled Mess”
In the article, he attempts to defend the official NATO position on the chemical attacks in Syria. That is; Assad-done-them-all. What drove him, in this instance, to take to writing a lengthy defensive article was due to the POTUS 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard citing valid concerns surrounding the Khan Sheikhoun Sarin attack and the alleged chlorine attack on the 7 April 2018 in Douma. She referred to Higgins’ long term nemesis Professor Ted Postol of MIT in her reports and that, for Eliot, is a red flag to a bull hence his 4000-word attack on her. Not many are aware that Professor Postol was once lauded as a highly esteemed “expert” to Eliot. That changed though when Postol and his late colleague, UN Weapon’s Inspector, Richard Lloyd informed Higgins he was wrong in his Ghouta 2013 work. After that they both found themselves on the receiving end of Eliot’s vicious internet tongue when he attacked both men, calling them “conspiracy theorists” and ‘war crimes deniers’. Whilst they were, and are still, relentlessly attacked by Eliot I do believe they escaped being asked to ‘Suck his balls’!
In reading through Eliot’s article it’s clear it is designed for a semi-ignorant audience who aren’t fully aware of the facts surrounding the aforementioned events yet aware enough so that he can manipulate their ignorance with his empty rhetoric disguised with his constant appeals to authority. In Eliot’s world, he hides behind authoritative bodies such as the UN to shield himself and his narrative from outside attack. When one proves Higgins wrong, as I have done on many occasions, he deflects responsibility for his failings to authority by way of statements such as; ‘Are you calling the UN liars’?
Given the purpose of Eliot’s article was to point out, what he called, an “Error filled mess” in Tulsi Gabbard’s report I thought it appropriate to highlight the “Error filled mess” of his own work on alleged chlorine attacks in Syria. Work in which he relies upon fake evidence, staged scenes, unknown witnesses, Jihadist proxies and even outright lies. Indeed he helps the narratives along by adding his own fakery and misinformation. I, therefore, thought it only right to point this out as it was both contextual and fitting to the debate. Eliot thought otherwise and binned my response. I have republished said response here in full along with a screenshot to show it was “Awaiting Moderation” before being binned.
*I have been made aware, on good authority, that Eliot is monitoring the responses himself to his article. The same ‘authority’ has advised me that Eliot has requested that nobody at Bellingcat communicates with me hence why I was preemptively blocked from the Twitter accounts of Bellingcat and Aric Toler without having communicated with either.*
The Deleted Post
“The admission times noted in the records range from 0600 to 1600 hours. Analysis of the records revealed that in 57 cases, patients had been admitted to five hospitals before the incident (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 of those cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours, while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate those discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario or are the result of poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.”
The OPCW-JIM, in this report, did NOT rule out a “staging scenario”. They refused to investigate the possibility and you are happy to accept their conclusions because they confirm a personal bias. Any investigator seeking the truth would seek to find out why this bizarre commentary was added as a throwaway statement and then forgotten about.
Is it not odd that people presented at hospitals claiming they were victims of an aerial Sarin attack hours before the attack even took place? Best just to forget this discrepancy for as the JIM says there’s nothing to see here.
But this type of biased and selective writing is not an exception for you Eliot but more-so the rule. I have written three detailed studies showing staging of alleged chlorine attacks that you personally helped propagate and did so in the full knowledge of using “fake intelligence, dodgy dossiers, and lies”;
I showed how you personally tried to pass off a chlorine cylinder from an alleged attack in December 2016 as evidence of an attack in March 2017. To add insult to injury the same image was used on your own website as was the article about the image having been used before.
I showed things like how you claimed that a cylindrical warhead hit soil leaving a complete 90° imprint and then vanished;
Or how you decided that an alleged warhead was fired 2kms west and landed in a perfect vertical drop footprint without attempting to ever explain how the laws of physics were ignored in this instance;
Or how Bellingcat wrote an article about an alleged chlorine attack in Aleppo in 2016 without attempting to investigate the claims made by the opposition. I then showed how that same cylinder was used previously in Aleppo to stage another chlorine attack.
Any many, many more instances of your selective investigations using dodgy evidence, made up facts and lies in order to make the evidence, or lack of, fit the crime are all covered, with proof, at my blog.
More studies are pending.