Talk:Theodore Postol

Iron Dome Timelime

the section on Iron Dome is chronologically incorrect

Postol first praised Iron Dome in November 2012, then in March 2013 was quoted in an article by the late Reuven Pedatzur. A few months later Magen Laoref (Israeli anti-Iron Dome, Pro-THEL non-profit) published Postol's FRIST memo about the Iron Dome.

Rubin's response (in the current wiki) was due to Postol's 2013 memo.

Postol wrote MORE in 2014 once the hostilities in Gaza resumed (talking points memo currently referenced in wiki). This was also addressed by Rubin in a Reuters blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Listing RT - the russian propaganda portal - as a "source" (https://www.rt.com/usa/384520-postol-report-sarin-syria/) is very questionable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.230.208.82 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nation source

Does mention Postol—I'm not sure I understand the objection. El_C 12:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a strong objection, just think 3 sources unnecessary. The current WP article text with the footnote is "Based on his own analysis of the photographic evidence, Postol has argued that the chemical attack was not an air raid, but conducted from the ground using a multiple rocket launcher, most probably a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it." The Nation article doesn't really substantiate that, it just says "Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Theodore Postol has aggressively questioned many of these claims, however." And it's an opinion piece, not a news item, and this sentence is buried a long way down. The RT interview with Postol, or the IBT article footnoted in the previous section, seem better references to me.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. El_C 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

This paragraph (much of it was long-standing, some of which was written in a month ago), which includes multiple citations, was deleted today with the justification "his paragraph is a mess and needs discussion and consensus before information therein could be included in another form":

Based on his own analysis of the photographic evidence, Postol initially argued that the chemical attack was not an air raid, but conducted from the ground using a multiple rocket launcher, most probably a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it. On 18 April, Postol published an analysis of photo evidence of the smoke plume which he argued conclusively showed that a crater he identified as the site of rebel-caused ground explosion was the site of sarin release. On 21 April, he revised this view: "In my earlier report released on April 18, 2017 I misinterpreted the wind-direction convention which resulted in my estimates of plume directions being exactly 180° off in direction." Later in April, Postol claimed that the "French Intelligence Report of April 26, 2017 directly contradicts the White House Intelligence Report of 11 April, 2017". The following day he revised his view, noting that he had confused the date and location for a different chemical attack four years earlier.

What's the problem exactly? What's messy that can't be fixed with relatively minor edits? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

When emotions calm down he seems to be proven right - antimissile effective drops to the percent he had first stated. 2601:181:8301:4510:69AB:ECB2:8169:248A (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Destroyed vs intercepted and the patriot

We need to add a definition for each of these terms in the context of the patriot. The article seems to use them interchangeably when they are not. YEEETER0 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)