Saudi Journalist Disappears in Saudi Consulate in Turkey

There are dead bodies, there are wounded, there are their parents, relatives and friends. Still the wounded are in the hospital.
How do you know this? Have you seen them yourself? Have you talked to them?

It is news number #1 in Russia.
Can we believe this news?

There is a lot of witnesses.
How do you know this? Have you talked to them yourself? How do you know they are telling the truth?

There is a lot of photos, videos.
How do you know they have not been faked?

There is a list of killed.
Who published this list? How do you know it is true?
 
He was. He also said there's software freely available, that can identify the fact, and identify the original, unedited, bitrate and compression.

Edit for stupid autocorrect.
I think you're somehow completely missing my point, which I had thought was pretty simple, and for some reason I can't even guess ignoring the question I asked:

'How? How, exactly, would a tape "reveal how the bugging was done and who was involved in doing it"?'

If the Turks had wanted to edit the alleged recording so that it didn't give away the source but remained fully recognisable by changing volume, pitch, background sounds, noise, filters, etc, etc, I'm quite sure they could have done so in the ample time they've allegedly had it. (edit: the software that's freely available, for example, apparently doesn't work to tell you original bitrate, compression, etc, if any editing / re-recording, etc, is done the 'old-fashioned way' - analogue, not digital - hardly complicated)

I'm also quite sure they could have played the original or the edited version to Pompeo during his visit if they'd wanted to and neither he nor anyone with him would have been able to identify the source.

I'm also quite sure thay could have played the edited version to Trump and neither he nor the NSA would have been able to identify the source.

They also had numerous other options and combinations of options, including explaining that the recording was edited, only playing the edited 'highlights', giving full original or translated transcripts, etc.

The option they chose was instead to announce they had recordings then, apparently, to leak all or part of the recordings to their own media, and reportedly say that they'd given either Trump or Pompeo or both copies or played the recordings for them then to say that they hadn't. That may be your or others' idea of the Turks getting it right or somehow playing their cards close to their vests, but it isn't mine.
 
Last edited:
How do you know this? Have you seen them yourself? Have you talked to them?


Can we believe this news?


How do you know this? Have you talked to them yourself? How do you know they are telling the truth?


How do you know they have not been faked?


Who published this list? How do you know it is true?
In the same style I could ask - who is Canadian PM? Justin Trudeau? Really? But does he exist? Have you seen him? ... Btw, Putin exists. Once he complained that my handshake was too hard.
I agree that any news have only probability that the information is correct. It could be close to 1 or close to 0.
 
Last edited:

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
One wonders how many more Saudi exiles are going to get the chop (to coin a phrase).
 
How do you know this? Have you seen them yourself? Have you talked to them?


Can we believe this news?


How do you know this? Have you talked to them yourself? How do you know they are telling the truth?


How do you know they have not been faked?


Who published this list? How do you know it is true?
Let's return to the Khashoggi case. We see only allegations. Most news have form
- Turkish police believe that...
- Pres.Trump thinks that...
- There are reports that...
But allegation being reported even by the most reputable news source remains merely an allegation.
There is however a rare exception. The Saudis agreed for inspection of the consulate on the early stage. It is a very important information not being reported by MSM. Only relatively recently the consulate was searched by Turkish police ... though without any result. I suspect that the Turkish knew it and tried to postpone the search as far as possible. But why? Why do you think the consulate was not searched 6 October?
 
Last edited:
Yes .... the face-saving / only way out for the KSA and USA, however laughable, seems unavoidable.

BTW, I freely admit being technically challenged but I was reliably told there'd be an "Oh sh1t" moment from anyone talking about using software to get bit rates, compression, etc, from recordings as soon as I mentioned re-recording using analogue rather than digital recording. Was there?
 
A fair point but any defence of the KSA based on that argument is as laughable as the Russian chaps' claimed love of cathedrals. Put another way, at the moment the evidence is being leaked in drips. What is the benefit of not releasing the evidence now if it will need to be released at some point? The KSA defence about rogue elements will be unconvincing now, or if the formal release of evidence is delayed.

I get the idea that there's some benefit for Turkey in making the Saudis look like idiots for as long as possible.
Releasing all the evidence at once hands the initiative over to the Saudis. They'll come up with some story to counter the evidence. Drip feeding it puts them on the back foot. The Saudis come up with a story to cover one allegation. Tomorrow a slightly different allegation is publicised which needs another story and eventually the Saudi stories begin to contradict each other.

Drip feeding also keeps the story running. Publicise all the evidence at once and the public will have forgotten it as soon as the next celebrity divorce or royal baby gets announced.
 
Releasing all the evidence at once hands the initiative over to the Saudis. They'll come up with some story to counter the evidence. Drip feeding it puts them on the back foot. The Saudis come up with a story to cover one allegation. Tomorrow a slightly different allegation is publicised which needs another story and eventually the Saudi stories begin to contradict each other.

Drip feeding also keeps the story running. Publicise all the evidence at once and the public will have forgotten it as soon as the next celebrity divorce or royal baby gets announced.
Problem with that is that so far the only contradictions seem to be with the drip feeds!

All the Saudis have to do to come up with a story Trump can find credible is follow his lead, however absurd it is now - it's all true, but all down to 'rogue elements'.
 
Off topic a bit (and knowing that size doesn't always = lack of fitness) some of the KSA chaps ID'd as being Int/Sy/SF and involved in this matter need to lay off the KSA version of chips.
Their version of chips being...chips. Used to get a great "broast" chcken on the way down to the Red sea. Chicken cooked on a spit just so, taken off and thrown in a deep fat fryer. Lush.

Also used to party/dive with a KSA SF major, who wasn't a chunky, had been through Bragg (which means nothing though) and was OK ish, apart from the fact he kept a pet baboon.
 
Last edited:
I think you're somehow completely missing my point, which I had thought was pretty simple, and for some reason I can't even guess ignoring the question I asked:

'How? How, exactly, would a tape "reveal how the bugging was done and who was involved in doing it"?'

If the Turks had wanted to edit the alleged recording so that it didn't give away the source but remained fully recognisable by changing volume, pitch, background sounds, noise, filters, etc, etc, I'm quite sure they could have done so in the ample time they've allegedly had it. (edit: the software that's freely available, for example, apparently doesn't work to tell you original bitrate, compression, etc, if any editing / re-recording, etc, is done the 'old-fashioned way' - analogue, not digital - hardly complicated)
(...)
So the Turks follow your advice and release heavily altered recordings, to which the Saudis reply that they had forensic experts examine them and have determined that the recordings have been altered and are therefore obviously fake. Yes, I can see that going so well.
 
I think you may have misunderstood what I posted. What I'm suggesting is that the recording could have been re-recorded / edited very easily to hide the original bitrate and all the other information, with the voices still sounding the same, saying the same thing.

That seems to be what you're also saying!
Not really. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mask an altered bitrate given sufficient ambition to determine the original.
 
The Turks are looking into whether the Saudis dumped the body outside Istanbul. Two vehicles belonging to the consulate left the building on the day that Khashoggi disappeared. One went to the Belgrade Forest near Istanbul, while the other went ot the city of Yalova, on the other side of the Sea of Marmara.
Turkey hasn't shared Khashoggi audio with U.S., minister says | CBC News
A Turkish official said Friday that investigators are looking into the possibility that Khashoggi's remains may have been taken to a forest on the outskirts of Istanbul or to another city — if and after he was killed inside the consulate earlier this month.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the secrecy of the ongoing investigation, told The Associated Press that police have established that two vehicles belonging to the consulate left the building on Oct. 2 — the day Khashoggi had walked in and vanished.

One of the vehicles travelled to the nearby Belgrade Forest while the other travelled to the city of Yalova, across the Sea of Marmara from Istanbul, the official said.
It was not immediately clear if police had already searched the areas.
 
From the same story, a former head of MI6, John Sawers, said that Khashoggi was probably killed on the orders of people close to bin Salman.
Turkey hasn't shared Khashoggi audio with U.S., minister says | CBC News
On Friday, a former head of Britain's MI6 overseas intelligence agency said Khashoggi was probably killed on the orders of people close to Prince Mohammed.
Sawers was the head of MI6 from 2009 to 2014. He said that all the evidence points to it being ordered and carried out by people close to bin Salman. He also said that he doesn't think that bin Salman would have done this if he didn't think he had licence from the US to do whatever he wanted. Sawers also said that the death of Khashoggi should be a wake-up call to the US about how dangerous it is to have people acting with sense of impunity because of their relationship with the US.
John Sawers, who headed MI6 between 2009 and 2014, said "all the evidence points to it being ordered and carried out" by people close to Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler.
Sawers told the BBC, "I don't think he would have done this if he hadn't thought he had licence from the U.S. administration to frankly behave as he wished to do so."
Sawers said the fate of Khashoggi was a wake-up call to the Trump administration about "just how dangerous it is to have people acting with a sense that they have impunity in their relationship with United States."
I think that Sawers's opinion and advice should be taken very seriously and I find it difficult to argue with either his conclusions or his advice.
 
From the same story, a former head of MI6, John Sawers, said that Khashoggi was probably killed on the orders of people close to bin Salman.
Turkey hasn't shared Khashoggi audio with U.S., minister says | CBC News


Sawers was the head of MI6 from 2009 to 2014. He said that all the evidence points to it being ordered and carried out by people close to bin Salman. He also said that he doesn't think that bin Salman would have done this if he didn't think he had licence from the US to do whatever he wanted. Sawers also said that the death of Khashoggi should be a wake-up call to the US about how dangerous it is to have people acting with sense of impunity because of their relationship with the US.


I think that Sawers's opinion and advice should be taken very seriously and I find it difficult to argue with either his conclusions or his advice.
Very interesting. Do you think that, in the same way that the Turks are releasing into via third parties, Sawers might be reflecting the view of some in our Sy Svcs re. this issue? (it is an unusual intervention).
I agree with you re. this being an official Saudi thing; the 'someone trying to discredit Mbs' line doesn't wash as he is obviously in a position of power such that it would be most unwise for someone to attempt such a thing (as Kashoggi's seeming fate demonstrates) and his judgment has previously been seen to unsound (Lebanese PM kidnapped - something which would be tolerated in very few other states). He doesn't need to be made to appear reckless if he is actually reckless.
 
Last edited:
So the Turks follow your advice and release heavily altered recordings, to which the Saudis reply that they had forensic experts examine them and have determined that the recordings have been altered and are therefore obviously fake. Yes, I can see that going so well.
I'm starting to think you have some sort of reading or comprehension problem. I've put it in bold for you as you obviously missed it before:
...including explaining that the recording was edited ...


Not really. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mask an altered bitrate given sufficient ambition to determine the original.
Sorry, but you need to read further on to my reply to @ThelmatheBelmer:
...the software that's freely available, for example, apparently doesn't work to tell you original bitrate, compression, etc, if any editing / re-recording, etc, is done the 'old-fashioned way' - analogue, not digital - hardly complicated
... and ...
BTW, I freely admit being technically challenged but I was reliably told there'd be an "Oh sh1t" moment from anyone talking about using software to get bit rates, compression, from recordings, etc, as soon as I mentioned re-recording using analogue rather than digital recording. Was there?
As I said, I'm technically challenged hence the talk about Apple watches, etc was beyond me so I checked this with an expert first and was assured that yours (and @TtheB's and @terminal's) is a common mistake as the possibility of using an old-fashioned analogue recording, such as a cassette, is often overlooked and obviously no matter how much ambition you have you can't get a digital bitrate from an analogue recording.

... unless the answer's 42, of course :cool:
 
Very interesting. Do you think that, in the same way that the Turks are releasing into via third parties, Sawers might be reflecting the view of some in our Sy Svcs re. this issue? (it is an unusual intervention).
I agree with you re. this being an official Saudi thing; the 'someone trying to discredit Mbs' line doesn't wash as he is obviously in a position of power such that it would be most unwise for someone to attempt such a thing (as Kashoggi's seeming fate demonstrates) and his judgment has previously been seen to unsound (Lebanese PM kidnapped - something which would be tolerated in very few other states). He doesn't need to be made to appear reckless if he is actually reckless.
I'm about to listen to the podcast where Sawers is being asked about this. I suspect that the BBC thought that he would be a good person to ask about such things and so requested an interview. As to whether Sawers got this cleared by the government prior to appearing on radio, it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Very interesting stuff, after I stuck out the pro-EU plug - which was doubtless why he got an airing. I'm glad he did however as his views about Turkey, KSA, etc were insightful. Will be interesting to hear your opinion, @terminal.
 

Similar threads

Top