
How Times Reporters Proved Russia Bombed Syrian Hospitals - tobr
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/reader-center/russia-syria-hospitals-investigation.html
======
galkk
If it were a scientific article, I'd say that it's unconvincing. At all.

Can they share raw data, and not just handwaiving?

>During our investigation, we obtained tens of thousands of previously
unpublished audio recordings between Russian Air Force pilots and ground
control officers in Syria. We also obtained months of flight data logged by a
network of Syrian observers who have been tracking warplanes to warn civilians
of impending airstrikes. The flight observations came with the time, location
and general type of each aircraft spotted.

Where? How? Can they be forged? Can we hear them? Can we trust them? Can we
trust NYT?

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in
videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some
blockchain or other, etc. And, while we are at it: what's to say Google Earth
is accurate? The audio recordings just sound russian to you! Does the Mig
actually exist, or isn't all that just Hollywood special effects to invent a
reason for the F-35 to exist?

Point being: this is a good example proving how unrealistic this often-
repeated HN cliché of "don't trust anyone" is. Any attempt to give self-
anointed über-rational sceptics what they are asking for just results in more
scepticism, kinda like any "missing link" fossil allows christian
fundamentalists to argue that there are now two missing links.

~~~
galkk
> And once they publish all that data, you'll be complaining that metadata in
> videos can be changed, images doctored, the lists aren't recorded in some
> blockchain or other, etc

I will be able to check it and have my own conclusions, if I'd like to.

There were already comments in this chain that there is no word "Srabota" in
Russian. It should be either "Srabotalo" or "Srabotala". I'm native Russian
and Ukrainian speaker, so hearing the record could convince or unconvince me.

> Any attempt to give self-anointed über-rational sceptics what they are
> asking for just results in more scepticism, kinda like any "missing link"
> fossil allows christian fundamentalists to argue that there are now two
> missing links.

Of course I should trust the Book without doubts, it has everything written in
in it, and it's the Truth! That's what you mean?

~~~
simonh
<insert generic objection that could apply to anything here>

*But when there is sufficient evidence, shouldn’t we at least look deeper?

<Ah, so you believe anything then?>

Nice line of argument you’ve got going there.

------
tobr
I found the technical description of how the evidence was pieced together
quite fascinating.

------
sam_lowry_
'Srabota' is not a russian word. I doubt the rest of the article is better if
they managed to make a stupid mistake in the 1st sentence.

~~~
andybp85
Google translate auto-detects it as Russian as сработа:
[https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto...](https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=srabota)

Punching that word into google.ru suggests работа, which then translates to
various forms of "work"
[https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE...](https://en.openrussian.org/ru/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0)

I know nothing about Russian beyond a few swear words, but seems like a
transliteration nuance, and "it's done" could be a fair translation. I'd
definitely defer to a Russian speaker though.

~~~
sam_lowry_
Machine learning imitates, but does not induce rules.

------
ex3ndr
There are no word “srabota” in Russian. Such word probably is from from one of
other Slavic languages of Western Europe.

~~~
keiferski
Probably srabotala as the other commenter said.

 _The Russian phrase, which directly translates as “it’s worked..._

It doesn’t exactly bode well for the NYT if their article is about decoding
Russian transmissions and they mistranslate the opening sentence...

~~~
ex3ndr
Sure, but this is most critical word in the whole article and it is translated
incorrectly? How so? Do they really spent hours translating and then write
incorrect word?

~~~
keiferski
I interpreted that typo to mean that the Times wasn’t particularly interested
in reporting the straight facts, but rather trying to push a particular story
they were looking to be true. Ergo minor mistakes like a few less-than-
perfectly translated words are irrelevant, especially when the intended
audience doesn’t speak Russian to begin with.

~~~
ex3ndr
That adds oil to the fire. And I just can’t show it to my parents in Russia.
And Russian government can easily destroy arguments in this article. This
article is made only for clicks and makes everything just worse.

