He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda.
Theres a difference.
By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person *you* quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really.
> By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
What problems are these? its hard to tell.
You said:
> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”:
> > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.
Mostly, yes.
Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.
So your reply is a non sequitur?