the home of online investigations

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link:

The OPCW Douma Leaks Part 4: The OPCW Investigation

February 11, 2020

By Bellingcat Investigation Team

Introduction

Over the last year, the OPCW has faced a series of leaks related to the Fact Finding Mission’s (FFM) investigation into the Douma chemical attack. The OPCW have now released their investigation into these leaks. These leaks appear to have originated from two former employees: Inspector A, who is Ian Henderson and Inspector B, a.k.a “Alex”, who is almost certainly Brendan Whelan.

In previous parts of this series we looked at the claims associated with Whelan and Henderson, and consulted chemists, toxicologist and chemical weapons experts. It became clear that Henderson and Whelan’s claims were flawed, overstated and at times actively misleading.

We also assessed what would be required for a “false flag” attack to have taken place in order to result in the the huge amount of evidence found related to this incident. Once available information is taken into account, it is clear that faking the Douma chemical attack would have been effectively impossible. 

The OPCW investigation

In short, the OPCW’s investigation agrees with the key points that we identified using openly available information. These two employees not only had limited access to information related to the Douma investigation, but also actively misled people on issues, including their status and the work they were authorised to conduct.

Ian Henderson a.k.a Inspector A

The OPCW report makes it clear that Henderson was not a member of the FFM. He aided the FFM by collecting data at sites of interest, including processing the cylinders from the two locations. He was later assigned to conduct an inventory of information and assess what other information would be required for future studies. The OPCW investigation states he had no further official part in the FFM investigation. It is important to note that this means Henderson would not have had access to large amounts of information regarding the Douma attack, including further investigations conducted by the FFM. 

Extract from OPCW investigation

Henderson’s status was already possible to establish using both OPCW statements and internal documents leaked by WikiLeaks, specifically an email from Sebastien Braha, the Chief of Cabinet to the Director General of the OPCW. In this email Braha finds out that Henderson had produced an “engineering assessment” and asks why someone who was not a member of the FFM was carrying out this work.

Extract from leaked email chain

It is ironic that this email chain was leaked in an attempt to support the narrative of Whelan and Henderson, but resulted in a clear demonstration that Henderson was not regarded as being part of the FFM by the OPCW.

Despite not actually being part of the FFM, and despite being told specifically not to do so, Henderson decided to conduct his “engineering assessment” anyway. This not only involved misleading senior members of the OPCW, but also lying to the university which carried out his simulation. Henderson told this university they were being officially engaged by the OPCW. They were not. Indeed the OPCW even claims Henderson was on leave when this simulation was carried out.

Extract from OPCW investigation

During this period, Henderson also improperly handled extremely sensitive classified information. As well as disclosing this information to external organisations without proper authorisation, he also requested that they email him using his personal Gmail address. Considering the sensitivity of this kind of information, Henderson’s actions in handling it appear to be extraordinarily reckless.

Extract from OPCW investigation

In short, the OPCW report confirms the key points of our reporting on Henderson: his “engineering assessment” was an unauthorised report carried out with incomplete information by a person who consistently misled in order to achieve what they personally wanted. Henderson himself acted in a cavalier attitude with incredibly sensitive information and deceived those around him, both inside the OPCW and at external organisations, to achieve his own goals. 

Brendan Whelan a.k.a Inspector B

We have previously examined Whelan’s claims in detail. In short, they are flawed, hugely overstated and, at times, actively misleading. As with Henderson, the conclusions of the OPCW investigation on Whelan are very similar to ours. 

The most important point of the OPCW investigation is that Whelan left the OPCW altogether in August of 2018. This was the month after the interim report was published. Whelan was not present for, nor had access to information relating to, the majority of the FFM investigation. Although we noted this as a possibility, the OPCW investigation confirms it. 

Extract from OPCW investigation

Timeline of Whelan’s presence at the OPCW with reference to the Douma investigation

This is an absolutely vital piece of information that was not mentioned by any previous coverage of Whelan’s claims. By excluding this detail, organisations such as WikiLeaks, the Mail on Sunday and CounterPunch have potentially misled their readers about Whelan’s capacity to dispute the findings of the FFM. 

The OPCW investigation also claims that Whelan confirmed in writing that he was satisfied with the Interim report that was eventually published. Although the OPCW does not provide any direct evidence of this, it is not entirely surprising. The only firm conclusion the published Interim report made about the Douma attack was that nerve agents were not used. As with all versions of the Interim report, it noted that further investigations were required. 

Extract from OPCW investigation

The OPCW’s conclusions about Henderson also reflect on Whelan too. Whelan clearly made misleading statements about Henderson’s status, possibly in an attempt to lend more weight to Henderson’s analysis. It seems possible that Whelan’s email of the 20th May 2019, which criticises the OPCW for kicking out Henderson and insists he was a member of the FFM, was written with the intention of leaking it later in support of Whelan’s own claims. As we now know, those claims were false. 

Extract of email from Whelan dated 20 May 2019

Conclusion

Even using open sources, it was possible to demonstrate that the claims of a conspiracy at the OPCW were misleading. We have previously covered this with a series of articles looking at the claims made by Henderson and Whelan, consulting with chemists, chemical weapons experts and toxicologists. 

The OPCW investigation supports these conclusions: Whelan and Henderson made claims unsupported by evidence, misled their colleagues and lied to external organisations, mishandled sensitive classified information and made misleading claims about the attack in Douma.

It is fitting that the last word on this subject should go to Mr Fernando Arias, the Director-General of the OPCW:

“Inspectors A and B are not whistle-blowers. They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence. When their views could not gain traction, they took matters into their own hands and breached their obligations to the Organisation. Their behaviour is even more egregious as they had manifestly incomplete information about the Douma investigation. Therefore, as could be expected, their conclusions are erroneous, uninformed, and wrong.”

 

Bellingcat Investigation Team

The Bellingcat Investigation Team is an award winning group of volunteers and full time investigators who make up the core of the Bellingcat's investigative efforts.

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.

96 Comments

  1. Servus

    Meticulously checking and corroborating facts pays off ! Great work BC.

    I was shocked while reading the OPCW reports, that scientists or engineers can’t let go a great idea of their own, it does happen. There are historical examples of it, like this British physicist that invented antigravity with gyroscope, N-rays story, “memory of water” or these two brilliant experimental physicists that even got a Nobel prize for results they never believed in themselves (Michelson–Morley )…

    But lying and actively cheating like inspector A, his is too much. We will certainly hear more about their motives and modus operandi in the future.

    From the beginning I suspected that inspector A’s sub-team consisted of him personally, as this was a non-OPCW project with no budget. It took a long time to complete, I suspected that the university could not be paid for the simulations so they needed to fold these into exercises in some advanced simulation curriculum and thus the delays or was done in somebodies spare time.

    Reply
    • oui oui

      as you have shown it many many times , élégant Servus , all these saying that staged are producing more stupidities the one than the other
      from there , what are the 150 millions of people living in the Russia today when the Russian president , the Russian minister of defense , the Russian first liar , the Russian embassies , the involved Russian officials , the Russian state’s media are all singing the same song than all these that you have politely exposed idiots trolling here and there to say that staged . idiots saying their idiocies fake , why not , but saying nothing more than these idiocies
      can you imagine a majority in these 150 millions believing these idiocies then deciding a veto

      Reply
      • Jeroen

        Reading such a comment, the second in reaction to the main article, the question rises, what on earth this posting wants to achieve with these words, if not but to leave us here in utter confusion and a bit distracted? lots of words, and seemingly making no sense at all. no meaningful sentences at all, maybe trying writing in a native language might clear up a lot of things.
        But thanks for the compliment.

        Reply
        • oui oui

          the compliment was for Servus
          why don’t you try a Senilus , multi-headed snake . an élégance , a gentleman sitting on so many death
          still thinking himself serving the USSR’s nomenclatura’s pigs .
          the good herder taking care of what gets inside the Russian bubble , barking at doors on the outside to keep the Putin’s people inside the fence , providing the herd with the ways to accept this otherwise uncceptable , shining the appropriate light to keep this insane alive
          exposing what he does on the internet to say that he doesn’t do it
          playing this old game , as old as the USSR ” you know that I know that you know that I am lying , but you can nothing ”
          making it worst today by adding ” god is the truth ” , then thanking the god
          becoming the snake digging the hole in which he’ll end fallen

          Reply
          • Jeroen

            Maybe somebody will pay 10 kopek for a posting like that?
            Or do you earn 1 RUR, buy yourself a good cup of tshai then!

          • RussianTroll

            As others pointed out, Jeroen and Servus are the same user, so it is normal that one says thank you for a compliment to the other. He probably just got distracted.

    • Richard B

      Hey dick, at least read what you post. I cannot find mention of any third ‘whistleblower’ in the text, just repeating previous claims.

      In case somebody considers The Greyzone reliable, here are some fun facts:
      Page came to life after founder Max Blumenthal visited Russia to attend RT’s 10 years anniversary party (V. Putin and M. Flynn also attended). Blumenthal is also regular contributor to RT, Sputnik, Fox News and similar media.
      After this visit his narrative changed from “there was not one person I spoke to in Zaatari who did not demand US military intervention at the earliest possible moment” to “Assad did nothing wrong, White Helmets are responsible for false-flag”.
      Page and founder are regularly marked anti-semitic, russian propaganda, hoax, etc…

      With this, I’m not saying Aaron Mate or Max Blumenthal are not skilled journalists, quite the opposite, it requires skill to omit important facts and at the same time present rest of the facts with new some-how plausible hypothesis, that can confuse an reader.

      Reply
      • dick

        “In addition to Henderson’s complete testimony, The Grayzone has obtained a chilling email from a third former OPCW official. The former official, who worked in a senior role, blamed external pressure and potential threats to their family for their failure to speak out about the corruption of the Douma investigation”
        The third whistle blower for you

        Reply
      • dick

        for some reason my reply is not immediately showing up, as posts usually do
        Forget the messenger, maybe they do have an agenda … who knows?
        But have all these OPCW officers been turned?
        Bustani, the very first secretary general of the OPCW …threatened by Bolton and told to stand down .The unnamed US offcials attending a meeting with original FFM members and telling them emphatically what happened at Douma (which coincided with US geopolitical interests against the team’s own findings)
        You think this kind of US interference is satisfactory?
        That tells me everything

        Reply
        • Richard B

          Dick, from the context I understand, that the ‘3rd whistle-blower’ is former OPCW employee that was never part of the FFM team in Douma. Therefore I consider his mention irrelevant, as the text itself quickly goes back to ‘Alex’.

          I don’t think that any political power should be applied to watchdogs/NGO’s with fact-finding missions.

          Now honestly, using common logic, what is more plausible? Placing all bodies, cylinders and evidence manually and further faking/manipulating it for several years…OR….dropping couple of bombs and lying that somebody else did it?
          btw there is still moderation on BC, so the posts are not abusive/hate speech etc… that’s why there is delay in displaying comments…

          Reply
          • dick

            “Dick, from the context I understand, that the ‘3rd whistle-blower’ is former OPCW employee that was never part of the FFM team in Douma. Therefore I consider his mention irrelevant,”
            And yet you entirely discount the findings of the team who were most definitely on the ground in Douma
            (Henderson in 5 different deployments)and back the experts who weren’t!!
            Ridiculous

            Seriously , why are you and BC so desperate about all this?

      • Martin Dambach

        There is intimidation towards the OPCW since 2002, when Bolton threatened Bustani. This and the lately leaks and intimidations members of OPCW express (grayzone), challenge and damage the credibility of OPCW. When Bellingcat truly is an independent platform, it cannot deny this existing problem of declining credibility.

        The internal efforts of the OPCW to investigate are not sufficient. And a pattern can be detected very cleary. A pattern which is used constantly to smear whistleblowers like Snowden, Assange, and now those inspectors A and B and others.

        This pattern is:

        .1. the whistleblower are minor important, they have not discovered anything new and if, it is wrong. when this is proofed as wrong, it goes to:
        .2. the person is not credible, is a narcist (that was the case for Snowden) is a show off, has mental problems, etc..
        .3. it’s a spy, working for russia, a child abuser, a sexual abuser (Assange) which was proofed wrong.

        OPCW and it’s internal processes and organisation looks today a bit fishy to me. If you do not see any problems there , I have to come to the conclusion, that bellingcat might not be fully independent and maybe has an agenda too, like whistleblowers of course have an agenda, the agenda of telling truth.

        Furthermore: there is evidence of staged videos from the “moderate rebells” So it is of vital interest and importance, that staging can be ruled out for sure. This cannot be done, when there is a shadow of untrustworthiness and/or suspicions about external influence (from USA).

        Reply
        • Jeroen

          While being critical like at the works and procedures of OPCW is sound and normal, why does the above comment look a bit fishy?
          Is it an attempt to discredit or harm credibility?

          Reply
  2. Servus

    Interesting….
    « in favour of “independent” outside experts who never even visited Douma« 
    The simulation in Henderson’s report has been done by independent, outside experts who never visited Douma.
    But it is OK. right?

    All simulations has been based on measurements. photographs and possibly material samples or their analysis.
    Mr Henderson’s descriptions were certainly used by all teams.

    The funny thing is that nobody questions Henderson’s simulations, IMHO they are technically correct but done with an arbitrary assumption about drop altitude that makes them irrelevant, not even wrong.
    Another funny thing is that in point 17,
    Henderson says that a lower impact speed and a different impact angle was compatible with the building’s damage,
    which is compatible with the 3 independent experts reports, the ones that did not even visit Douma.

    «  to throw out a report by experienced and veteran OPCW inspectors « 
    So you mean that work of an experienced OPCW inspector should be respected and taken seriously? So why do you neglect OPCW final report, written by tens of OPCW inspectors with equal or higher experience and competence in many more areas?

    You contradict yourself and are unfamiliar with Henderson’s and OPCW reports.

    Reply
    • SorryViennese

      Dear fellow – Commentators, dear Servus,

      has anybody found a link to the “…3 independent experts reports,….”, against Hendersons (H) position, mentioned by Servus above? I am also searching for them, as Servus does. Perhaps BC should urge OPCW to release them, BC will have more authority then we commentators, I guess.

      KR, SV

      Reply
      • Jeroen

        Perhaps you could urge grayzone to release the identity of the so called “third whisteblower”, will have more authority, your credentials might help.

        Reply
        • SorryViennese

          Dear Jeroen,
          I will not urge anybody, I am a nobody.
          Up to now we have to conclude, the 3 indepentend expert reports are missing in the public. Let´s see if Servus has got them (see above)

          Reply
          • Servus

            Vienia,
            … do I have to teach you desinformation tactics?

            You should have asked :

            When did you stopped having the 3 reports ?

            It’s bit amusing but I can not answer your question in a way you could understand it.
            If I say I have never seen these, then in your FSB mentality of a world as hostile conspiracy, it will be an affirmation. If I say I have these but will not share, will leave you with doubts. is he bluffing?
            So I just sent the stuff to Wikileaks, your publishing house, to be presented at RT by Assange replacement.

  3. Michael Fischer

    “It seems possible that Whelan’s email of the 20th May 2019, which criticises the OPCW for kicking out Henderson and insists he was a member of the FFM, was written with the intention of leaking it later in support of Whelan’s own claims.”

    Is it definitely an extract of an email from Whelan (dated 20 May 2019)?

    According to Brain Whitaker “it comes from an unidentified supporter”!? (https://al-bab.com/blog/2019/12/leaked-opcw-documents-what-they-really-show-about-douma-investigation)

    Reply
  4. Gerhard

    Statistical analysis of comments at a glance..OPCW series through part four as of now: 333

    Comments for ALL other articles since OPCW part one was published: 75

    Other than the Iranian downing of the Ukrainian jetliner, which was certainly topical and newsworthy, what mystical force would persist in driving interest and traffic to the OPCW discussion? Spoiler alert: under any other circumstances this story is just not that controversial or interesting. Sorry. New stories about various conflicts all over the world are developing each day, and it just pushes all bounds of credulity to imagine that there is such an entrenched network of people who are so passionate about proving that Assad’s forces didn’t commit these attacks that they show up on here, day after day, pushing any theory that corroborates their thin and scientifically baseless story.

    Come on, even Mrs. Assad wouldn’t expend more energy than a wave of the hand if this came up at a dictator dinner get-together.

    So I ask you, self-ordained true believers in seemingly whatever contradicts the OPCW’s findings, if you’re not simply paid to do so under orders, why do you continue to post anything and everything ad infinitum on this topic, even long after it’s really no longer relevant in terms of current affairs?

    Otherwise you sound like Putin claiming that Poland allied with Germany in WWII or other such nonsense.

    I happen to like Pepsi better than Coca-Cola, but you won’t find me posting every hour on the hour on Twitter about how Coca-Cola’s latest product is doomed to failure. I’m pretty sure even PepsiCo’s paid social media PR department wouldn’t bother.

    Occam’s razor therefore dictates that those with a seemingly irrational and irrelevant interest in a topic with an opinion that aligns perfectly with the Syrian and Russian propaganda narrative must be Syrian or Russian direct operatives, contributors or sympathisers (or even perhaps aspirants). Full stop.

    Reply
    • Servus

      Agree, persistance of these Russian FSB collaborators in their effort to discredit OPCW and the Douma FFM final report merits some analysis.
      Russia does not seem to have any real strategy , apart of course what’s written in golden letters behind mr Putins desk:
      ‘ So little time, so much to steal’
      And the rest are just ´special operations’ to keep power and steak undisturbed.

      The upcoming big event, that could make laundering stolen funds or keeping these difficult are US election and possible fall of the Orange Clown.
      In their multilayered support, Russian trolls try to support an ´independent’ antiwar candidate. There is one lady that plaid this role already, but this time her limited electorate might not be enough…. there is another one, a rouge democrat lady that could be persuaded to run.
      A note by BC about false claims at T Gabbard’s web site solicited round 60 or more trolls’ replies a day, for 3 days, so they see her as someone useful , and her Douma conspiracy theory was an essential narrative of her isolationist stance.

      Depending how it all develops we may see an intensification of attacks on OPCW .

      It maybe an exaggeration, but analysis of the activity level and type of messages, could constitute a form of a backchannel informing of current Russian ongoing special operations.

      Reply
      • Amused

        an in-depth analysis of comments is as follows: 77% of them belong to editorial staff, 13% to supporters of Russia and Assad, and 10% to people who abhor any kind of manipulation.

        PS “fall of the Orange Clown” is rather unlikely. You will have a topic to tell conspiratorial theories for the next 4 years 🙂

        Reply
  5. SorryViennese

    Cylinder at Location 4 was not airdropped, according to Newtons laws.

    Considering Location 4 (“cylinder on the bed”, offical OPCW Interim Report as of June 2018).

    The major assumption of Henderson (H) is, that the laws of Newton are ruling this cylinders trajectory. None of the commentators up to now objected this laws seriously, nor the report publised by the OPCW, referred to by Bellingcat. None of the commentators challenged, that the Figures no. 6 – 11 in this report, describe the reality of the cylinder found at Location 4.

    This “airdorpped” cyclinder could only have fallen vertically after pentrating the roof (see interim report above, Figures 6 – 8). His next hit after the penetration hole, must have been vertically below that hole. However the cylinder was found in the bed, 3-5 meters away from that – hit the floor spot (“initial landing point”) (see Figure 9).

    Additionally the fall from the roof-hole must have also been quite gently, otherwise the cylinder would have smashed through the floor of the bed room. Thus it´s speed was to low to penetrate further. With such a non-penetrating low speed, the cylinder could not have made a big jump, high up to the bed and some meters aways from the impact point. This is called a lateral movement by ballistic and forensic experts.

    Only a light plastic of rubber cylinder could have jumped a such, never a iron/steel cylinder. A heavy cylinder would crash into/through the floor, not jumping up, vigorously enough.

    To illustrate this situation in lay language: Have you ever dropped a standard camping-gas-cylinder, weighting around 22 kg on a floor in you room from a height of 2m. Does is jump? No, it make quite a damage on the tiles, or the wooden floor, and in a concrete floor it leaves quite a mark. And if there is a textile on the floor, protecting the floor, the cylinder does even jump less so, expecially not sideways and up 30cm, after haven falling vertically.

    Thus the cylinder found at location 4 the “bed – cylinder” was not airdropped. He cannot have been airdropped, the necessary trajectory is impossible. That is dictated by the laws of Newton, and the material condition of a steel/iron cylinder of that size.

    H. explains this in scientific language in his leaked summary. OPCW has not published any arguments against this ballistic finding of H., the claimed 3 experts have not stood public scuritiny nor their claimed reports were seen.

    Before replying, please look up the “offcial” Figures 6 – 11 and the “offcial text” passages § 7.31, 7.32 accompaning them, again

    (Source: OPCW Interim Report as of June 2018 – https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FirstdraftInterimReport-clean.pdf).

    Summary
    As logic clearly says, if one cylinder was not airdropped, there was a least one manual operation. Whose hands were involved at Location 4? As we excluded the “hand of good” (when accepting Newtons laws), these were human hands.

    Reply
    • Servus

      Dear Vienia, RF Troll apprentice,

      Lets have a look at your Location 4 text.

      1. Use of obsolete, incomplete and preliminary information.
      The text is based on OPCW preliminary report, one can read all over it “needs more information”, “needs more analysis” etc. This document is based on incomplete information, incomplete analysis and may have incorrect conclusions, this is how “preliminary” reports work. It has been obsoleted by the final FFM report with more facts, analysis and simulations.

      Using an obsolete, preliminary and incomplete technical report may lead to false conclusion and is a grave methodological error that alone disqualifies you as a serious discussion partner.

      2. False and arbitrary assumption.
      The false, arbitrary assumption is that “This “airdorpped” cyclinder could only have fallen vertically after pentrating the roof”.
      The cylinder fell almost flat on the terrace, leaving a rectangular hole roughly 1m x 1.6m and according to simulations : “The studies further indicated that, after passing through the ceiling and impacting the floor at lower speed, the cylinder continued an altered trajectory, until reaching the position in which it was found.”
      The trajectory through the crater can be seen at the fig 10, the cylinder continues horizontally.

      Arbitrary and false assumption lead to false conclusions, is a grave methodological error that alone disqualifies you as a serious discussion partner.

      3. Unsubstantiated conclusion
      About cylinders trajectory after roof penetration “Thus it´s speed was to low to penetrate further. With such a non-penetrating low speed, the cylinder could not have made a big jump, high up to the bed and some meters aways from the impact point. ”

      Why “could not”, what was this “low speed”. The funny thing is that you could have used Newton’s t laws (tell us which) to calculate the minimum speed required for this jump (need one more general principle, tell us which), this is high school physics. Physical laws are quantitative, you say you use Newton law (which exactly) and what are the quantitative analysis to support your claim.

      The FFM final has a section with the simulations that confirm the cylinders trajectory at low speed, actually even two. (find them, exercise for the reader)

      Arbitrary and false conclusions is a grave methodological error that alone disqualifies you as a serious discussion partner.

      4. Using analogies as a proof.
      Ramblings “Only a light plastic of rubber cylinder “, using analogies is not a valid logical reasoning (except in bulliean logic, from “bulls..”). Analogies don’t provide a valid proof.

      Using analogies as a proof leads to invalid conclusions, is a grave methodological error that alone disqualifies you as a serious discussion partner.

      5. Unfamiliarity with quoted reports.
      “H. explains this in scientific language in his leaked summary. OPCW has not published any arguments against this ballistic finding of H., ”
      This is true, because Henderson’s report is on a different subject, it’s not an alternative to OPCW final. OPCW looked at the observable facts and asked a question, what energy did a cylinder need to make the damage, what impact angle and velocity would it need to have. No assumptions, just analysis of the observable facts. While Henderson says , helicopter could not have dropped the cylinder from the altitude lower than 500m and such drop was to energetic for the damages. Nobody disagrees with this technical analysis but limiting the drop altitude to 500m is arbitrary. Why should OPCW discuss Henderson’s report, it’s not even on the subject, it does not account for the observable facts.

      Unfamiliarity with discussed documents leads to random conclusions and alone disqualifies you as a serious discussion partner.

      Reply
      • SorryViennese

        Dear Servus,
        I am happy that you are back from the weekend, I hope it was relaxing, now work starts again:

        You did not address the central issue, you did not comment Figure 9, as I explicetly requested above.

        Please note, never it was said that Figure 9, and the other figures (6-8) are not correct.
        From this figures everybody can see that the iron/steel cylinder cannot have “altered” it´s trajectory – except by the hand of god –
        It cannot have jumped onto the bed.
        And that is must have come down vertically is presented in the figures 6-8.

        There is no detailed evidence presented in the public about the wondersome ballistics in the final report, written up by different people than the FFM at Location 4.
        The claimed 3 contra-Henderson experts are missing, unknown, … (we discussed it)

        So your lengthy text is obfuscating … to make people not to look at the Figures of the interim report (see my posts on 15th of Feb.) , and then jugde themselves.
        KR SV

        Reply
        • Servus

          Dear Vienia,

          You say “Please note, never it was said that Figure 9, and the other figures (6-8) are not correct.”, the figure 9 says “presumed initial landing point”.
          So you seem to understand that this is a preliminary information that does not need to be correct.
          But you use it as an established fact.
          Let me quote myself :
          “Using an obsolete, preliminary and incomplete technical report may lead to false conclusion and is a grave methodological error that alone disqualifies you as a serious discussion partner.”

          The elements of the trajectory can be deduced from the two simulation of low speed trajectory present in the final report but one needs to be able to read the graphs.

          “The claimed 3 contra-Henderson experts are missing, unknown, … (we discussed it) ”
          I told you already several times that the 3 reports (results of one of them are in final report) are on a different subject than the Henderson’s simulations and thus are not in contradiction.

          Take my answers to your English class.

          You insist for at least third time that 3×3=11. So, I guess you must be right.

          Reply
  6. SorryViennese

    small typo correction (“or” instead “of”):
    I meant above:
    Only a light plastic, or rubber cylinder …

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link:

TRUST IN JOURNALISM - IMPRESS