An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.Attack on Aleppo aid convoy was air strike: U.N. expert
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
There is no definitive proof, evidence or confirmation what so ever!
Claim "Analysis of satellite imagery of a deadly attack on an aid convoy in Syria last month showed that it was an air strike, a U.N. expert said on Wednesday"
Some 20 people were killed in the attack on the U.N. and Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoy at Urem Al-Kubra near the northern city of Aleppo that also destroyed 18 of 31 trucks, a warehouse and clinic.
The United States blamed two Russian warplanes which it said were in the skies above the area at the time of the incident. Moscow denies this and says the convoy caught fire.
Alleged proof: "We had an image of that and could clearly see the damage there. With our analysis we determined it was an air strike and I think multiple other sources have said that as well," Lars Bromley, research adviser at UNOSAT, told a news briefing.Lars Bromley is discussing an image of damage."We had an image of that and could clearly see the damage there" Not confirming an airstrike.
He then employs the logical fallacy of Bandwagon:The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true
The Bandwagon statement verbatim: "I think multiple other sources have said that as well,"
Lars Bromley continues:
"For air strikes, what you are usually looking out for is the size of the crater that is visible and the type of crater," he said. A giant crater was caused "almost certainly (by) air dropped munitions" as opposed to artillery or mortars, he said.Notice that the quoted statement “almost certainly by airdropped munitions” is out of context?
Would his second statement have supported the first statement had it not been taken out of context?
Even if we take that second sentence at face value and we should not, “almost certainly”, does not equal confirmation!
Reuters: "The United Nations has referred officially only to an "attack", which led to a brief suspension of its convoys in Syria. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies initially referred to "air strikes" in a statement"Here’s where we get to the real nitty gritty!.
UNOSAT (U.N. Operational Satellite Applications Programme), which reviews only commercially available satellite images, has not been asked to share its analysis with the U.N. investigators, but is prepared to do so, UNOSAT manager Einar Bjorgo said. "Our images are from time to time used in order to brief Security Council members," he said.UNOSAT has not been asked to share it’s analysis with UN investigators. Then how can confirmation be claimed? Obviously, it cannot.
Let’s read still more gibberish passing as confirmation
‘"What you see is (that) formerly blasted and blown up areas are experiencing a great deal of additional damage. So it's actually hard to do the analysis because to a certain extent you are looking at rubble being pushed around. But it's certainly highly visible."Additional damage? From mortar fire? Grad Missiles? I can think of several possibilities why there would be additional damage?
"it's actually hard to do the analysis" He's clearly leaving himself lots of room for when this claim is demolished. He's leaving room for error so his credibility cannot be questioned, though it should be.
“Rubble being pushed around”- could be anything from a bull dozer being used, to terrorist tunnels being dug, to large gusts of wind. It could be anything
The UN expert confirmed nothing and the headlines from today are nothing more then the same type of toxic perception management that is discussed endlessly here at the blog!
UPDATE: 12:42 EST- Wednesday October 5/2016
More Fake NEWS!!!
Clearly the Aid Convoy Air Strike news is the disinfo meme for today, or at least one of them!
Here's additional headlines to validate the point being made:
The Reuters news story, linked above, tied the Aleppo Convoy attack to an airstike was complete and utter propaganda. A number of others ran with it. No critical thinking skills employed by Huffpost/Sputnik or The Sun. Unflippin' believable! Well, not really considering yesterday's post!Aleppo aid convoy attack 'was an air strike'
The Sun-7 hours agoUN: Attack On Aleppo Aid Convoy Was Airstrike
Huffington Post-4 hours agoUN Official Confirms Airstrike Destroyed Aid Convoy for Aleppo ...
Sputnik International-5 hours ago
The actual news emanating from the UN had nothing to do with the convoy and everything to do with Aleppo in general
The news that was being reported will be featured in full below- The url does not match the headline or story, which is kind of odd. Headline: "UN releases satellite images of damage in Syria's Aleppo"
GENEVA (AP) — The U.N. on Wednesday released stark satellite images showing the most recent destruction of Syria's embattled northern city of Aleppo, which has been pounded by Syrian and Russian airstrikes since the collapse of a U.S.-Russia brokered cease-fire two weeks ago.
The release coincided with a stepped-up offensive by Syrian government forces and their allies attacking the city from the south in a bid to penetrate opposition-controlled areas, where the U.N. estimates 275,000 people are trapped in a government siege.
In Geneva, an official with the U.N.'s satellite imagery program said the new pictures from the rebel-held areas in the eastern half of the city show much destruction, presumably caused by airstrikes. U.N. and advocacy groups say hundreds of civilians, including at least 100 children, have died in the recent violence.
"Since the cease-fire has broken down, you certainly see an awful lot of new damage," said Lars Bromley, a research adviser at UNOSAT.Satellite imagery from the U.S. State Department! Gosh, the US wouldn't doctor satellite imagery would they? ;)
The images, from DigitalGlobe and obtained by the U.N. agency through a licensing arrangement with the U.S. State Department, show mostly "formerly blasted and blown-up areas" during Syria's 5-1/2-year war "experiencing a great deal of additional damage," said Bromley.
"To a certain extent you're looking at rubble being pushed around," he told reporters.
That's the exact quote from the news article claiming airstrikes hit the Aleppo aid convoy!
The images primarily consist of before-and-after pictures from mid to late September showing the destruction of buildings, including houses, after the short-lived cease-fire broke down. Several images are from northern Aleppo neighborhoods, where government forces have advanced against rebel fighters who are battling back.
Some of the images depict large craters, a "signature" that airstrikes have done the damage. Artillery or mortar fire creates a different pattern of destruction, Bromley said.
Airstrikes in Aleppo. Not airstrikes to the aid convoy. Reuters wrote a total disinfo article all these other news outlets ran with it!
The U.N. satellite images could provide significant insights in the aftermath of high-profile, disputed attacks — such as a deadly attack on a U.N.-backed humanitarian aid convoy west of Aleppo last month.
"could provide insights" But didn't because this news had zero to do with the convoy, despite media disinfo and spin
The top U.S. military officer, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, told a Senate committee last week that he believes Russia bombed the convoy and said Syrian and Russian aircraft were in the area at the time. Russia and Syria have denied that they were responsible for the strike, with Russia saying the damage was caused by a cargo fire.Wash, rinse and more spin!
hattip to my hubby for finding the news article containing the actual content- not connected to the spin