Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17 ?
Notes on propaganda war around the tragedy

Facts? Who needs facts when your task is hysterical scapegoating to promote neoliberal agenda. Thus MSM coverage of the incident became a classic "kangaroo court"

High resolution version of the picture above is available from http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf

More photos at Flickr Jeroen Akkermans RTL News Berlin's Photostream

News The Far Right Forces in Ukraine Recommended Links Some technical characteristics of SU-25 relevant to MH17 tragedy

BUK air defense system

Why air space over Donetsk province was not closed

July 17-19 Week of July 20-26 Week of July 27- Aug 2 Week of Aug 3-9 Week of Aug 10-16 Week of Aug 17-23
Resurgence of ideology of neo-fascism EuroMaidan 101 To whom EuroMaidan Sharp-shooters belong? Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014 Mariupol, May 9 events Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law
Provisional government Fifth column Suppression of Russian language and culture in Ukraine Ukraine's oligarchs Ukraine as a Cleft country: an easy target for color revolution Russian Ukrainian Gas wars
Events of November 30 and aftermath SBU raid on Kiev Batkivshchina office Revolt of diplomats Nulandgate EU-brokered agreement on ending crisis Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair
Neoliberal Propaganda The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment Fighting Russophobia Foreign Agents Registration Act Russian Fifth column Humor Etc

"Process in which the mechanisms of projection or displacement are utilized in focusing feelings of aggression, hostility, frustration, etc., upon another individual or group; the amount of blame being unwarranted."

A definition of scapegoating[2]

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed... Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it... The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one... What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

Adolf Hitler

 

 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

July17-19 Week of July 20-26 Week of July 27- Aug 2 Week of Aug 3-9 Week of Aug 10-16 Week of Aug 17-23

[Oct 09, 2017] MH17 is indeed the very best example of ad nauseam western fake news that pushes people to look elsewhere for alternative reporting, if possible backed by tangible facts.

Oct 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

Muzzledagain -> Jacob Schønberg, 9 Oct 2017 10:22

the very best example is when their soldiers shot down the malaysian plane NH17 over Donbass in Ukraine!

This is indeed the very best example of ad nauseam western fake news that pushes people to look elsewhere for alternative reporting, if possible backed by tangible facts.
Jacob Schønberg , 9 Oct 2017 09:57
Fake news go back a very long time! The sovjet block developed it to perfection. Now Russia still use it. the very best example is when their soldiers shot down the malaysian plane NH17 over Donbass in Ukraine! The FSB (Secret Russian Police) made up so many strange explanations and their agents spread so many fake facts, that it was very easy to understand that the Russian Buk missile did the deed! such desperation - later https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17 / found all the evidense and Russian misinformation is 100 % exposed

[Sep 25, 2017] With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it

Notable quotes:
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."

Stephen M. St. John · 3 days ago

"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.

This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev.

The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it.

Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .

[Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
consortiumnews.com

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA.

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA. In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

[Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Notable quotes:
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.

Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".

In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"

Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.

Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".

Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"

Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First Draft" coalition.

Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to "strengthen" their "storytelling".

In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.

Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.

In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA.

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA. In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

[Sep 01, 2017] Putin statements and MH17

Now this start resembling JFS assassination story... This exchange is mainly rehash of old disinformation (Matt, Drutten) and mostly known counterarguments (marknesop). But there some new things about Putin interview and dismissal of some high ranking Russian commanders in 2015 (one year after the events, so it might not be connected).
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding "Carlos", I tracked him down a few years ago and if I recall correctly, it was a bizarre story involving a Spaniard living in Romania ..."
"... This, once evident to Moscow, led to a lot of drama within the Russian military echelons and ultimately led to the sudden dismissal of Colonel General Sidorov of the Western Military District in late 2015 (on direct orders by Vladimir Putin), together with a heap of other dismissals of high-ranking military officials in the regions bordering Ukraine. ..."
"... The radar unit cannot be left out if the Buk missiles are to actually hit their targets with any reliability. What would be the point of supplying the rebels such an ineffective system. (No the radar on the Buk launcher is not enough for precision tracking). ..."
"... As with any crime scene, physical evidence is vital. The Buk missile will not produce holes identical to 30 mm guns deployed on many fighter jets, including the ones in the vicinity of MH17: ..."
"... There's plenty of proof of Russian supplies to the Donbass. Don't be silly. It is also perfectly possible to determine when exactly these started occurring, namely in June 2014. Prior to that, the rebels had been relying on captured stock. ..."
"... What do fighter-bombers carry 30mm cannons for if the idea of their being able to shoot down a plane is 'laughable'? What's going to happen to an airliner if you shoot up the cockpit and kill the flight crew? Or would 30mm rounds just bounce off plexiglas? I'm not a proponent of the SU-25 theory, although it is not as impossible as some try to make you think. But let's not stray off too far into fantasy. ..."
"... (1) Ukraine claimed that its military destroyed all the air defense systems it had to leave behind as it retreated. So the rebels did not get a Buk system from the Ukrainian Army, unless it is lying. ..."
"... (2) The Bellingcat tale of a smuggled single SA-11 TEL unit into Ukraine, which precisely and efficiently shot down MH-17 without any supporting equipment and then raced back across the border to Russia via a circuitous route which includes at least one geographical feature the system could not have easily passed, is suspect at best and full of possibilities for tampering; and, ..."
"... (3) Russia had no motive for doing such a thing and every reason not to. ..."
"... But the most convincing thing is the western campaign of covering up for Ukraine. Ukraine has to be a suspect – has to – considering the incident occurred over Ukrainian territory, out of reach for Russia from its own territory, and Ukraine possesses the same weapons system. Yet the western reaction is to put Ukraine in charge of the disciplinary investigation, and give it cover. The west makes all sorts of conclusions based on no evidence, and will not produce evidence it says it has. ..."
"... ME, don't let this liar and his lying sources establish any false truths to frame the debate. Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section of a decommissioned IL-86 if there was any sort of doubt in Russia about the most affected area. In particular, why would Putin be less informed about the MH-17 than the average, credulous western sap who is told that Putin loves to shoot down civilian airliners for fun. ..."
"... "Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section." ..."
"... A Buk is the whole system, not the missile, although that is a minor point. The missile is the SA-11, and it goes where the system on the ground guides it, attacking the center of mass. It likely hit the cockpit – if it was an SA-11 – because it was leading the target slightly – algorithms in the guidance radar would be sending the missile to a point the aircraft would reach at a future moment in time if it remained on the same course and speed. ..."
"... I don't know why Putin would say the tail was hit, but he's not a retard and he knows the difference between active homing and IR guidance, and the engines of a 777 are on the wing roots , not in the tail. Nobody with any brains launches a heat-seeking missile in a head-to-head presentation; there's no heat trace in front of a plane. ..."
Aug 31, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 1:38 pm

Hello again, my friends.

Something very interesting has happened: Putin's thoughts about MH17 have been revealed, from the full-length interview text from the Stone interviews. A few things were omitted from the documentary and they are . quite extraordinary.

Apparently, Putin believes in the "Carlos the ATC" story. Not only that, but he claims MH17 was hit at the "tail" end, which is absolutely false. The cockpit was hit.

Now, I don't know when exactly he said his. Maybe he believed his media's own propaganda and maybe he said this very early on (interviews were filmed over a few years), before the JIT released its initial report. Still, pretty interesting:

!!!!!!!!-

"As far as I know, right after this horrible catastrophe, one of the Ukrainian flight dispatchers, I think he is of Spanish origins, said he had seen a fighter in the commercial plane's flight path," Putin reportedly told Stone.

"There could only have been a Ukrainian fighter jet there. That, of course, demands clarification," Putin is cited as saying by Dozhd.

In his comments to Stone, Putin also repeated previous claims that the Boeing was hit in its tail.

!!!!!!!–

Original source: https://tvrain.ru/news/pravda_vyjdet_naruzhu-443523/

Also, since we're on the subject: Mark, I just noticed your reply to a post of mine that was caught in the spam filter for a few days/weeks. The post was made sometime, I think, in June or July. You gave me some links to comments by another post here, from a few years ago, who discussed Carlos. I am sorry for the late response, but I was unable to get a notification for that comment, since I don't check this email. Anyway, I have read that commentator's posts and it seems obvious that Carlos was pretty clued-in to what the rebels were doing. My theory is, since he was an anti-maidan protester, he perhaps had links to the rebels and was privy to their information. You remember the transcript/video from the Australian news site I provided? It showed the rebels were initially confused and thought they'd shot down an SU-25 which shot down MH17. Maybe Carlos was able to get immediate access to his information, distorted due to the confusion, and repeat it on Twitter, perhaps instructed to pretend he was an ATC. At least, that's my theory.

Drutten, August 31, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The interview in question was made on the 4th of July, 2015, and indeed at that stage it seems like Russian intelligence knew next to nothing about what actually occurred, or if they did they didn't inform the President. Instead, it's all the internet rumors, and nothing beyond those.

Regarding "Carlos", I tracked him down a few years ago and if I recall correctly, it was a bizarre story involving a Spaniard living in Romania.

Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Oh, and yes, the DSB findings were published on October the 13th, 2015. The JIT report came yet another year later, on September the 29th, 2016.
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Ah, Drutten, I believe it is your old posts that Mark pointed me to, a few months ago. Were you able to timestamp Carlos' initial MH17 post and compare it with MH17's shootdown? If it can be proven that he instantly knew of the shoot down, then that lends credence to the theory he was in on the rebels' communications and/or was part of Russian intelligence. He was, earlier, an anti-Maidan protester. And he clearly lied.

Have you viewed/read the video/transcript of the rebels speaking right after MH17's crash? It was released by an Australian news site on the 1st anniversary of MH17's crash.

It seems you can access the page, but only if you access it from google, instead of going directly to it. Try this link and click on the first search result, from couriermail. com.au:

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Background:+They+decided+to+do+it+this+way,+to+look+like+we+have+brought+down+the+plane.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8qahWeObBbTj8Aepk4GwBQ

The above is a leaked video/transcript of the immediate aftermath. Notice how the rebels keep saying there was a "Sukhoi" that crashed. They claim they shot the Sukhoi down and that the 2 pilots who parachuted out had to be found.

First issue: no Sukhoi's wreckage has ever been found there, or any pilots. This means the rebels shot at something they thought was a Sukhoi, and something came down. But since it wasn't the Sukhoi, it could only be one thing: MH17. Also, if they tried shooting down the Sukhoi, they definitely had a long-range AA weapon. A MANPAD can't reach a Sukhoi. So what could they have used? A BUK TELAR system.

There we have it then. Now we know where the SU-25 story from the Russian government comes from: it was from the mistaken belief of the rebels that they were shooting down a Sukhoi with a BUK, but actually shot down a Boeing.

What I find extremely interesting are their claims that an SU-25 actually crashed and two pilots jumped out via parachutes. This obviously never happened, but where did they get this misinformation from anyway? Also, towards the end they claim "Five parachutes jumped off this plane. Five people jumped off this plane on the bird site." Are they talking about the passengers of MH17 now? Because 5 people can't fit in an SU-25 and they only mentioned two people with regard to that.

Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 2:26 pm
By the way, my very own theory is that as the rebels started running out of captured equipment and other "local" things and Russia started to provide the rebels with weapons and vehicles sometime in June of 2014 (going by OSINT), certain folks in the Western Military District of Russia went a tad further and instead of just sticking to the general supplies of Soviet-era warehouse materials (that while quite obviously from Russia still seemed innocent enough on the whole and perhaps could pass as "plausible deniability" if done right), they decided to let go of some way more potent things as well.

This, once evident to Moscow, led to a lot of drama within the Russian military echelons and ultimately led to the sudden dismissal of Colonel General Sidorov of the Western Military District in late 2015 (on direct orders by Vladimir Putin), together with a heap of other dismissals of high-ranking military officials in the regions bordering Ukraine.

This damage control and the subsequent ditto has been quite chaotic overall. Also, in the immediate aftermath of the MH17 disaster, Russia intervened directly, in a series of pinpoint bona-fide Russian military operations followed by very swift withdrawals starting August 2014 and ending in February 2015. Probably just as much of a "clean-up" of the mess they realized that Sidorov et al caused, as it was about saving the rebels from the Ukrainian onslaught at that time.

The Stone interview took place right in the midst of this drama, and Putin says the following:

There are two principal versions. The first version is that this plane was shot down by a Buk air defense system of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The second version has it that the same system, the Buk system (produced by Russia) was employed by the separatists. First and foremost, let me say that in any case, it was a true catastrophe.

This in the same paragraph as the later musings that TV Dozhd relays. So it all adds up, in my opinion.

kirill , August 31, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Your attempt to give NATzO half a point in this propaganda smear does not cut it. All that was ever produced as "proof" of Russian equipment in the Donbas was the single Buk launcher without any of the critical support vehicles (it is also not clear from any of the photos and videos that it is even the same launcher). Are you going to say that Russia supplied the rebels with just this one component which would have greatly reduced the value of the Buk complex? The radar unit cannot be left out if the Buk missiles are to actually hit their targets with any reliability. What would be the point of supplying the rebels such an ineffective system. (No the radar on the Buk launcher is not enough for precision tracking).

If the rebels ever had any Buk component in their possession it was the launcher they obtained from one of the Ukrainian air force bases they took over. This base only had the launcher component without any of the other pieces needed to make it properly functional. The only evidence produced so far is at best consistent with this. All of the attempts to make it like the Buk launcher was "returned" to Russia are BS. It never came from Russia in the first place.

As with any crime scene, physical evidence is vital. The Buk missile will not produce holes identical to 30 mm guns deployed on many fighter jets, including the ones in the vicinity of MH17:

Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 3:10 pm
There's plenty of proof of Russian supplies to the Donbass. Don't be silly. It is also perfectly possible to determine when exactly these started occurring, namely in June 2014. Prior to that, the rebels had been relying on captured stock.

They still received heaps of arms from Ukraine after that too, by the way (by capturing, or even buying it straight from the Ukrainian Armed Forces), but a huge amount of equipment that could only have come from Russia showed up during the aforementioned period.

There is also plenty of proof of the Russian direct interventions in August 2014 and January-February 2015. And these guys disappeared as soon as their narrow tasks were completed, so they weren't left there or anything. Some equipment lingered on though.

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:38 pm
There are some who still don't believe Russia helped the rebels militarily? Wow. kirill continues to surprise.
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:14 pm
You slightly contradict yourself. You first claim the rebels stole a BUK, but then claim that the holes are from 30 mm machine gun fire, a laughably absurd claim. Machine gun fire is not enough to cause such enormous explosions mid-air, especially considering the holes are in front of the cockpit. Further, no rounds from the machine gun have been found.

The reality is that the holes are from the BUK's pellets, released when the missile flies in front of the cockpit, as it's designed to do. You can watch the JIT's animation or even Almaz-Antey's live tests for evidence of these holes and the release of the pellets.

And the shape of the holes can be easily deformed due to heat. It's not like in cartoons or anything.

marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 7:56 pm
What do fighter-bombers carry 30mm cannons for if the idea of their being able to shoot down a plane is 'laughable'? What's going to happen to an airliner if you shoot up the cockpit and kill the flight crew? Or would 30mm rounds just bounce off plexiglas? I'm not a proponent of the SU-25 theory, although it is not as impossible as some try to make you think. But let's not stray off too far into fantasy.
marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 6:51 pm
Well, here's what we know.

(1) Ukraine claimed that its military destroyed all the air defense systems it had to leave behind as it retreated. So the rebels did not get a Buk system from the Ukrainian Army, unless it is lying.

(2) The Bellingcat tale of a smuggled single SA-11 TEL unit into Ukraine, which precisely and efficiently shot down MH-17 without any supporting equipment and then raced back across the border to Russia via a circuitous route which includes at least one geographical feature the system could not have easily passed, is suspect at best and full of possibilities for tampering; and,

(3) Russia had no motive for doing such a thing and every reason not to.

But the most convincing thing is the western campaign of covering up for Ukraine. Ukraine has to be a suspect – has to – considering the incident occurred over Ukrainian territory, out of reach for Russia from its own territory, and Ukraine possesses the same weapons system. Yet the western reaction is to put Ukraine in charge of the disciplinary investigation, and give it cover. The west makes all sorts of conclusions based on no evidence, and will not produce evidence it says it has.

Those are all facts, and they add up to a very perplexing picture.

Moscow Exile , August 31, 2017 at 2:32 pm
Apparently, Putin believes in the "Carlos the ATC" story. Not only that, but he claims MH17 was hit at the "tail" end, which is absolutely false.

Does Putin's belief in something that is apparently false therefore make him mendacious, not to be trusted, false per se -- or does this false belief of his simply make him fallible, as are we all?

Patient Observer , August 31, 2017 at 4:58 pm
Mark Lane was paid by the KGB? I did waste some time researching that claim. The most negative comments about his work that I located was from the Washington Post commenting on his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mark-lane-gadfly-lawyer-author-who-promoted-jfk-conspiracy-theory-dies-at-89/2016/05/14/9e87ce5c-1921-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.c4518c7c7966

They accused him of this outrage: Mr. Lane alleged that members of the U.S. military committed countless war crimes in Vietnam.

Against my better judgment, I ask you (Matt) the basis of your claim that the KGB was funding Mark Lane.

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 6:18 pm
Mark Lane was an American leftist who in 1966 produced the bestseller Rush to Judgment, alleging Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing American group. Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive show that the KGB indirectly sent Mark Lane money ($2,000 and more), and that KGB operative Genrikh Borovik was in regular contact with him. He also published A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Lane had intensively traveled abroad to preach that America is an "FBI police state" that killed its own president.

The below book is one of 5 or so written jointly by the original leaker of the Mitrokhin archives and Christopher Andrew, the only historian allowed to see the archives. Thus, the above book is basically a primary source.

Unfortunately, some of the pages about this are omitted, but start from that page and read the next six or so pages:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=tiNqCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PT391#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you want to jump directly to the info about Mark Lane, use this link:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=tiNqCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PT394#v=onepage&q=mark%20lane&f=false

Interestingly, Mark Lane represented a certain Victor Marchetti in a defamation lawsuit, a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who has written some critical things about the CIA. In 1978 he published an article about the JFK assassination in the far-right newspaper of the Liberty Lobby, The Spotlight. Marchetti claimed that the House Select Committee on Assassinations revealed a CIA memo from 1966 that named E. Howard Hunt in the JFK assassination.

One issue: this memo is a confirmed KGB forgery. In 1975, a note addressed to "Mr. Hunt," dated Nov. 8, 1963, and signed by Oswald, turned up in the U.S. In 1975, the name of the CIA's E. Howard Hunt was well known from the Watergate affair, which is why the KGB chose his name and mailed three photocopies of the note from Mexico to conspiracy buffs in the United States. The Mitrokhin Archive shows that the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter had been forged by the KGB to implicate the CIA in Kennedy's assassination. The forged note was twice checked for "authenticity" by the KGB's Technical Operations Directorate, or OTU, and approved for use. KGB rules allowed only photocopies of counterfeited documents to be used, to avoid close examination of the original. So Howard Hunt sued Marchetti for defamation (since he was innocent) and Mark Lane was Marchetti's lawyer.

Interesting guy, this Lane character.

Note that I'm not saying he knew he was being paid, but why would the KGB send funds to this guy, starting in the 1960s, if he wasn't spreading information convenient to them? This guy wrote no less than a half dozen books on JFK-assassination-related issues. The Mitrokhin archives are without dispute. I mean, they ousted some of the Soviet Union's most valuables spies, from decades ago. If the archives show the KGB paid Mark Lane, then I believe them.

Moscow Exile , August 31, 2017 at 2:48 pm
And your own country's propaganda, do you believe it? Or has your country no propaganda: does it always make truthful statements, which you believe?
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm
I am not the PM of Canada. Your comparison, therefore, is invalid.
Patient Observer , August 31, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Since you could not truthfully answer without confirming ME's point you resorted to being silly and obtuse.
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 5:46 pm
You misunderstood the context of my comment. I said "I am not the PM of Canada", because I found ME's question to not properly address the argument. I was making the argument that this is interesting precisely because Putin, as leader of Russia, believed his own country's media lies. When ME asked me that question, it was a random, pointless one, because I am not the leader of a nation, hence the point he was making was irrelevant to refuting what I said.

Regardless, I wasn't being "silly and obtuse". That's a false accusation.

And when it comes to "truthfully answering" ME's question, I don't read much news from Canadian sources. And when it comes to Venezuela, I sure as HECK don't believe the government's news!

Moscow Exile , August 31, 2017 at 2:50 pm
More to the point: does Putin still believe in this falsehood? Do tell! Please!
Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:03 pm
I don't know. But he surely knows by now about his government's various lies.
marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 7:38 pm
I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet of 'his government's lies'. I know you say the Russian government is telling lies. I say they're not. And even if they were – so what? The exceptional nation has been caught in lie after lie after lie, red-handed and frequently by its own admission. Yet it believes it is an example for the world. That's true, but it believes it is a good one.
kirill , August 31, 2017 at 2:44 pm
ME, don't let this liar and his lying sources establish any false truths to frame the debate. Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section of a decommissioned IL-86 if there was any sort of doubt in Russia about the most affected area. In particular, why would Putin be less informed about the MH-17 than the average, credulous western sap who is told that Putin loves to shoot down civilian airliners for fun.
Drutten , August 31, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Indeed, that illustrates exactly my point too – Almaz-Antey's own tests were conducted in October 2015, and focused on the cockpit area and the shrapnel spread there. Already in June of 2015, Almaz-Antey published a report, before the live tests of the Buk missile, and even at that stage (prior to their own widely covered live tests, prior to the DSB and JIT reports, and crucially – prior to this particular Oliver Stone interview session in question) they illustrated AA missile shrapnel focusing on the cockpit area.

Thus, going by what he relays to Stone, Putin was not in the know at that stage of the details, in July. Most likely, he'd been busy with other things over all this time, and the rest of the Russian military-intelligence establishment was busy trying to figure out what actually happened on June 17th the previous year so they hadn't presented him with a rundown just yet.

I'd say Putin became privvy to all of it later that fall (2015), and then came the mass firings.

Matt , August 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm
"Why would Almaz-Antey conduct missile detonation tests on the cabin section."

It's simple. A BUK targets the cockpit of a plane. It then explodes, releasing many tiny pellets. That's how it's designed. The reason Putin claimed the "tail" was hit is clear: an SU-25's heat-seeking missiles would have aimed for the engines, not the cockpit. Thus, he was using this "alternative fact", to use modern lingo, in order to give further credence to the SU-25 theory.

And if you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll notice I don't believe "Putin loves to shoot down civilian airliners for fun." I believe it was an accident by the rebels.

marknesop , August 31, 2017 at 7:51 pm
Oh, what horseshit.

A Buk is the whole system, not the missile, although that is a minor point. The missile is the SA-11, and it goes where the system on the ground guides it, attacking the center of mass. It likely hit the cockpit – if it was an SA-11 – because it was leading the target slightly – algorithms in the guidance radar would be sending the missile to a point the aircraft would reach at a future moment in time if it remained on the same course and speed.

But it does not 'target the cockpit', or any other physical feature of the plane, instead seeing it as a whole and as a moving object.

I don't know why Putin would say the tail was hit, but he's not a retard and he knows the difference between active homing and IR guidance, and the engines of a 777 are on the wing roots , not in the tail. Nobody with any brains launches a heat-seeking missile in a head-to-head presentation; there's no heat trace in front of a plane.

kirill , September 1, 2017 at 8:15 am
Regarding the MH17 story, the Mig 29 comes with a 30 mm cannon. Russian radar tracking indicated more than one jet fighter in the vicinity of MH17. So the Su-25 and its altitude limit is a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

The photo I posted has a "line" of circular 30 mm holes nearly equally spaced and linear at the left edge of the cockpit section. This looks nothing like the damage from random scattered Buk missile metal shrapnel. I doubt the rebels faked these holes since the photograph is from a short period after the crash before the gun strafing theory even showed up.

The angle that Pukeraine thought that Putin was flying on a civilian jet similar to the MH17 at the same time and the same region and decided to take him out is probably the only one that is relevant in this case. A chance "score" by the rebels is not credible and the notion that the same vintage launcher from Russia would make the rebel chances to shoot down any aircraft at that altitude more likely are simply nonsense (show us the dedicated radar unit and we have more to discuss).

Pukrainian jets buzzing around in close vicinity of MH17 is basically a confirmed fact. The criminal clowns probably thought they were taking down Putin's plane. They used both 30 mm gun fire and air to air missiles to bring down the jet. The rest is ass covering propaganda history.

https://www.rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/

[Aug 26, 2017] MH17 inquiry receives additional Russian radar data

Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , August 25, 2017 at 2:23 am

Flight Global: MH17 inquiry receives additional Russian radar data
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh17-inquiry-receives-additional-russian-radar-data-440581/

The Dutch national prosecutor's office had previously expressed irritation that Russian-supplied radar data had not been provided in the internationally-accepted 'Asterix' format developed by Eurocontrol.

But the office states that, following a supplementary request for assistance, the additional radar information "should now be" in the required format, and will be "examined in depth" by the joint investigation team
####

Irritated Dutch Syndrome (IDS)? There's a pill for that.

[Jul 20, 2017] Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17

Jul 20, 2017 | moonofalabama.org

Liam | Jul 19, 2017 9:22:07 PM | 34

Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/truth-of-ukraine-war-revealed-watchdog-media-institute-releases-definitive-chronological-timeline-video-of-ukrainian-war-from-euromaidan-to-mh-17/

[Jul 10, 2017] MH17 The Blaming Putin Game Goes On by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... According to some sources, the U.S. intelligence community disagrees over the likelihood of the alleged Russian role and has suggested as much privately to the Dutch. Some analysts who have looked at all the considerable body of information that has been collected relating to the downing actually believe that the most likely candidate might well be the then governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoisky, an oligarch billionaire who is an Israeli-Ukrainian dual national. Kolomoisky is known to employ Israeli mercenaries as advisers and has personally organized and paid for militias fighting the Russian separatists. He would have been strongly motivated to create an incident that could plausibly be blamed on the Russians or their surrogates and he had the means to do so. The government in Kiev acting independently also had the resources and motive to shoot down the plane and blame it on Moscow. ..."
"... It is a return to a Manichean view of the world as "them" and "us" with the implication that intelligence professionals are willing to restrain their dissent on an important issue if it serves to advance the current war of words with Russia. ..."
"... If Russia is indeed to blame for the airplane shoot down it should be held accountable, but it is up to the U.S. government to put its cards on the table and be clear about what it does and does not know. The original claims that Russia was involved were based on snap judgments based on bits of information that had been obtained immediately after the event, little of which has been subsequently corroborated through either satellite imagery or electronic and signal intercepts. ..."
"... In conclusion – most information points that MH17 was shot down at the behest of the US neocons and executed by their Ukrainian proxies . The majority of the US Government has not been involved in this act, but all information has been suppressed and this is why the US intelligence professionals have been complaining. ..."
"... The Americans would have picked-up and identified the radar emissions of the BUK/SA-11 system. They spend a vast amount on satellite, ground and airborne ELINT systems to maintain an up to date real-time global Electronic ORBAT. If a Russian BUK was used they would have its complete deployment history. And they would immediately have announced this smoking gun. ..."
"... Some Pentagon spokesman would have gleefully announced that the system used had last emitted in (say) Rostov on such-and-such a date and had moved there from Kaluga on such-and-such a date etc. But the Pentagon are saying NOTHING. And I haven't seen this rather obvious point reported in the English language media. ..."
"... The conclusion I draw is that the BUK used was operated by the Ukrainians. ..."
"... "Our" fatal flaw is what Phil has described as the political warping of the intelligence agencies, in which objective truth is superseded by spin. Michael Morell is prime example of why "we" are losing the real and the propaganda wars; the professionals are managed by the amateurs. (I wish Michael Scheuer would weigh in on Morell's self-inflating "The Great War of our Time", which unwittingly illustrates this divide.) ..."
"... Reported conversations among separatist claiming credit were eventually determined to be composite fakes produced by the Ukrainian intelligence services. ..."
"... Really disappointed that there isn't any attempt to employ standard material science techniques to determine the composition and providence of the projectiles, based on projectile smearing on the penetration points). Why haven't these dutch idiots contacted a decent laboratory to conduct WD-XRF (1) , GDMS and even ion-trap-MS (2) ..."
"... It is obvious that that blind, deaf and speechless are employed to ensure the investigation gets nowhere. ..."
"... In what way do you suppose Kolomoisky to be any worse than the lying scoundrels who make up the Kiev junta? In my experience, following the Ukrainian situation for the past 18 months, Kiev hardly ever says anything that is true. Moreover, Kolomoisky or any other oligarch acting on his own account would lack the callous brutality and the utter certainty of impunity that marks the US government's little "projects". ..."
"... Media consolidation has produced an astonishingly monolithic and compliant press. Correct. The level of suspicion and disrespect towards MSM is so high among sane people, that the propagandizing scoundrels exploit a relative trust that people have towards non-MSM sources of information. The exhibit one is one Mr. Higgings (UK) that pretends to be an independent amateur journalist posting his investigative "discoveries" on his blog Bellingcat. His "information" was quoted by the US government spokespersons as the evidence against Russian Federation re MH17 tragedy and US/RF conflict in Ukraine. ..."
"... However, it was revealed that Mr. Higgins is no lonely and nerdy fighter for truth but a well-connected person enjoying financial help from the private (Soros) and governmental (USAid) organizations. ..."
"... "USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins. ..."
"... Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and directing an Australian TV news crew to what appeared to be the wrong location for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014. ..."
"... Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media, Higgins has found his work touted." ..."
"... The investigators - in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, "Flight 800" - charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering. ..."
"... PanAm 103 is a great example of CIA media control and coverup. It took over two decades but the evidence was so overwhelming that the British released the "terrorist mastermind" convicted of blowing up this aircraft. I wrote about his in 2007 and the article can be read here: http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm The March 28th entry. Here is part: ..."
"... I personally do not believe that anyone was trying to shoot-down Putin's plane, I believe that the shooting down of MH17 was a carefully planned act, not dissimilar to Maidan sniper shootings and similar false flags employed before. The circle of people involved in this act was small, but now the whole Western establishment: the politicians, the MSM and the heads of intelligence services have a strong interest to defend the perpetrators and little cost of doing so. ..."
"... The Russian military have made public some of their info, this was on the activity of four Ukrainian ground based anti-aircraft units on the day of the shootdown. But the Russians never said that those units launched any missiles on the day, only that their targeting radars were active. The Russians asked why when the Separatists had no aircraft. Whilst the rotating surveillance radars are on all the time (unless the enemy has launched a radar-honing missile), the targeting radars are turned on only for an aircraft (practice or real attack). There must have been some target for the targeting radar to be turned on. Could it be that these Ukrainian targeting radars were tracking an unknown military jet which was in the general vicinity of MH17? If the shootdown was a secret action, the military jet's flight would not have been announced to the Ukrainian air defense and the military brass may have suspected it was an enemy (Russian) military jet. ..."
"... But the main issue is the pattern of own behavior which the West has established: (1) too much rhetoric from the zero hour of shootdown, (2) quoting of youtube and twitter "evidence" (3) instead of even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets and intelligence focused on Eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... MH17 Most Likely Shot Down by Air-to-Air Missile: "The data that the Russian Investigative Committee possesses, confirms the testimony of Evgeniy Agapov, a witness from Ukraine who served as a mechanic in the First Squadron Brigade of Tactical Aviation of the Ukrainian Air Force In December, a former Ukrainian airbase employee, whose name at the time was not disclosed, said he saw a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 combat jet carrying air-to-air missiles taking off, on the day of the tragedy, from an airbase in eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and later seeing the same plane return without any missiles." ..."
"... Finally, MH17 route would have taken it through a short dimension of the Separatist's territory: 50km wide. An intercontinental passenger jet at cruising speed takes a little more than three minutes to cross it. For the plane to fall-down into this 50km x 80km ellipse, it would have had to be targeted by BUK whilst well inside a Kiev controlled territory. Based on its fly route, MH17 would not have been suspicious to the Separatists because it was not coming from the zone where the Ukrainian military airports are and it was flying way too high to be any kind of threat. ..."
"... In short, a mistake, drunken or sober, makes no sense, although it is theoretically possible. This is why my most probable explanation is a planned neocon act, a continuation of the Maidan sniper deception. It is a logical next step and what happens when you do not capture the Maidan sniping perpetrators – 298 people paid for this ..."
"... Regarding the RT report of Russian intercepts of Ukrainian SAM tracking radar transmissions - I completely missed this. And I follow the Ukrainian situation closely; not just RT, but Cassad, Gleb Bazov, Saker and the other side (BBC, Guardian, Kyivpost etc). ..."
"... The "CW terminal guidance mode" is the final phase in the complex operation of a targeting radar, when it illuminates the target to be destroyed with the so called, Continuous Wave, just like shining a flashlight at a shooter's target. The detection of such radar emission mode by US or Russia would have been solid proof that a SAM shot down MH17, either Kiev's one or Separatist's one. When I wrote "even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets" I meant that the US never presented such elementary evidence from its expensive sigint and it would have been impossible to miss. Thus Giraldi's "Somebody knows" in the title is justified. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

July 14, 2015

At this point, the United States, which together with other interested parties has been reviewing a copy of the report in draft, does not intend to present its own findings but will instead go along with the Dutch conclusions. Among former intelligence, military and Foreign Service officers there has been considerable discussion of the significance of Washington's standing on the sidelines regarding the findings. To be sure, there are a number of rumors and allegations circulating relating to what is actually known or not know about the shoot down.

According to some sources, the U.S. intelligence community disagrees over the likelihood of the alleged Russian role and has suggested as much privately to the Dutch. Some analysts who have looked at all the considerable body of information that has been collected relating to the downing actually believe that the most likely candidate might well be the then governor of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ihor Kolomoisky, an oligarch billionaire who is an Israeli-Ukrainian dual national. Kolomoisky is known to employ Israeli mercenaries as advisers and has personally organized and paid for militias fighting the Russian separatists. He would have been strongly motivated to create an incident that could plausibly be blamed on the Russians or their surrogates and he had the means to do so. The government in Kiev acting independently also had the resources and motive to shoot down the plane and blame it on Moscow.

The dominant narrative that is still circulating widely suggests that either a direct or enabling Russian role is a given based on the claimed origin of the Buk missile, technical analysis of the plume and trajectory, and the military units that were known to be in place or moving at the time. And there was also the apparent separatist bragging on communications intercepts about shooting down a transport plane. This was the explanation that surfaced shortly after the downing, that was heavily promoted by the Ukrainian government and the media and that has been much favored by the international punditry ever since.

The third option of how to explain the shoot down is, of course, the Dutch approach: we think it was the Russians but we can't prove it. That is an easy choice to make as it really says nothing, which is possibly why it is being favored by the White House.

But if it is actually true that there has been considerable dissent on the findings, the tacit acceptance of a possibly unreliable and essentially unsustainable report by the White House will have significant impact on relations with Russia. It constitutes a disturbing rejection of possibly accurate intelligence analysis in favor of a politically safe alternative explanation. It recalls the politicization of intelligence that included Robert Gates' Soviet assessments of the 1980s, John McLaughlin's tergiversation regarding Iraq, and, most recently, Michael Morell's over the top hyping of the threat posed by political Islam. It is a return to a Manichean view of the world as "them" and "us" with the implication that intelligence professionals are willing to restrain their dissent on an important issue if it serves to advance the current war of words with Russia.

To be sure, deep sixing intelligence assessments that contradict policies that the White House is intent on pursuing anyway buys congenial access to the President and his advisers but it comes at the cost of diminishing the ability of the intelligence community to provide objective and reliable information in a timely fashion, which is at least in theory why it exists at all. Producing honest intelligence will, on the contrary, strengthen both the reputations and credibility of all involved.

If Russia is indeed to blame for the airplane shoot down it should be held accountable, but it is up to the U.S. government to put its cards on the table and be clear about what it does and does not know. The original claims that Russia was involved were based on snap judgments based on bits of information that had been obtained immediately after the event, little of which has been subsequently corroborated through either satellite imagery or electronic and signal intercepts. Since that time the German BND intelligence service has expressed its doubts that the missile used in the shoot down could have been supplied by Russia and has also claimed that photos provided by the Ukrainian government as part of the investigation had been "doctored." There have also been reports regarding a Ukrainian fighter plane being in the area of the airliner as well as the nearby presence of Ukrainian ground to air missile units. Reported conversations among separatist claiming credit were eventually determined to be composite fakes produced by the Ukrainian intelligence services. Presumably U.S. intelligence has also taken a long and hard look at all the evidence or lack thereof but it is being quiet regarding what it has determined.

It is important to get this right because the potential damage goes far beyond the role of intelligence or even who might have been responsible for the downing of an airliner one year ago. As the relationship with Russia is of critical importance and should be regarded as the number one national security issue for the United States, it is essential that the Dutch conclusions be aggressively challenged if there is even the slightest possibility that Russia is blameless.

One does not have to be a fan of Vladimir Putin to appreciate that the nearly continuous efforts being promoted within mostly neoconservative circles to both delegitimize and confront him and his regime do not serve any conceivable American national interest. In an Independence Day phone call to President Obama, President Putin called for a working relationship with the United States based on "equality and respect," which should, under the circumstances, be a given. Americans have been lied into intervention and war more than once over the past fifteen years and it should be clear to all that any contrived crisis based on an erroneous conclusion regarding a shot down airliner that develops into an armed conflict with Russia will have unimaginable consequences. A skeptical American public and international community must demand that any MH-17 report should reflect a full assessment, to include any dissent from its conclusions registered by the United States intelligence community. Any information at variance with the conventional view, particularly anything that suggests that there might be other interested parties who had both the means and compelling interest to shoot down a civilian airliner, must become a part of the discussion.

Kiza , July 14, 2015 at 6:00 am GMT

After reading, listening to and watching so much of the information about the shooting down of MH17 I put forward the most likely scenario and some important related points.

  1. If the Ukrainians shot it down, then it would have been a deliberate and planned act; if the Separatists did it it would have been a totally stupid mistake. Shooting down a plane which even falls onto their territory was definitely not in their interest.
  2. If MH17 was shot-down by the Ukrainians then nobody would believe that the West was not involved in this act, therefore the West has a strong incentive to defend its Ukrainians even if it knows that they have done it.
  3. It is possible that the US neocons knew of the plan to shoot down a passenger plane, but it was unlikely that this was known within the wider US Administration
  4. The Prime Minister of Australia one Tony Abbott, was screaming his head off against the Russians about 7 hours after the shoot-down; he reduced rhetoric later, but how did he know who did it so quickly?
  5. It is not impossible but it is not easy to shoot down a passenger plane flying at almost 11,000 m and at a high speed from the ground. When the USS Vincennes downed the Iran Air Flight 655, this plane was still climbing up. Other examples of shootdowns were mostly by military jets, not by Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMs).
  6. Therefore, most likely the MH17 was shot down by a military jet, because nobody saw a very visible plume from a BUK missile.
  7. 7) It is extremely unlikely that the US does not have satellite imagery, where is it?
  8. Who directed a civilian jet over a small conflict area (50km x 80km)?
  9. Why the black boxes were never analysed and sound of the last few seconds played in the media, as it usually happens?
  10. What about news that the Ukrainian Government was given the right of veto over the investigative report's content? This would make this report totally compromised and worthless.

In conclusion – most information points that MH17 was shot down at the behest of the US neocons and executed by their Ukrainian proxies . The majority of the US Government has not been involved in this act, but all information has been suppressed and this is why the US intelligence professionals have been complaining.

jimmyriddle , July 14, 2015 at 8:57 am GMT

The Dog That Didn't Bark in the MH17 case is ELINT.

The Americans would have picked-up and identified the radar emissions of the BUK/SA-11 system. They spend a vast amount on satellite, ground and airborne ELINT systems to maintain an up to date real-time global Electronic ORBAT. If a Russian BUK was used they would have its complete deployment history. And they would immediately have announced this smoking gun.

Some Pentagon spokesman would have gleefully announced that the system used had last emitted in (say) Rostov on such-and-such a date and had moved there from Kaluga on such-and-such a date etc. But the Pentagon are saying NOTHING. And I haven't seen this rather obvious point reported in the English language media.

The conclusion I draw is that the BUK used was operated by the Ukrainians.

Mr. Creosote , July 14, 2015 at 2:40 pm GMT

Since we all know that anything in Ukrainian airspace is tracked by not only the Uke air-traffic control and military and by Russia and the United States via satellite, then it 's simply a matter of reviewing radar tracks and sat-imaging.

One glaring unanswered question is why only that particular flight out of the many other previous flights was diverted East over the dangerous contested territory and not in established safe air traffic lanes? Why would a commercial airliner fly at a lower than usual altitude unless so directed by the State ATC?

So far there has been a thundering silence from the Ukes and the US while Russia has released information about fighter jets following MH-17 and testimony from an employee at a Uke airbase that witnessed a Uke SU-25 return without missiles.

This would account for the holes in the cockpit fuselage that are consistent with 30mm cannonfire entering and exiting that rescue workers observed in the wreckage that have no other explanation and cannot be made by large BUK missile fragments.

The silence seems to indicate that the rush to frame the Separatist East Ukrainians and, by proxy, Russia has failed and the evidence will clearly show that.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1702285/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17/

Jeff Albertson , July 14, 2015 at 3:44 pm GMT

@jimmyriddle The Dog That Didn't Bark in the MH17 case is ELINT.

The Americans would have picked-up and identified the radar emissions of the BUK/SA-11 system.

They spend a vast amount on satellite, ground and airborne ELINT systems to maintain an up to date real-time global Electronic ORBAT. If a Russian BUK was used they would have its complete deployment history. And they would immediately have announced this smoking gun.

Some Pentagon spokesman would have gleefully announced that the system used had last emitted in (say) Rostov on such-and-such a date and had moved there from Kaluga on such-and-such a date etc

But the Pentagon are saying NOTHING. And I haven't seen this rather obvious point reported in the English language media.

The conclusion I draw is that the BUK used was operated by the Ukrainians. The dog that didn't bark is not quite the exact analogy; the pack of wildly baying hounds that suddenly went mute is more appropriate. Of course both US and Russian analysts had detailed sigint and high-res coverage of every square inch of Ukraine at the time, and it was only when the empire knew what the Russians knew that the fake hysteria came to an abrupt halt.

Spycraft is fascinating, but even if you pay very close attention, the layman can only speculate on the meaning of the shadows of the quickly-passing invisible men. I believe the Russians have a distinct advantage, because Putin understands the process and our leaders do not. What they all share is the necessity of obscuring every bit of truth.

"Our" fatal flaw is what Phil has described as the political warping of the intelligence agencies, in which objective truth is superseded by spin. Michael Morell is prime example of why "we" are losing the real and the propaganda wars; the professionals are managed by the amateurs. (I wish Michael Scheuer would weigh in on Morell's self-inflating "The Great War of our Time", which unwittingly illustrates this divide.)

Ronald Thomas West , Website July 14, 2015 at 3:49 pm GMT

@Hepp

Reported conversations among separatist claiming credit were eventually determined to be composite fakes produced by the Ukrainian intelligence services.
The attached link does not provide any evidence that is the case. In fact, a Vice reporter went and talked to one of the separatists on the tapes, and he admitted it was him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYEH6Tfzouo&index=14&list=PLw613M86o5o5zqF6WJR8zuC7Uwyv76h7R

The problem is that all the information we get on this case comes from governments, so it can't be reliable. But this is the closest thing to third party confirmation that at least one piece of evidence released by one side is correct.

The problem is that all the information we get on this case comes from governments, so it can't be reliable

You think VICE is reliable? Probably not the best judgment

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/vice-founder-famous-for-truth-telling-has-history-of-lies/

considering a VICE founder's personal history (never mind he chums with such stellar 'truth-tellers' as Rupert Murdoch.)

Very little commercial media (probably none in actuality) could be considered 'reliable.' Some is better than others, depending on the subject matter, the geography covered, the political slant of management and often out and out personal prejudices (not to mention commercial news outlets being highly valued targets and consequent coveted assets of intelligence agencies.)

What VICE news and The Intercept (Right & Left of the spectrum respectively) share in common is anti-Russia bias due to either management or owner-bankroller geopolitical alignment. Management hiring and assignment policies will reflect those bias and you often will get fed lines of BS accordingly or outright false stories.

krollchem , July 14, 2015 at 10:57 pm GMT

It seems that the "international" investigators only have rudimentary puzzle solving skills necessary to figure out how the parts fit together. From what I have read many of the critical parts were even left back at the crash site to ensure failure.

Really disappointed that there isn't any attempt to employ standard material science techniques to determine the composition and providence of the projectiles, based on projectile smearing on the penetration points). Why haven't these dutch idiots contacted a decent laboratory to conduct WD-XRF (1) , GDMS and even ion-trap-MS (2)

(1) Rigaku, ZSX Primus II Wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (WDXRF)

(2) Glow Discharge Mass Spectrometry : Trace Element Determinations in Solid Samples: http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ms/articles/1061_a.pdf . Such GDMS systems are even commercially available: http://www.eag.com/documents/glow-discharge-mass-spectrometry-gdms-services-TN102.pdfag.com

To get really fancy, a magnetic sector ICP-MS system could be used to identify the source and even batch of the munitions based on isotopic abundances.

It is obvious that that blind, deaf and speechless are employed to ensure the investigation gets nowhere.

Seraphim , July 14, 2015 at 11:41 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh "My take is that the Americans know that Kolomoisky is heavily involved".

In what way do you suppose Kolomoisky to be any worse than the lying scoundrels who make up the Kiev junta? In my experience, following the Ukrainian situation for the past 18 months, Kiev hardly ever says anything that is true. Moreover, Kolomoisky or any other oligarch acting on his own account would lack the callous brutality and the utter certainty of impunity that marks the US government's little "projects". Kolomoisky was not worse than the rest of the gang. But he was more "representative". He was too upfront with things that the others try to keep under wraps:

"Kolomoyski is a prominent supporter of Ukraine's Jewish community and the president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine. In 2010 he was appointed as the president of the European Council of Jewish Communities after promising the outgoing president he would donate $14 million, with his appointment being described as a "putsch" and a "Soviet-style takeover" by other EJCJ board members. After several ECJC board members resigned in protest, Kolomyski quit the ECJC and, together with fellow Ukrainian oligarch Vadim Rabinovich, founded the European Jewish Union." (Wikipedia)

"Oleg Rostovtsev, a spokesman for the Jewish community, which has 50 000 parishioners, supports the renaming of Dnepropetrovsk to Jerusalem-on-the-Dnieper:
"Jerusalem for residents of Dnepropetrovsk is a city of peace, not conflict. Many of us have already visited Jerusalem, worshiped the holy places, came back and said: here it's almost the same – next to the synagogue stands a mosque, and nearby there are churches and monasteries. We also respect our different traditions". @ http://fortruss.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/dnepropetrovsk-could-be-renamed.htm

annamaria , July 15, 2015 at 1:23 am GMT

@Bill Jones One huge difference between Tonkin and now is that during Vietnam, some within the mainstream media asked inconvenient questions.

Media consolidation has produced an astonishingly monolithic and compliant press. Correct. The level of suspicion and disrespect towards MSM is so high among sane people, that the propagandizing scoundrels exploit a relative trust that people have towards non-MSM sources of information. The exhibit one is one Mr. Higgings (UK) that pretends to be an independent amateur journalist posting his investigative "discoveries" on his blog Bellingcat. His "information" was quoted by the US government spokespersons as the evidence against Russian Federation re MH17 tragedy and US/RF conflict in Ukraine.

However, it was revealed that Mr. Higgins is no lonely and nerdy fighter for truth but a well-connected person enjoying financial help from the private (Soros) and governmental (USAid) organizations.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16d_1432796866#JldcQrCqq6bWwLzF.99

annamaria , July 15, 2015 at 1:30 am GMT

@annamaria Why the US govt' spokespersons like quoting one Mr. Higgins (of Bellingcat notoriety).

"USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

Higgins has spread misinformation on the Internet, including discredited claims implicating the Syrian government in the sarin attack in 2013 and directing an Australian TV news crew to what appeared to be the wrong location for a video of a BUK anti-aircraft battery as it supposedly made its getaway to Russia after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014.

Despite his dubious record of accuracy, Higgins has gained mainstream acclaim, in part, because his "findings" always match up with the propaganda theme that the U.S. government and its Western allies are peddling. Though most genuinely independent bloggers are ignored by the mainstream media, Higgins has found his work touted."

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

Carlton Meyer , Website July 15, 2015 at 2:19 am GMT

@Biff My guess is when October comes we will find little to nothing new about MH17, if history is any guide.

Take PamAm flight 800 for example which occurred in 1996, and it is still up for debate:

The investigators - in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, "Flight 800" - charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-conspiracy-theories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580

PanAm flight 103 is still awash in conspiracy theories being blamed on either the Libyans or the Iranians depending on who is doing the blaming:

As revenge for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub where two U.S. personnel were killed, President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya's capital Tripoli and the Libyan city of Benghazi in 1986. Some people think that bombing Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for these bombings.

In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. guided missile cruiser) shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board. There is little doubt that this caused as much horror and sorrow as the explosion on Flight 103. The U.S. government claims that the USS Vincennes mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet. Other people believe that the bombing over Lockerbie was in retaliation for this disaster.

PanAm 103 is a great example of CIA media control and coverup. It took over two decades but the evidence was so overwhelming that the British released the "terrorist mastermind" convicted of blowing up this aircraft. I wrote about his in 2007 and the article can be read here: http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm The March 28th entry. Here is part:

..A 1993 book Trail of the Octopus offers details on how Iran downed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.[2] Iranian leaders were furious at the "accident" in which their Airbus was destroyed. Blowing up an American 747 would be ideal revenge. Through their contacts with the Beirut PFLP-GC revolutionary group, they were told a bomb could be placed on an American 747 if the price was right.

Beirut is a traditional transit point for illegal narcotics, and a major station for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The PFLP-GC was also in the drug business. The DEA had arrested one of its drug couriers as he arrived in New York by air. He cut a deal for a lesser sentence and continued to smuggle heroin to New York City so the DEA could track its distribution and destroy this network. To ensure their drug mule got to New York safely, agents of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) carried his checked baggage past security in Cyprus. The DIA is a little known U.S. intelligence agency that has almost no Congressional oversight or restrictions because it is part of the Defense Department.

The PFLP-GC learned of this betrayal about the same time the Iranians were shopping for a way to down a 747. The solution was simple. Place a time delayed/altitude triggered bomb in the bag of the drug courier. This would explode on its final leg to New York when it was mostly full of Americans, killing the snitch as well. The plan worked perfectly, killing nearly the same number of innocents that the USS Vincennes claimed. As an added bonus, they selected a flight with four U.S. intelligence officers on the passenger list: Matthew Gannon, the CIA's deputy station chief in Beirut, Major Chuck "Tiny" McKee, a U.S. Army officer assigned to the DIA in Beirut, and two other CIA officers.[3] It seems reasonable that Major McKee was onboard to ensure the courier didn't slip away.

Needless to say, the DIA was in panic after Pan Am 103 blew up. They had never bothered to search the suitcase to ensure it only had heroin as they smuggled the bomb through security and on the Pan Am flight . This blunder was not good for careers, America's image, or foreign policy. In addition, the U.S. Government would be humiliated if Iran were credited for revenge with the aid of duped American agents. It would also threaten to expose the truth behind the USS Vincennes shoot down, which Newsweek exposed four years later. Finally, the U.S. Government would find it difficult to explain why Captain Will Rogers, the man responsible for the deaths of 259 Iranian pilgrims on the Airbus flight to Mecca, and thus indirectly responsible for the retaliatory bombing over Lockerbie, was not in prison, but had been awarded a medal and a hefty U.S. Navy pension.

This is why Libya was blamed for Lockerbie. The U.S. Government hated Libyan leader Gaddafi. This Sandhurst trained "madman," had overthrown Libya's Anglo-American puppet king, kicked the USA out of Wheelus Air Force Base, its premier Mediterranean air training base, and began buying Soviet equipment rather than American weapons. Worst of all, he wasted his nations oil wealth improving the lives of Libyans rather than investing profits in Western corporations ..

Kiza , July 15, 2015 at 5:50 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz Another balance to strike is between the probability of a careless or illinformed or drunk or stupid rebel making a disastrous mistake and a professional air force pilot being sent up to shoot down a foreign passenger airliner and actually carrying it out. One need to know a little about ground based air defense to make such a cliched conclusion: "a drunk separatist". Shooting down a fast moving plane at 11 km altitude does take quite a bit of skill, attention, effort and even a bit of luck.

But, a Russian separatist drank two bottles of vodka and then he leaned on the missile launch button would not be much worse than the majority of other stories that the West has put forward so far. This emphasizes that so far, the West has put forward only the rhetoric/stories and almost no evidence at all.

I personally do not believe that anyone was trying to shoot-down Putin's plane, I believe that the shooting down of MH17 was a carefully planned act, not dissimilar to Maidan sniper shootings and similar false flags employed before. The circle of people involved in this act was small, but now the whole Western establishment: the politicians, the MSM and the heads of intelligence services have a strong interest to defend the perpetrators and little cost of doing so.

I wrote when it happened a year ago – "We will never know the real truth for certain" and I maintain this. The shooting down of MH17 has joined the realm of conspiracy theories (which thrive when the "official explanation" is poorly supported by facts) : Kennedy assassination, 911 and so on.

Kiza , July 15, 2015 at 6:41 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz jimmyriddle is obviously a professional or someone with a very good knowledge of sigint (signals intelligence). Essentially, every anti-aircraft radar costs a lot of money and there is a limited number of them in the World. All militarily advanced countries of the World, especially former USSR and US, have always collected electronic signatures of each radar. This has many uses but I do not want to digress. It is practically impossible to shoot down a plane from the ground or from air without using a radar, at least during some part of the action. It is totally impossible that neither Russia nor US have monitored electronic emissions in a conflict zone in which both had their special forces . None of this sigint is very secret, where is the US sigint from the day? Neither satellite images, nor sigint info have been made public, nada, zilch, zero.

The MH370 loss is not comparable because this plane was not lost in the hottest military zone on Earth – Eastern Ukraine.

The Russian military have made public some of their info, this was on the activity of four Ukrainian ground based anti-aircraft units on the day of the shootdown. But the Russians never said that those units launched any missiles on the day, only that their targeting radars were active. The Russians asked why when the Separatists had no aircraft. Whilst the rotating surveillance radars are on all the time (unless the enemy has launched a radar-honing missile), the targeting radars are turned on only for an aircraft (practice or real attack). There must have been some target for the targeting radar to be turned on. Could it be that these Ukrainian targeting radars were tracking an unknown military jet which was in the general vicinity of MH17? If the shootdown was a secret action, the military jet's flight would not have been announced to the Ukrainian air defense and the military brass may have suspected it was an enemy (Russian) military jet.

But the main issue is the pattern of own behavior which the West has established: (1) too much rhetoric from the zero hour of shootdown, (2) quoting of youtube and twitter "evidence" (3) instead of even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets and intelligence focused on Eastern Ukraine.

jimmyriddle , July 15, 2015 at 6:57 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz As I said this is a point worth following up but, when you think about it, there may even be a stronger argument of opposite import. Wouldn't the Russians be at least as likely to be monitoring minutely everything going on within a few kilometres of the Russian border where fighting is taking place and Russians, in whatever capacity, are involved (or, if you like, just pro-Russian rebels are involved)? "Wouldn't the Russians be at least as likely to be monitoring minutely everything going on within a few kilometres of the Russian border"

Not necessarily. Russia isn't the USSR. Its ability to maintain EORBATS is limited – for example, Russia's satellite-based missile early warning system is currently out of operation. Until recently Ukrainian air defence systems would not be a priority as conflict with Ukraine would have been considered unthinkable. So, while it seems likely that Russian ELINT/ESM systems would have detected the tracking radar, they wouldn't necessarily have had the historical EORBAT required to prove that the system was Ukrainian-controlled.

Tom Welsh , July 15, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT

@Biff My guess is when October comes we will find little to nothing new about MH17, if history is any guide.

Take PamAm flight 800 for example which occurred in 1996, and it is still up for debate:

The investigators - in a conference call promoting an upcoming documentary, "Flight 800" - charged the original probe ignored testimony from nearly 700 eyewitnesses and included evidence tampering.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-film-feeds-conspiracy-theories-crash-twa-flight-800-article-1.1376580

PanAm flight 103 is still awash in conspiracy theories being blamed on either the Libyans or the Iranians depending on who is doing the blaming:

As revenge for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub where two U.S. personnel were killed, President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya's capital Tripoli and the Libyan city of Benghazi in 1986. Some people think that bombing Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for these bombings.

In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. guided missile cruiser) shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board. There is little doubt that this caused as much horror and sorrow as the explosion on Flight 103. The U.S. government claims that the USS Vincennes mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet. Other people believe that the bombing over Lockerbie was in retaliation for this disaster.

"The U.S. government claims that the USS Vincennes mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet".

Another obvious, transparent, utterly brazen lie. Is there anyone so naive as to believe any part of this for even a moment? The Aegis missile ships were designed from the ground up to protect American carrier task groups from swarms of incoming Soviet missiles and/or aircraft. How the hell could they do that if they couldn't tell the difference between an attacking jet fighter of US manufacture (hence extremely familiar) and a civilian airliner ascending along its planned and well-known flight path? Aegis was designed, I repeat, the handle dozens of incoming supersonic missiles! Yet when presented with the simplest imaginable situation – a single relatively slow, lumbering airliner (going even slower than cruising speed while it climbed) the technically expert crew and its battery of powerful computers supposedly mistook this airliner for an attacking F-14?

This is as if to say that an expert veteran big game hunter shot dead a prize cow, at point blank range, because he mistook it for an attacking lion!

I understand that subsequent examination of the Vincennes' computer records showed that the computers were never deceived for a moment: they identified the Iranian Airbus as an Iranian Airbus. So presumably the crew were so pathetically panicky or staggeringly incompetent that they misread their own displays in their single-minded determination to believe they were being attacked.

At the very least, the US government was utterly guilty of shooting down the Iranian airliner. A plea of "mistaken identity", as well as being almost unbelievable, would also fail in principle. Someone who deliberately programs computers and sets up an elaborate weapons system is clearly responsible for all harm done by that system, faulty or not.

annamaria , July 15, 2015 at 10:59 pm GMT

MH17 Most Likely Shot Down by Air-to-Air Missile: "The data that the Russian Investigative Committee possesses, confirms the testimony of Evgeniy Agapov, a witness from Ukraine who served as a mechanic in the First Squadron Brigade of Tactical Aviation of the Ukrainian Air Force In December, a former Ukrainian airbase employee, whose name at the time was not disclosed, said he saw a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 combat jet carrying air-to-air missiles taking off, on the day of the tragedy, from an airbase in eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and later seeing the same plane return without any missiles."

http://sputniknews.com/world/20150715/1024676143.html

from comments section: "Putin was actually supposed to fly that same route only an hour or so prior, but the route Putin's jet took was altered. If you ask me, it was a case of mistaken identity. Kiev was gunning for Putin, and instead shot down the passenger jet."

Kiza , July 16, 2015 at 2:58 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

I am not surprised that you have a problem understanding people as you either don't pay careful attention to what people say or have a deeper problem with language and logic (maybe, it occurs to me, a limited vocabulary). Your Humpty Dumpty attitude to usage is exemplified by the use of "tantrum" in reference to my "Knave or Fool?". But you really are beyond the pale of intelligent conversation if you can read what I write, especially about events in the Ukraine, and suppose that I am other than an agnostic of contrarian habit. You mention Cambridge but I don't think you ever had the benefit of the Oxbridge tutorial system. which would have required you to justify your essays against questions testing your facts, logic and precision of language. A pity. Still it might not be too late for "mature" age entry if some sort of affirmative action could be justified. At least a balanced, emotional-free and focused comment from you. Now we can discuss without calling each other fool, knave and the like.

Do not worry about my education, I have had plenty of it, Internet is my biggest teacher now.

If you are interested why I asked you if you were from another planet, it is because of this: "Oh btw a drunk person can use a laser or other homing device once fuxed on a target".

Since you are an Australian (from another planet), your comment reminded me of the news in the Sydney Morning Herald of some Bogan shining a green laser pointer at the planes taking off and landing at Sydney Airport, trying to blind pilots and cause a crash. The police said they would catch him/her and he/she would get 20 years in the cooler just for shining. Maybe this was your idea of a tipsy person shooting down a passenger plane using a laser (yes, I am putting a funny spin on your tipsy/drunken shootdown comment).

BUK missile battery is a 60-ties technology weapon, it is not a computerized modern phased-array system, it takes a minimum of three people to operate and normally five (all drunken or tipsy, of course). There is no way in the world that the Separatists (farmers and factory workers) would have been able to get one from Russia or capture one from the enemy and then use it at all, let alone successfully within days. If Russia gave it, then Russia would have had to send a whole trained crew (not impossible). The Ukrainian planes shoot-down before were shotdown using MANPADS (shoulder-fired self-honing missiles), which even a farmer can learn to use in a few days. The way AA defense works, is that most military jets, large and small, fly below 10km because they have little business to do above and their small wings do not offer efficient lift, unlike the huge wings of passenger jets. The old AA defense (that BUK belongs to) was optimized for targets at altitude below 10km where military jets spent most time attacking ground targets and fighting other planes. Only the newest AA systems now aim for lower orbit (100 km) to catch ballistic missiles. Fighter jets and bombers now spend most time between 5km and 10km (or they hug the terrain at a very low altitude), because MANPADS can reach up to 5 km and they usually use passive sensors instead of radar, which means they are more difficult to recognize (which is why they are so very dangerous, as proven against the Russians in Afghanistan).

Finally, MH17 route would have taken it through a short dimension of the Separatist's territory: 50km wide. An intercontinental passenger jet at cruising speed takes a little more than three minutes to cross it. For the plane to fall-down into this 50km x 80km ellipse, it would have had to be targeted by BUK whilst well inside a Kiev controlled territory. Based on its fly route, MH17 would not have been suspicious to the Separatists because it was not coming from the zone where the Ukrainian military airports are and it was flying way too high to be any kind of threat.

In short, a mistake, drunken or sober, makes no sense, although it is theoretically possible. This is why my most probable explanation is a planned neocon act, a continuation of the Maidan sniper deception. It is a logical next step and what happens when you do not capture the Maidan sniping perpetrators – 298 people paid for this .

Kiza , July 16, 2015 at 3:37 am GMT

@jimmyriddle But the main issue is the pattern of own behavior which the West has established:
1) too much rhetoric from the zero hour of shootdown,
2) quoting of youtube and twitter "evidence"
3) instead of even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets and intelligence focused on Eastern Ukraine.

Nail on the head.

Regarding the RT report of Russian intercepts of Ukrainian SAM tracking radar transmissions - I completely missed this. And I follow the Ukrainian situation closely; not just RT, but Cassad, Gleb Bazov, Saker and the other side (BBC, Guardian, Kyivpost etc).

The timings of these intercepts would be crucial. It would also be of interest if the Fire Dome (NATO designation) radar entered its CW terminal guidance mode. Hello Jimmy. This is one article about the activity of the Ukrainian targeting radar on the day: http://rt.com/news/173784-ukraine-plane-malaysian-russia/

BTW, in 2001, Ukraine shot down a Russian airliner with 78 passengers and crew at a lower altitude, by using a 1980s system S-200 (the last one from the Soviet Union) during military exercises. Russia produces a new generation SAM system about every 15 years since the SU:

But I never considered that the Russians were saying that the Ukrainian radar was involved in the shooting down, just that it was tracking a suspicious aircraft. If an unannounced flight was indicated by surveillance radar, an air defense battery would have been activated to be ready to shoot it down, and this may have been the plane which shot down MH17 with one or more AA missiles and (maybe) the 30 mm gun. Therefore, I do not believe that Ukranian radar ever got to the "CW terminal guidance mode" and the Russians never said so, to my knowledge.

The "CW terminal guidance mode" is the final phase in the complex operation of a targeting radar, when it illuminates the target to be destroyed with the so called, Continuous Wave, just like shining a flashlight at a shooter's target. The detection of such radar emission mode by US or Russia would have been solid proof that a SAM shot down MH17, either Kiev's one or Separatist's one. When I wrote "even a small piece of evidence from the trillion dollars per year worth of military assets" I meant that the US never presented such elementary evidence from its expensive sigint and it would have been impossible to miss. Thus Giraldi's "Somebody knows" in the title is justified.

Avery , July 16, 2015 at 4:18 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz Well that all hangs together which makes it an unusual comment here but I repeat my incredulity at the idea that Putin's plane was ever scheduled to be flying over Eastern Ukraine. Coming from where? Istanbul?

Now here's another possibility.... Both for Putin's actual security and to smoke out the Ukrainians (or CIA or whoever) the flight was scheduled to fly over the Eastern Ukraine - or at least the appearance was given that this was so - but it was never intended to happen.

Now one has to keep thinking and ask what the Ukrainians who were able to order the hit would have calculated what would happen if they murdered the Russian president. Think about it! Even if the name of Gavril Prinzip didn't come to mind they must have forseen catastrophe. I agree with you.

The notion that President Putin's security detail would allow his jet to overfly a conflict area where false-flag units can fire a long range anti-aircraft missile and blame it on somebody else makes no sense.

If FSB leaked the alleged route over Ukraine, they had a very good reason and a purpose.
They would never actually allow Putin's jet to take such a dangerous route.
FSB may be many things, but they are not stupid.
And neither is Putin.

Kiza , July 16, 2015 at 11:17 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz In brief I wonder how so much attention got focused on chemical effects on the brain out of all the 100 improbable causal explanations for an accident or crime that are still current. Bearing in mind the drugs and alcohol that have been used by world leaders (Churchill e.g.) it might not be particularly unlikely that some bottle friendly strong personality said "FFS, it will be gone in 30 seconds: just fire the fucking thing". We can only guess at how that rates against an air force pilot deliberately shooting down a foreign passenger plane. An older man would know he could well end up as the scapegoat. So do we suppose it was a rookie who has been sold a lot of confusing BS?

I am reminded of a very good "Big Ideas" address on the ABC''s Radio National by Cordelia Fine on what is now known about male and female brains. Her salient conclusion was that for all the many ways male and female brains differ for genetic and epigenetic reasons, all these average tendencies didn't allow prediction of precise behaviours or behaviour patterns. The best that we can do in our attempts at minute analysis of the vast complex of facts, assertions and arguments on MH17 is likewise to refine our examination to the point where some of the myriad possibilities are reduced to a negligible level of probability. At least we can probably set aside altogether that Russians deliberately destroyed an airliner. Except of course if they were as wicked and clever as Mossad they could have set up the Ukrainians to appear to be trying to false flag the Russians (and did you know Osama bin Laden hired Indians for 9/11 to cover his tracks?)..... Sorry, I lost you again. What does drug taking have to do with MH17 shootdown?

But your supporter, Avery, makes a wrong assumption and then draws conclusions from it. I never read that Putin's plane was supposed to overfly the Separatists' controlled conflict zone. The claim of some Russians was that Putin's plane was supposed to fly in the vicinity of the conflict zone around the same time. There is no doubt that many in the West would gladly take credit for a Putin's "accidental end", but I never found this theory of the Russian yellow press for the MH17 shoot-down plausible.

Yet, as a final comment on this topic I would like to explore the possibility that the separatists, that is the Russians, shot down this plane. As stated before, there is almost no chance that untrained separatists would have been able to operate a BUK without Russian help and shoot down a plane at such high altitude. I have actually once in my life worked on an old Russian military radar and it was definitely not user-friendly, although it was amazingly sturdy and reliable (it was a surveillance, that is a rotating, radar not a targeting radar). There is a small possibility that the Separatists could have assembled an impromptu radar crew from the civilians who did national service in air defense, but this is quite a remote possibility.

Also, there are some Uki claims and counter claims that the Separatists had captured a BUK battery, but such claim is a bit strange because the first duty of an officer is to damage vital equipment before surrender.

Therefore, the key scenario of a rebel shoot-down is that BUK came from Russia, with a Russian crew and was returned to Russia after (what the Uki intelligence claims). How would a professional Russian AA crew be able to mistake a civilian airliner at a high altitude for a military transport plane which can never reach such altitude is difficult to understand. 20 years ago when the Russian military were in disarray – maybe, now – hard to imagine. Also, where are the US satellite images of this movement?

Finally, why would the US and UK keep any evidence of the Russian guilt? In international politics this is not unusual – one keeps one's aces to deliver them at a most opportune moment, when they can have maximum effect. The West has convinced 90% of its own population through fact-free propaganda, that is through semi-mad MSM screaming, so any evidence kept secret would be useful only for the rest of the world: BRICS etc, to badly embarrass Russia in front of its current trading partners.

As the US intelligence professionals have written in their open letter – it is impossible that US has no SIGINT/ELINT and satellite intelligence from Ukraine, so where is it?

Therefore, the zero US evidence on MH17 can mean only one of two things:
1) either they are waiting for the best moment to put in the public domain, or
2) this evidence implicates the wrong side – their own side.
Thus, if the US presents no evidence on the activity of targeting radars within another year or so then it becomes highly likely that this evidence is not opportune.

Rurik , July 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm GMT

just a recap

this is the cockpit section of MH17

http://mil.cnr.cn/jstp/201407/W020140724477193189283.jpg

it is riddled with bullet holes

http://niqnaq.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/14749781785_221e3fb040_o.jpg

as are so many other parts of the plane

http://www.zetatalk.com/ning/09ag001.jpg

Surface to air missiles don't target a cockpit with bullet holes, they target the engines (heat) and cause massive, immediate catastrophic damage with shrapnel and with the force of the explosion. Not the kind of damage where passengers have time to put on oxygen masks as they did in MH17.

The only ones that could have shot down MH17 with air to air machine gun bullets were the Ukrainian Air force, (with or without the coordination of Kolomoisky's mercs operating in the theater).

The bullet holes tell the whole story. All the rest is lies and subterfuge, but it's amazing to see the width and breath of the power of the Zio/anglo/banksters as they compel all the western governments to lie in the service of their agenda. Just like they did with their lies about Saddam's WMD.

All military and weapons experts who look at those pictures know exactly what they're looking at.

30mm cannon fire

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2388/2492807620_234da08723.jpg

and what the damage looks like

http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/damaged-but-functional-a-10-thunderbolt.jpg

All the rest are imposed lies from diplomats and war mongers

Here is Victoria Nuland's sister in law

Kimberly Ellen Kagan (born 1972) is an American military historian. She heads the Institute for the Study of War and has taught at West Point, Yale, Georgetown University, and American University. Kagan has published in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Weekly Standard and elsewhere.[1] She supported the surge in Iraq and has since advocated for an expanded and restructured American military campaign in Afghanistan.[2] In 2009 she served on Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment team.[2]

This is what Wiki says about her Institute for the Study of War :

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a think tank founded in 2007 by Kimberly Kagan. ISW describes itself as a non-partisan think tank providing research and analysis regarding issues of defense and foreign affairs, but has been described by others as "a hawkish Washington" group[1] favoring an "aggressive foreign policy".[2] Though it had produced reports on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, "focusing on military operations, enemy threats, and political trends in diverse conflict zones",[3] it first gained widespread public attention in the aftermath of the Elizabeth O'Bagy scandal in which it was involved. The non-profit organization is supported by grants and contributions from large defense contractors,[2] including Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.[4] It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War

here's her husband

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Frederick-Kagan-2013-PC.jpg

He's another chicken hawk of the first order. It's for people like these that this young mother (and so many thousands of others) lost her life

**warning**

http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mother-and-child-allegedly-killed-in-donetsk-shelling.jpg

that's what I have to say about all this

Bill , July 16, 2015 at 5:12 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Good points but slightly off target for the most part. What I pointed out was that a state actor not controlled by an Idi Amin would calculate the potential pluses and minuses consistently with the calculation that Russia - equally - wouldn't have brought down the airliner with a view to blaming the Ukrainian air force.

Here the calculation would have to have been that Russia could be blamed for providing the means by which the rebels (with or without attached Russians) caused an appalling disaster by mistake. Not enough in that surely as some of your examples of the unpunished serve to show.

And your examples of the (eventually) caught out but unpunished are from technologically more primitive times (and when there were e.g. Cold War reasons for things remaining obscured).

Kolomoisky I have already indicated could be more promising to investigate. Not a state actor so little can be presumed.

Generally, the technological advances alone since the Tonkin Gulf lies would be enough to make any rational calculation include the likelihood of recordings of just about anything you can imagine and a post Cold War Wikileaks inspired whistleblower as well.

Libya, Iraq etc are not comparable although you are indeed right in saying they are unpunished follies, crimes or misjudgments. But the calculations involved were not in the same category as the one I posited. OK, we can analyze this in the short run, if you like. The problem with that is that, right now, we don't know who did it. At least not in a public and politically relevant way. I'd be willing to place a small bet that it was the Kiev junta, possibly at the suggestion of some neocon maniacs. Kolomoiski's Nazi stormtroopers would be second. But we don't know for sure. We are not likely to know until either the US, Russia, or some other power releases the relevant satellite and/or coms intelligence. This is a problem for your argument.

Much of the advantage to blaming Russia happened. MH 17 appeared to be quite useful to the US in galvanizing Euro support for our policy. The disadvantage to getting caught out has not happened, to anyone. It may not happen for years more. Both Russia and the US presumably know what happened. Therefore, one or both of them is/are holding information adverse to their adversary because they see an advantage in it. I don't see any possibility that the information is neutral. It was separatists, the Kiev junta, or a warlord.

If the info is adverse to Russia, why is the US holding it? Our strategy is propaganda-centric in this conflict. Even I could be convinced that Russia did it by actual evidence, and this would change my view of the conflict. There must be plenty of people not buying the US line who would buy it with evidence. I doubt, for example, that any of the European governments buy our/their own BS on the Ukraine. It would be highly useful to the US if Russia actually was violently threatening and was perceived to be so by non-morons.

If the info is adverse to the US, it is easy to see why Russia would hold it. It is valuable to us to be seen, at least domestically, to be both the good guys and the winners. When Kennedy was offered utter defeat in the Cuban missile crisis in exchange for appearing to win, he jumped at it. The Russians either are getting or believe they will be getting something for not telling.

This theory also explains a lot of the strangeness which occurred right after the downing. Our side actively prevented any investigation from occurring and excluded Russia from the "investigation" which did occur. Russia signaled that they were holding aces pretty promptly after the downing. Pretty soon thereafter, the controlled media lost interest in the whole thing and now only refers to it in passing.

At best, it was Kolomoiski. More likely, it was the Kiev junta. Least likely is an accident by the separatists. The behavior of the principals just doesn't make sense to me on the theory that the separatists did it and everyone knows. Unless, of course, there was some deal made (very quickly) by the US not to tell in exchange for something, and everything since is theater. But who made the deal on our side? State is full of retards these days. And it is all just so much not our style.

Bill , July 16, 2015 at 5:54 pm GMT

@gruff What's missing in your analysis is a motive. Why would the Ukrainians or the CIA or whoever take the gigantic risk of being caught falseflagging in such a despicable manner?

Let's say the Ukes did it. What have they gained? Responsibility is still being disputed by many, so it hasn't been unequivocally been pinned on the Russians. And there was no massive international swing against Russia in the aftermath, nor a sudden large Uke assault to take advantage of the confusion. Months later, the whole situation is still a quagmire, only now with a frosting of Dutch corpses.

There is no answer to cui bono here. It makes no sense for the Ukes, or the Russians, to have shot down MH17. It looks like a stupid mistake, therefore most likely the rebels were responsible.

The guy who pressed the button is probably already dead. Because it is not a gigantic risk. If caught, they would just brazen it out. They control the dominant media. They would blow smoke. They would have their lackies go on TV and repeat a constantly shifting barrage of lies. They would accuse Putin of framing them. They would have someone, somewhere in the world stir up a "crisis" and point the media at it.

How often do you hear about the USS Liberty? They brazened that one out just fine. The official story of Osama bin Laden's death is obvious BS. They've brazened that out just fine, too. The government tells great whopping obvious lies all the time and gets away with it.

If brazening it out failed (fat chance), they would offer up a scapegoat. The scapegoat would have been chosen beforehand, would have been peripherally involved in the plan, and the bad guys would either have something on him to threaten him with to keep him quiet or they would Jack Ruby him.

It's implausible, you say. But in the hypothetical where the US planned and executed this, we are talking about people who are willing and able to slaughter hundreds of innocents to forward their plans. That they are willing to slaughter one more is not the least bit implausible.

There is no answer to cui bono here. It makes no sense for the Ukes, or the Russians, to have shot down MH17.

Are you insensate? The shoot-down of MH 17 has been extremely useful to the US. We don't need to engage in speculative fantasies about who might have thought what about cui bono. We *know* the US and the Kiev junta bono-ed.

Max , July 19, 2015 at 5:14 pm GMT

Also interesting–

http://www.rt.com/news/310082-mh17-video-another-aircraft/

Note pilot found wandering in village near crash site (second plane downed, additional to the airliner)

Andy Popov , July 25, 2015 at 2:30 pm GMT

Some new information about malaysian airliner MH-17 crash.
After 12 months of the investigation we have no even one Ukrainian eyewitness who had seen the smoky trail of a launched missile "Buck" in heaven although such launching may be heard from 5 miles and may be seen from 20 miles!

Journalists from several television stations conducted a survey of residents of several villages in the crash site. Next day after crash the correspondent BBC Olga Ivshyna visited the crash area and took interview from local dwellers. And a lot of them saw the military airplane near passenger airliner before the crash. Many residents saw the plane falling, but no one witness saw the smoky trail of a rocket "Buk" launched, although the day was a little cloudy!
And if there is no even one confirmation of the missile launching from the Earth, from local dwellers eyewitnesses – the version about the destruction of the airliner from missile "Buk" – crumbles to dust. Also we have the statement made by military representatives of Russia next day after catastrophe, which discovered the warplane near Boeing by radar on the day of the crash.

President USA Mr. Barack Obama promised all last year to publish the photos from American military satellite where we can see the situation. But his promise still is not performed! One unknown American specialist has sent such the photo from American satellite to Moscow last year. We can see on this photo the military jet launching the militant rocket into the passenger airliner.

One mechanics from Ukrainian military airport Evgeniy Agapkin arrived in Moskov on December 2014 and he told the next story. This story was published in Russian newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda". Ukrainian pilot Vladislav Voloshenko lifted in military-plane SU-24 from airdrome under Dnepropetrovsk city 17 July 2014 year and launched the rocket into the passenger airliner MH-17. When Vladislav returned to airdrome and left cabine of airplane he has said: "It was wrong airplane!" President Ukraine Peter Poroshenko has awarded pilot Voloshenko on 19 July 2014 with medal "for the courage" for killing euro-passengers in euro-airplane If Ukraine is not guilty then why Ukrainian artillery was shooting all the time the area crash in order to prevent investigation???

Why Ukrainian artillery could not be silent in July and August 2014 when commissions of air-specialists attempted to reach the crash place?

[Jul 07, 2017] Whose BUK Dutch Researchers Discuss MH17 by Eric van de Beek

This idea about paint transmission via explosion of the warhead is probably fake: the rocket was to far for any paint transmission. Also the denail that it can be a fighter jet is inconvinsing. I remeber the article that mentioned the existence of Israeli air-to-air rocket with similar shape off fragments.
The theory that Russia smuggled in a single component of the BUK system, shot down MH17 with it, and then smuggled it back out again (despite all the eyes of USA, German, Polish and Ukrainian intelligence services, who have their agent networks in the area) – is frankly crazy and makes no sense.
Both persons who were interviewed are very suspect:
Any person who mentions even skeptically about the version of events that Valentin Nalyvaichenko pursue, other than a definite disproval of any possibility that this version can be true, is a complete idiot. In case of MH17 any such person is simply imbecile.
Anybody who claims " I'm 100 percent convinced that someone from the Russian army has pushed the button." is stooge of the forces that want to implicate Russia. Because the question of "cue bono" should be answered first. How one can be 100% convinced in the case were powerful forces want a particular conclusion, no matter what is the evidence.
The question from whom those two guys get money for living also deserves to be answered. "Up to last year Max van der Werff earned a living as a corporate investigator for a German company. He now sells electric bikes to German delivery services for a Dutch company." sounds somewhat suspicious. The same is true for "Marcel van den Berg is an independent IT specialist. He advises his clients in the field of cloud computing and server virtualization." -- it is difficult to make living in thsi fied unles you are very very good or have very very good connections. Almost impossible. So the question of "alternative source of income" is a valid one for both.
Notable quotes:
"... I immediately realised: MH17 is used to frame Russia as an inhumane regime which shoots down civilian aircraft without a thought. And as it took longer for evidence to come out, my curiosity grew. ..."
"... MAX: I was accused by some Dutch journalist of being a Kremlin Troll. ..."
"... MAX: I have explained it on my blog. I dedicated an article to it, 'Why I'm a Troll.' ..."
"... In addition, Malaysia Airlines was so naive to fly over the area without verifying if it was still safe to do so. On the question if the Dutch state is to be blamed, I'm not sure. There were airliners that had stopped flying over the area, perhaps because they were indirectly warned by intelligence services. ..."
"... MAX: Airplanes shouldn't have been allowed to fly over the area. You can blame Ukraine for that. But until now I haven't seen any evidence the weapon that took down MH17 came from Russia. Such evidence was not presented by JIT, in fact by no one. At the same time I don't exclude the possibility. It is still open to me. ..."
"... MAX: It has most likely been an accident. But if MH17 was taken down to put the blame on another, then the guilty party must have been Ukraine, or a faction of the private army of Igor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian oligarch. But that's a hypothesis. There is no proof. ..."
"... Valentin Nalyvaichenko, former head of the Ukrainian secret service, SBU, claimed MH17 was shot down intentionally. The Russians planned to bring down one of their own Aeroflot planes, so that they could blame the Ukrainians and would have a justification to invade Ukraine. But the Russians screwed up their own false flag by hitting the wrong plane. ..."
"... This story of Nalyvaichenko is so exotic that it makes me laugh out loud. ..."
"... MAX: One month before MH17 was taken down, Elena Kolenkina, widow of rebel leader Motorola, reported that a Ukrainian fighter jet hid behind a passenger plane. According to her, this happened with the intention to trick the separatists into hitting a passenger plane, so that Kiev could use this in its propaganda war against the separatists. ..."
"... But this shield theory makes perfect sense. Imagine there are no civil aircraft in the area. Then the people of the air defence do not need to take into account something they see flying could be an airliner. Because they know for sure: 'Everything that flies is military.' So imagine there are civilian aircraft flying over the area. Then you'll have a factor of uncertainty. The air defence crew will have to think twice before they start shooting at every object they see flying. 'Is it civil or is it military? If we doubt, let's not shoot.' In this sense, Ukraine has used passenger aircraft as a shield. They consciously haven taken the decision not to close the airspace. ..."
"... MAX: Ukraine had two other motives to keep its entire airspace open. First of all: The traffic rights amounted to a few thousand euros per airliner. Secondly, they just didn't want to admit that they lost control of the territory. It would have been a disgrace. ..."
"... MARCEL: 100 percent. The damage to the plane could not have been caused by anything other than a BUK rocket. If MH17 had been hit by an air-to-air missile, fired from a fighter jet, we would have known. Almost all air-to-air missiles contain 'rods', a kind of metal strips like bullets. They leave a clear fingerprint, a certain kind of holes not found on MH17. ..."
"... The JIT has also found parts of a BUK rocket in the plane wreck. Then some might argue they could have been planted there. But the investigators found that the paint on the hull of the plane corresponded to the paint on the BUK particles. ..."
"... MAX: That sure was a remarkable press conference of the ministry. Because not only weren't there any aircrafts to be seen on the displayed images, there was no rocket either. Mind you: at the press conference of July 21, 2014 the Russians showed radar images with something that looked like an SU-25. So last year they debunked their own 2014 story. What were they thinking? They made a complete fool of themselves. The information management of the Russians, as far as there is any, is just worthless. ..."
"... Member of parliament Pieter Omtzigt revealed earlier this year that DSB mistook the autopsy report of the pilot for the autopsy report of the reserve pilot, and vice versa. ..."
"... MAX: That's a spectacular mistake. In each airliner you have a pilot, a co-pilot and a spare crew. Halfway during the flight, the reserve pilot goes into the cockpit, accompanied by the reserve co-pilot. So this is essential: the pilot and co-pilot were both in the cockpit, but not the reserve-pilot and the reserve co-pilot. And thus, if you perform an autopsy on the reserve pilot, who was not in the cockpit, it should have been impossible to find any particles in his body. ..."
"... MAX: I have never defended the fighter jet scenario. It has always been an option, like is was for JIT until last year. But probably it was a BUK. Although I find it remarkable that JIT still has not made clear what type of BUK they think was used. ..."
"... MAX: Not only did JIT not reveal the exact weapon. The exact coordinates of the BUK-launcher have not been mentioned either. But anyway, the fact that they didn't say 'It was the 9M38M1' indicates they think this is not the weapon that was used. Can you follow that logic? ..."
"... MAX: Almaz-Antey has done an experiment with a BUK 9M38M1 . They detonated that BUK on a plane that was on the ground. The plane then ended up loaded with butterfly-shaped fragments. Why is it so few fragments have been found in and around the wreckage of MH17? There might be a good explanation for this. But why has nobody taken this into the discussion? It is a relevant question. ..."
"... MAX: The bodies of the deceased have been transported in refrigerated trains from Torez to Charkov. Who knows what happened along the way. ..."
"... MAX: It's for certain no rocket was fired from Zaroshchenske. Because I spoke to so many people and nobody there saw anything. ..."
"... MAX: No. That's not what they say. The only thing they do say is: 'There was a BUK unit of the Ukrainian army in Zaroshchenske.' They never said, 'They fired from that location.' See their press conference of 21 July 2014. ..."
"... In the vicinity of Pervomais'ke it's easy for journalists to get any story they want. 'Here you have a crate of beer, a bottle of vodka and a hundred dollars. Now please tell me this and that.' People living there are inclined do that. I may be exaggerating, but I'm sure things like that really happen. ..."
"... The above interview was originally published in Dutch on Novini.nl . The original article is much longer, and delves into the propaganda war surrounding MH17, the dubious role of Ukraine's SBU in the investigation, the radar and satellite data, the geopolitical shadow play of the Dutch government - and the diminishing possibility of bringing suspects to justice. Only one paragraph has been added to the original article for reasons of clarification. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | russia-insider.com

Max van der Werff and Marcel van den Berg are citizen journalists. They write about MH17, pro deo.

Up to last year Max van der Werff earned a living as a corporate investigator for a German company. He now sells electric bikes to German delivery services for a Dutch company. Marcel van den Berg is an independent IT specialist. He advises his clients in the field of cloud computing and server virtualization.

Both men provide a blog, Max van der Werff: Kremlintroll (formerly: May 7 ) and Marcel van den Berg: What happened to flight MH17? Max van der Werff went to Donbass twice to investigate the crime scene. He speaks and reads Russian, but not well enough to properly understand everything published on the internet about MH17. Both researchers are in contact with Russians and Ukrainians who help translate.

Their names may be non-existent in the Dutch newspaper columns and in the news programmes on radio and television; but the efforts the two MH17 experts have put in their research are valued by various relevant parties. Like members of the Dutch parliament, as well as the detectives of Joint Investigation Team (JIT), and last but not least family members of the 298 victims (most of them Dutch) of this terrible disaster, which took place in Ukraine on 17 July 2014, when flight MH17 of Malaysia Airlines, going from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was shot from the sky.

Max and Marcel. How did you get interested in MH17?

MARCEL: I've been an aircraft spotter for most of my life. Whenever an accident occurs with a plane, I'm interested to determine the root cause. I found it strange that in the case of MH17 it took so long before the investigation started. Even when it had become clear to everyone the crash site was safe, it took some time before investigators visited it. I started blogging in September 2014. My knowledge of air traffic control and radars helped me in my research on MH17.

MAX: I grew up on the edge of the Iron Curtain. My father worked at a NATO airbase in Germany. This is how I got interested in the Soviet Union and geopolitics. When NATO began bombing former Yugoslavia in 1999, I quickly made the analysis: 'This is only just the beginning. It's a tryout to create problems for Russia.' I foresaw that Georgia and Ukraine would follow.

The story of MH17 is very much connected to the geopolitical conflict that is taking place there. The MH17 disaster would not have occurred if East and West had chosen to reach an agreement on Ukraine instead of seeking a confrontation. I immediately realised: MH17 is used to frame Russia as an inhumane regime which shoots down civilian aircraft without a thought. And as it took longer for evidence to come out, my curiosity grew.

Are there politicians, journalists, official researchers and relatives following your research?

MARCEL: I do no keep a record of that. I'm not very interested to know. In any case on Twitter I have a member of parliament following me, Pieter Omtzigt of the CDA, and a journalist, Jeroen Akkermans of RTL.

MAX: These two are following me on Twitter as well. And the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

And relatives of the deceased?

MARCEL: I speak occasionally with some of them, including Thomas Schansman, who wrote a letter to Putin, Poroshenko and Kerry.

MAX: I met with some of them, but I never contacted them myself.

MARCEL: Nor do I. I came in contact with some of them after they had asked me to give a presentation.

Max, some detectives of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which leads the criminal investigation, have visited you several times.

MAX: Yes. The first time they came to pick up items from the Boeing, which I had received from people living near the crash site. I also was interviewed by JIT detectives three times and I handed over some data they asked for. It turned out that they had read my blog and that of Marcel very well. And they asked super-detailed questions.

Marcel, have you been in contact with JIT or Dutch Safety Board (DSB)?

MARCEL: I've contacted DSB several times. But to all my questions I received the same answer: 'If it's not in the report, we cannot say anything about it.' They have cited in their report from a page on my website though.

Could we say that the two of you have a better understanding of MH17 than all journalists put together?

MAX: Each of us knows more about MH17 than all journalists combined.

MARCEL: Certainly so.

MAX: Marcel has more sense of technical issues like radar information. I have a blind spot for that. And his blog is fantastic. It's the MH17 file.

MARCEL: I'm not a radar expert, but I know one that I sometimes consult. Max has visited the crash site, and the area around it, and has spoken to people there. I lack that kind of experience.

Max, you have named your blog 'Kremlin Troll'. Why?

MAX: I was accused by some Dutch journalist of being a Kremlin Troll.

So then you thought: I'll use it as a nom de guerre ?

MAX: I have explained it on my blog. I dedicated an article to it, 'Why I'm a Troll.'

There have been two official investigations. The one from Dutch Safety Board (DSB) into the technical cause of the crash has been completed. The main conclusions are: MH17 was hit by a BUK rocket, and Ukraine should have closed its airspace in the Donbass region.

The second investigation, the criminal investigation, of Joint Investigation Team (JIT), aimed at identitying the suspects, is still ongoing. The preliminary conclusions are: It was a BUK, launched from rebel held area, and the installation used for this purpose was delivered by Russia and was transported back to Russia after the disaster.
Max and Marcel, who do you think are responsible for the downing of MH17?

MARCEL: I'm 100 percent convinced that someone from the Russian army has pushed the button. But Ukraine bears responsibility too, for not having closed its airspace . A few days before the disaster, an Antonov transport plane was shot at 6500 meters height. And there were also helicopters taken down.

In addition, Malaysia Airlines was so naive to fly over the area without verifying if it was still safe to do so. On the question if the Dutch state is to be blamed, I'm not sure. There were airliners that had stopped flying over the area, perhaps because they were indirectly warned by intelligence services.

MAX: Airplanes shouldn't have been allowed to fly over the area. You can blame Ukraine for that. But until now I haven't seen any evidence the weapon that took down MH17 came from Russia. Such evidence was not presented by JIT, in fact by no one. At the same time I don't exclude the possibility. It is still open to me.

I'm curious why you think differently about the alleged Russian involvement. But first let's presume, theoretically, there are two possibilities: MH17 was taken down either by accident or intentionally. If it happened intentionally, then the question is: qui bono ? Is there a party that benefited or could have benefited from the disaster?

MARCEL: I do not see a motive. Using my imagination, for sure I could come up with the wildest scenarios. But I'm not a conspiracy thinker. I prefer to stick to the facts.

MAX: It has most likely been an accident. But if MH17 was taken down to put the blame on another, then the guilty party must have been Ukraine, or a faction of the private army of Igor Kolomoisky, the Ukrainian oligarch. But that's a hypothesis. There is no proof.

Valentin Nalyvaichenko, former head of the Ukrainian secret service, SBU, claimed MH17 was shot down intentionally. The Russians planned to bring down one of their own Aeroflot planes, so that they could blame the Ukrainians and would have a justification to invade Ukraine. But the Russians screwed up their own false flag by hitting the wrong plane.

This story of Nalyvaichenko is so exotic that it makes me laugh out loud.

This Nalyvaichenko is also suspected of involvement in the theft of the paintings from the Dutch Westfries Museum. And the SBU, led by him, tortures people . It's beyond me the Dutch government is doing business with these kind of people and parties.

You do not believe that MH17 was shot down intentionally?

MARCEL: To me that seems out of the question.

MAX: Not to me.

If MH17 was hit by accident, could it be it was Ukraine that pushed the button? There's this theory the Ukrainians tried to bring down Putin's presidential aircraft, that was to fly over the same area around the time MH17 was brought down.

MARCEL: That's nonsense, because Putin's plane just wasn't there. I have this screen dump from Flightradar . On that you can clearly see: Putin's plane flew over Warsaw, not eastern Ukraine. Even Russia Today indicated that Putin had not flown over Ukraine for months.

MAX: There's more to the story. That day Putin came from Brazil, where he had attended a conference of BRICS countries. He was to fly to a conference in Rostov , southern Russia. His plane and MH17 crossed each other at Warsaw, with half an hour difference. But instead of flying to Rostov via Warsaw, over eastern Ukraine, as planned, Putin decided to refrain from the conference in Rostov and flew directly to Moscow.

MARCEL: I think it's a waste of time to pay attention to these kinds of stories. The MH17 was a Boeing 777. It looks very different from Putin's Ilyushin 96. The colour scheme is completely different, the 777 has two engines, the Ilyushin four engines.

MAX: In 1983 a Korean Kal 007 was taken down , flying over soviet territory, by a Soechoj because the pilot mistook it for a reconaissance plane.

So I can imagine that a fighter pilot flying 10 miles from Putin's aircraft, with the aim to take it down, mistook MH17 for Putin's plane. But just the same, I think it's an unlikely story. The perpetrators would have been tipped off in a timely manner that Putin's Ilyushin 96 took a different route.

If the separatists did it, what about the theory that they shot at Ukrainian fighter jets using MH17 as a shield?

MARCEL: That's out of the question. From what I understand the radar of a BUK Telar is of high precision. It's perfectly able to distinguish a Boeing 777 from a fighter jet flying closeby. Fighter jet pilots probably knew that and would not take the risk either.

Also, there are no reports by for example airline pilots that their aircraft was being chased by Ukraine fighter aircrafts. The TCAS system in the cockpit is able to detect aircrafts flying close by.

Many eyewitnesses say they saw jets just before MH17 came down.

MARCEL: I have no doubt that they were there. There are indeed many eyewitnesses who speak of it.

MAX: One month before MH17 was taken down, Elena Kolenkina, widow of rebel leader Motorola, reported that a Ukrainian fighter jet hid behind a passenger plane. According to her, this happened with the intention to trick the separatists into hitting a passenger plane, so that Kiev could use this in its propaganda war against the separatists.

I have interviewed witnesses who claimed they have seen SU-25s. But these are jets built to destroy ground targets, a sort of anti-tank weapons. They usually fly very low, to prevent them from coming within reach of the radar and air defence.

But this shield theory makes perfect sense. Imagine there are no civil aircraft in the area. Then the people of the air defence do not need to take into account something they see flying could be an airliner. Because they know for sure: 'Everything that flies is military.' So imagine there are civilian aircraft flying over the area. Then you'll have a factor of uncertainty. The air defence crew will have to think twice before they start shooting at every object they see flying. 'Is it civil or is it military? If we doubt, let's not shoot.' In this sense, Ukraine has used passenger aircraft as a shield. They consciously haven taken the decision not to close the airspace.

MARCEL: Yes, I think so too. They have left the airspace open, not to create a physical shield for fighter jets, but to prevent the separatists from getting trigger happy.

It's very possible that an Ilyushin 76 or an Antonov, a transport plane, has flown close to MH17. I do not exclude that possibility. It's a fact that Ukrainian troops were trapped between the border with Russia and the area in Donbas controlled by separatists. Two days before the MH17 disaster there was this dramatic phone call from a soldier with a Ukrainian TV station who said, 'We're stuck here. We have no food and drink anymore. We are being shot at from all sides. And we receive no help at all.' And so it's quite possible that, alarmed by this distress call, the Ukraine military decided to send a transport plane to drop supplies.

Both Russia and Ukraine say: 'There was no other plane on the radar.' But suppose they are lying, and that there was another plane on the radar.' Then both Ukraine and Russia would benefit from not making this public. Because if it became clear to the investigators there was another plane, that could be interpreted as a motive for both parties to have pulled the trigger.

So it could very well be that an Ilyushin or Antonov used MH17 as a shield. The pilot might have thought: 'As long as I keep close to this airliner, the air defence of the separatists will not shoot at us.'

MAX: Ukraine had two other motives to keep its entire airspace open. First of all: The traffic rights amounted to a few thousand euros per airliner. Secondly, they just didn't want to admit that they lost control of the territory. It would have been a disgrace.

The JIT has investigated the possibility that MH17 was taken down by another aircraft. They now have excluded that possibility. You too?

MARCEL: 100 percent. The damage to the plane could not have been caused by anything other than a BUK rocket. If MH17 had been hit by an air-to-air missile, fired from a fighter jet, we would have known. Almost all air-to-air missiles contain 'rods', a kind of metal strips like bullets. They leave a clear fingerprint, a certain kind of holes not found on MH17.

The JIT has also found parts of a BUK rocket in the plane wreck. Then some might argue they could have been planted there. But the investigators found that the paint on the hull of the plane corresponded to the paint on the BUK particles.

MAX: I still do not want to exclude the possibility MH17 was taken down by another plane. But there is no serious party that defends such a scenario.

A Canadian investigator of OSCE was one of the first foreigners who visited the crash site. He declared the holes in the fuselage looked like the holes of machine gun fire.

MAX: Michael Bociurkiw spoke out of turn. It seems he didn't speak on behalf of OSCE.

MARCEL: Everyone who's not a specialist would initially say that those holes in the cockpit look like they've been caused by something like a board gun. One has to be a specialist to know what the damage caused by a BUK looks like.

MARCEL: Last year the Russian Ministry of Defence firmly declared that there were no aircrafts flying close to MH17 that could have been responsible for its destruction.

MAX: That sure was a remarkable press conference of the ministry. Because not only weren't there any aircrafts to be seen on the displayed images, there was no rocket either. Mind you: at the press conference of July 21, 2014 the Russians showed radar images with something that looked like an SU-25. So last year they debunked their own 2014 story. What were they thinking? They made a complete fool of themselves. The information management of the Russians, as far as there is any, is just worthless.

What particles have been found in the physical remains of the pilots?

MARCEL: The JIT and DSB have found two butterfly-shaped particles in the body of one of the pilots. And butterfly-shaped is unique to the BUK rocket.

Member of parliament Pieter Omtzigt revealed earlier this year that DSB mistook the autopsy report of the pilot for the autopsy report of the reserve pilot, and vice versa.

MAX: That's a spectacular mistake. In each airliner you have a pilot, a co-pilot and a spare crew. Halfway during the flight, the reserve pilot goes into the cockpit, accompanied by the reserve co-pilot. So this is essential: the pilot and co-pilot were both in the cockpit, but not the reserve-pilot and the reserve co-pilot. And thus, if you perform an autopsy on the reserve pilot, who was not in the cockpit, it should have been impossible to find any particles in his body.

Why?

MAX: Only BUK particles have been found in the cockpit. Not elsewhere in the plane.

Is that right Marcel?

MARCEL: Yes, the passengers did not have any fragments.

MAX: Not even the first-class passengers in front.

Max, you said you have not yet ruled out the possibility that MH17 was hit by an air-to-air missile from another plane. But am I correct you are inclined to think it was a ground-to air missile?

MAX: I have never defended the fighter jet scenario. It has always been an option, like is was for JIT until last year. But probably it was a BUK. Although I find it remarkable that JIT still has not made clear what type of BUK they think was used. They promised to disclose the exact weapon. But they didn't. At last year's presentation they said it was a BUK of the BUK 9M38 series. But there are two different ones: the 9M38 with the 9N314 combat head, and the one with the butterflies, the 9M38M1 with the 9N314M combat head.

Is it important to know the type of BUK that was used?

MAX: It's very important. If the butterflies they found are real then you can exclude the 9M38, because there are no butterflies. Then you can say without hesitation: 'It was the 9M38M1.'

MARCEL: The butterfly-less 9M38 is no longer used by Russia. Only Ukraine is still using it. This tells us JIT has not yet excluded Ukraine as a suspect.

MAX: The 9M38 is an old type, and the Russians say that they still have it, but they do not use it anymore. And they also say they have warned the Ukrainians that their 9M38's have passed the expiration date. Ukraine has never been to Almaz-Altey, the Russian producer of the BUK, for an upgrade. The Ukrainians have modernized their BUKS, via Ukroboronprom.

MAX: I think that is very important.

MARCEL: Me too.

MAX: Not only did JIT not reveal the exact weapon. The exact coordinates of the BUK-launcher have not been mentioned either. But anyway, the fact that they didn't say 'It was the 9M38M1' indicates they think this is not the weapon that was used. Can you follow that logic?

MARCEL: No.

MAX: They haven't excluded the possibility that it was the 9M38, without butterfly pieces.

They say they are sure they've found butterfly pieces. But they do not conclude from this: 'It was a 9M38M1, because it's the only BUK that contains butterfly pieces.' I think this is telling. Either you do not trust your own proof, or you have another reason not to disclose the type of weapon. What other reasons could there be not to be open about this?

What do you think, Marcel, why are they hiding the info about the exact type of BUK they think was used ?

MARCEL: I do not know. One can only speculate about it. Perhaps it was a missile of a BUK the separatists had stolen from the Ukrainian army.

MAX: That's what the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) claims . They've given no proof for it, but still it is an official publication.

MARCEL: But imagine that it was a BUK the separatists had stolen from the Ukranian army. And suppose JIT had revealed that MH17 was hit by an outdated type of rocket originating from the Ukranian army. That would have led to a lot of confusion, such as journalists jumping to the conclusion the Ukranian army had taken down MH17. To prevent his from happening JIT kept silent about the exact weapon that was used.

MAX: Almaz-Antey has done an experiment with a BUK 9M38M1 . They detonated that BUK on a plane that was on the ground. The plane then ended up loaded with butterfly-shaped fragments. Why is it so few fragments have been found in and around the wreckage of MH17? There might be a good explanation for this. But why has nobody taken this into the discussion? It is a relevant question.

Do you have an explanation for this Marcel?

MARCEL: I was in contact with an anonymous person who knows very much about BUKs. He told me that at the time of the explosion there's so much pressure on the fragments in the combat head, that when they leave the head, they are so distorted that they have partially lost their butterfly shape.

I do not exclude that technical explanation, although one should be careful with anonymous sources. They can have a hidden agenda. From this person I had the suspicion he was pro-Kiev. But I also do no not rule out the possibility that Almaz-Antey has deliberately put some butterfly shapes in this plane using some kind of device.

It took a long time before the investigators reached the crash site. There must have been plenty of opportunity to remove evidence or to put it there.

MARCEL: Parts of the cockpit roof and business class have never been found. But to be able to plant evidence, parts of the plane must have been taken away first. To me that's an unlikely scenario.

MAX: The bodies of the deceased have been transported in refrigerated trains from Torez to Charkov. Who knows what happened along the way.

Marcel, why are you so sure MH17 was brought down with a BUK installation, delivered by Russia, from an area controlled by separatists?

MARCEL: I'm not sure that the BUK Telar, that was photographed and filmed on its way from Russia to Eastern Ukraine, was used to shoot down MH17. There is simply no proof for that. But we do have two pictures of the smoke plume of the launched BUK. There are also a number of people who have shown that they saw a rocket flying over the area. I have not heard any trustworthy story that a BUK was launched from another location. There are zero indications for that. No pictures, no witnesses, nothing.

I took a close look at this village, Zaroshchenske ....

MAX: It's for certain no rocket was fired from Zaroshchenske. Because I spoke to so many people and nobody there saw anything.

MARCEL: But that's what the Russians say : Zaroshchenske.

MAX: No. That's not what they say. The only thing they do say is: 'There was a BUK unit of the Ukrainian army in Zaroshchenske.' They never said, 'They fired from that location.' See their press conference of 21 July 2014.

Max, for you there is no reason to believe a BUK rocket was launched from rebel-controlled area in Pervomais'ke?

MAX: JIT claims there are witnesses who have seen it there. But these are either anonymous or non-anonymous witnesses. I have interviewed the non-anonymous myself, and they are telling just nonsense. One person told four different stories, to RT, Radio Free Europe, The Daily Telegraph and to me.

In the vicinity of Pervomais'ke it's easy for journalists to get any story they want. 'Here you have a crate of beer, a bottle of vodka and a hundred dollars. Now please tell me this and that.' People living there are inclined do that. I may be exaggerating, but I'm sure things like that really happen.

And something I do not understand: time and again journalists tell us their witnesses want to remain anonymous because they fear for reprisals. Then why is it their sources do not seem to have any problem talking to complete strangers, foreigners, and trusting them with their lives?

The above interview was originally published in Dutch on Novini.nl . The original article is much longer, and delves into the propaganda war surrounding MH17, the dubious role of Ukraine's SBU in the investigation, the radar and satellite data, the geopolitical shadow play of the Dutch government - and the diminishing possibility of bringing suspects to justice. Only one paragraph has been added to the original article for reasons of clarification.


Eric van de Beek studied journalism at Windesheim University in Zwolle, and philosophy at the University of Amsterdam . For years he worked as a journalist for the Dutch leading weekly Elsevier . Now he mainly writes for Holland's one and only geopolitical magazine Novini .

[Jul 07, 2017] Multiple versions of MH17 downling might be introduced purely to make it impossible for the truth ever to be discovered, but Ukraine has way too many "the dog ate my homework" excuses

Notable quotes:
"... It often seems as if multiple theories were introduced purely to make it impossible for the truth ever to be discovered, keeping everyone busy running down leads. But to my mind, Ukraine has a lot of 'the dog ate my homework' excuses – none of our aircraft were flying that day; sorry, all our primary radars were down for maintenance; gee, I don't know where those ATC records went! And the theory the Dutch Safety Board copped to – that Russia smuggled in a single component of the Buk system, shot down MH17 with it, and then smuggled it back out again – is frankly crazy and makes no sense. ..."
"... fat wankers like yourself may want to make it into the crime of the century because some Europeans suffered the consequences of the war their governments started ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Matt , July 7, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Instead of chasing around those who criticize the United Russia administration, your time would be better served reading about various contradictions in the Russian government's multiple conspiracy theories about MH17.

Was there an SU-25 or not? Think Pavlo, think,

marknesop , July 7, 2017 at 5:32 pm
It often seems as if multiple theories were introduced purely to make it impossible for the truth ever to be discovered, keeping everyone busy running down leads. But to my mind, Ukraine has a lot of 'the dog ate my homework' excuses – none of our aircraft were flying that day; sorry, all our primary radars were down for maintenance; gee, I don't know where those ATC records went! And the theory the Dutch Safety Board copped to – that Russia smuggled in a single component of the Buk system, shot down MH17 with it, and then smuggled it back out again – is frankly crazy and makes no sense.
Pavlo Svolochenko , July 7, 2017 at 6:20 pm
Lulz who cares shitstain? MH-17 is a dead issue – fat wankers like yourself may want to make it into the crime of the century because some Europeans suffered the consequences of the war their governments started , but nobody else gives a damn about MH-17 or your dead Ukrainian motherland.

[Jun 30, 2017] As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point specified by the JIT in 10 seconds.

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

Correction to above translation:

The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile", the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

See also: Политическое направление: почему локатор не увидел ракету, сбившую MH17

Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17

"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States General).

The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:59 am
I wonder if Blok has ever actually observed a radar display that is tracking a Buk missile? Or any such tracking display for that matter.
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 4:25 pm
As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point specified by the JIT in 10 seconds. And radar does not just illuminate targets, it records having received an echo return from bouncing off something, so that as the operator you see a dot – which they referred to as a tick – which is the accumulation of 'hits' by the radar, so that you can distinguish a target from the innumerable random dots which result from the characteristic known as 'scatter'. Most radars have a feature known as history recording or target trails, in which you begin to see the contacts progress by the trail of 'hits' it leaves behind.

In any case, it is significant that the Dutch investigation team did not bother to get a radar expert to summarize its findings in that area, but a political appointee with no experience in that field.

Jen , June 28, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Doesn't the BUK missile delivery system itself also rely on radar to locate and target any objects? So had there been a team or unit of soldiers operating such a system in the area where the Dutch claim they were in, then wouldn't Russian military have been able to work out the radar frequencies the group was using and contact it?
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 10:28 pm
Well, the Russians would hardly contact this group, would they? Not knowing the SBU and their crack communications-intercept teams were listening and ready to record another admission of Russian culpability. Over several days of observations it would be possible to identify unique Buk systems by their operating frequencies, yes. Typically they are identified as operating in the band of frequencies which identify them as a Buk system, and that's good enough, but it is possible to identify one among others if you have the opportunity to match its frequencies to observation and watch it move around, although if there are several systems, their operating frequencies will all be close.

But the Dutch story is that this system was smuggled in just long enough to take the shot and then quickly smuggled out again, and that it was only one launcher and not a complete system. The radar on the launcher is highly directional, and electronic warfare systems might not pick it up unless they were along its line of sight, whereas the emitter which is usually correlated to the Buk (by electronic intercept) is the search radar, which is its own separate vehicle.

Russian electronic warfare did report several Buk systems active in the area – all Ukrainian, presumably, since the Ukrainian command insisted the rebels did not have any – the day prior to the disaster. That statement (that the rebels did not have any Buks that were captured from the Ukrainian Army) and other realities are what force the crazy story whereby Russia supposedly smuggled in a partial system, took the shot and ran for it. It's the only one they can make fit.

kirill , June 29, 2017 at 6:00 am
The Dutch are peddling one of the most inane tinfoil hat theories ever. If Russia smuggled in that single component for an in and out atrocity, then why the FCUK didn't they just help the Donbas "terrorists' fix up the system that fell into their hands that fits the same description (i.e. one lacking a separate radar unit). Hiding a few Buk missiles in the back of a truck is vastly easier than lugging around a whole mobile unit on a flatbed.

This is shit is the same "feed the retards some 'plausible' story" ploy as the Polonium murder of Litvinenko. Smearing Polonium on a Moscow circuit plane is the ultimate in inanity. Let's use an exotic murder weapon that is messy and hard to use and make sure to trace it back to ourselves. For fuck's sake, using a hand gun with a silencer is orders of magnitude easier and less traceable since throwing the gun in the river actually works and it will have negligible chance of being found by the cops unless they have a witness.

Jen , June 29, 2017 at 4:00 pm
Of course! – I hadn't thought the SBU would be monitoring communications between the rebels in Donetsk and any outside supporters. My oversight. I had in mind a hypothetical situation where the Russian military detects such a "unit", observes its activities to determine their intended objective and then warns the "unit" that it is under surveillance.
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 3:54 pm
As I've pointed out before, any emitter with such a slow scan rate as that would be useless for air traffic control. There are radars with huge antennas and very slow scan rates, but they are high-power emitters used for Early Warning, not for controlling fast-moving aircraft and deconflicting a busy air picture at various altitudes. But the Dutch 'investigators' who are helping Ukraine wash itself out of the picture hope that you are stupid.

[Jun 28, 2017] Radar data debunks official MH17 findings, locator could not miss the BUK missile – Russian air regulator

Notable quotes:
"... Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings. ..."
"... "It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:08 am
WARNING!

Kremlin controlled "news" source

Radar data debunks official MH17 findings, locator could not 'miss' missile – Russian air regulator
Published time: 27 Jun, 2017 19:41

Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings.

Last week, the Dutch government published a series of replies by Security and Justice Minister Stef Blok, who explained to a parliamentary commission why radar data provided by Russia did not show any objects approaching the MH17 flight, including a Buk missile.

The radar, according to Blok, could simply miss a missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that a missile could slip through during its "turn" and therefore leave no trace on Russia's Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar could not register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

It sneaked in while the radar antenna was looking the other way???????

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:42 am
Correction to above translation:

The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile", the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

See also: Политическое направление: почему локатор не увидел ракету, сбившую MH17

Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17

"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States General).

The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:59 am
I wonder if Blok has ever actually observed a radar display that is tracking a Buk missile? Or any such tracking display for that matter.

[Jun 04, 2017] A coverup after a Ukrainian fighter plane shot it down

Notable quotes:
"... MH17 seems to have disappeared from MSM reporting. The Dutch preliminary report was unconvincing. ..."
"... For me, the suspicious thing is that there was no mention of ELINT. Why didn't NATO or the US government simply say that "We intercepted the Buk's surveillance radar at time X and location Y; the tracking radar started emiting Z minutes before the crash and, just before the crash, it entered its CW terminal guidance mode". None of this would reveal secret capabilities - we are talking about 1960s tech. ..."
"... Perhaps, there were no ELINT/ESM assets in the area. But this was the only hot war in Europe at the time, and it is likely that both Russian and American special forces were there, if only as observers. ..."
"... Does the MH17 evidence that Russia provided, you are referring to include their satellite images? The US refused to provide their's, so is left just pointing bloody fingers as usual. I am increasingly disappointed by the collusion of the Dutch in this mess. Their investigators are traitors to their own citizen victims ..."
"... However, the WHERE, WHY and BY WHOM is an important point here, but there is little info on that, not from NATO, and not from the Ukies. All we get from these two is the claim that it was, of course, the Russians, end of story. NATO aside, by geography the Ukies would of course be an advantaged collector of such informations. ..."
"... The dutch MH17 report in large part depended on Ukrainian reports of whatever happened on the day MH17 was shot down. And natutrally, everybody who believes and trusts the Ukies in what they say happened is unwise. That is to say that the Ukies, out of self interest, lie a lot given a chance, and what they say should not be accepted as truth, certainly not without checks from, second sources, ideally own services and systems. ..."
"... If in case of MH17 it wasn't the Russians, but, say, some Ukie, the Ukies would be motivated to lie - instead of saying that the aircraft was shot down by themselves, or one of their volunteer units that would be mebarassing, well, murderous, to put it mildly. ..."
"... I would be very surprised if the US did not have naval, air and space based ELINT assets monitoring the area closely at that time. Maintaining an up to date EORBAT was a pretty high priority during the Cold War and I doubt that has changed much. ..."
"... At the end of the day, these kinds of systems are not difficult to keep track of. They are few in number, loud (ELINT systems have the advantage over radars of 1/R^2 vs 1/R^4 in signal strength) and have relatively simple waveforms. ..."
"... U.S. Modus Operandi: Whenever something big happens, the U.S. immediately comes up with a simple narrative that is accepted by the MSM and our western allies and never changes it. In the case of MH17, within a day or two, 'the rebels killed innocent civilians armed with an illegally supplied Buk from Russia'. Khan Shaykhun, same thing, 'Assad poisoned children from this airfield and is being protected by the Russians'. Come hell or high water nothing will ever change our narrative. ..."
"... The Russians, they respond with multiple theories that sometimes contradict each other within a matter of days or weeks. Is this the sign of Information Warfare or possible innocence, what would you do if you were suddenly called a baby killer? I think it is clever that we have spun a natural response to a standard tactic of 'Russian information warfare' that U.S. experts call 'deny, obfuscate, and overload'. ..."
"... It's great to have money to burn, we have tons of it to throw at consultants, think tanks, and the like. ..."
Jun 04, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

MH17. Russian sources have published documents claimed to be from Ukrainian intelligence sources . They describe a coverup after a Ukrainian fighter plane shot it down. ( Original Совершенно секретно ) ( English ) I merely put this out – I don't know: there are plenty of fakes around. But I do not believe a Buk shot it down: a Buk warhead has about 6000 lethal fragments and detonation a metre or two from the aircraft would have left a lot more fragments in the wreckage than were found. The Dutch report is self-contradictory by the way.

Prem said...
MH17 seems to have disappeared from MSM reporting. The Dutch preliminary report was unconvincing.

For me, the suspicious thing is that there was no mention of ELINT. Why didn't NATO or the US government simply say that "We intercepted the Buk's surveillance radar at time X and location Y; the tracking radar started emiting Z minutes before the crash and, just before the crash, it entered its CW terminal guidance mode". None of this would reveal secret capabilities - we are talking about 1960s tech.

Instead we get dubious ballistics and analysis of grass burns.

Perhaps, there were no ELINT/ESM assets in the area. But this was the only hot war in Europe at the time, and it is likely that both Russian and American special forces were there, if only as observers.

Bandit -
Does the MH17 evidence that Russia provided, you are referring to include their satellite images? The US refused to provide their's, so is left just pointing bloody fingers as usual. I am increasingly disappointed by the collusion of the Dutch in this mess. Their investigators are traitors to their own citizen victims .

The Saker has a May 23 article about the SBU, the Security Service of Ukraine which, if true, exposes that agency directive to destroy or dispose of all evidence relating to the shooting down of MH17. Here is the link:

https://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/

confusedponderer -
Prem,

Buk has a certain range, and it needs a suitable radar of a certain (rather limted) range. Also, russian and Ukie Buks use the same radar. That means that detecting a Buk radar doesn't mean it was russians who operated it - it just means that a Buk was located. It also means that to detect a Buk radar, one needs to be rather close.

However, the WHERE, WHY and BY WHOM is an important point here, but there is little info on that, not from NATO, and not from the Ukies. All we get from these two is the claim that it was, of course, the Russians, end of story. NATO aside, by geography the Ukies would of course be an advantaged collector of such informations.

That said, they also have their own interests. And perhaps they have collected things like ELINT or SIGINT info on the shootdown of MH17, but what they give out doesn't change the narrative that it was Putin. Well, distrustful as I am, I have a hunch that the narrative was written well before MH17 was shot down.

That written, SIGINT and ELINT only have so long a range and Ukraine is a large land. A SIGINT/ ELINT system in Poland or Romania, or in an aircraft collecting over the baltic may just been too far away - out of range - to listen to or locate/find a Buk system.

The dutch MH17 report in large part depended on Ukrainian reports of whatever happened on the day MH17 was shot down. And natutrally, everybody who believes and trusts the Ukies in what they say happened is unwise. That is to say that the Ukies, out of self interest, lie a lot given a chance, and what they say should not be accepted as truth, certainly not without checks from, second sources, ideally own services and systems.

If in case of MH17 it wasn't the Russians, but, say, some Ukie, the Ukies would be motivated to lie - instead of saying that the aircraft was shot down by themselves, or one of their volunteer units that would be mebarassing, well, murderous, to put it mildly.

In light of that it is probable that it is perceived to be far more handy to keep up the fairy tale that MH17 was of course shot down by the evil Russians - probably out of boredom and utter evilness. Yes, of course, and why else?

That sort of nonsense should be kept in mind whenever hearing any Ukies statements for or over anything - it may just be a load of self interested BS. Policy based on believing such things would likewise be utter nonsense and unlikely to work.

Prem -
I would be very surprised if the US did not have naval, air and space based ELINT assets monitoring the area closely at that time. Maintaining an up to date EORBAT was a pretty high priority during the Cold War and I doubt that has changed much.

At the end of the day, these kinds of systems are not difficult to keep track of. They are few in number, loud (ELINT systems have the advantage over radars of 1/R^2 vs 1/R^4 in signal strength) and have relatively simple waveforms.

Ulenspiegel said...
Patrick Armstrong wrote: "But I do not believe a Buk shot it down"

The funny thing is that even the Russians not longer claim it was a SU25 launched missile. Since September 2016 it is the Russian versin too that a BUK hit the MH17, hower, a Ukrainian. :-)

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/mh17-was-wir-ueber-den-flugzeugabsturz-wissen-14456935.html

The piss poor Russian PR performance pointed IMHO to the more likely scenario that their guys screwed up and Russia played for time with stupid stunts like the press conference where a poor Russian general had to sell the redar echo of debis as SU25 and the sudden change of SU specifications on the home page of the producer. :-)

If it had been a Ukranian BUK, the Russians could have fried the Ukrainians very easily and would not have missed this opportunity.

And last but not least: On the German mil blog "Augen gerade aus", there were extremyl good discussions and people there - air force officers with deep konwledge of Russian AA systems and planes - came very earlty to the conclusion that it was a BUK most likely.

james - Ulenspiegel ...
sorry ulenspiegel... too many signs point to ukraines involvement.. why no minutes from air control and etc. etc. etc.???
Ulenspiegel -
Sorry, james, the Russians promoted the story of Ukrainian SU25, "supported" by stupid lies of a Russian general at a press conference, and with changing technical specifications on the SU25 home page...

September 2016 they changed it to BUK. "Great" performance.

Chris Chuba - Ulenspiegel ...
"The piss poor Russian PR performance pointed IMHO to the more likely scenario that their guys screwed up"
From a PR perspective, it would have been much cleaner had they just said, 'rebels acquired a BUK from Ukrainian military stockpiles, they have been under attack by the UkAf and mistook a passenger jet for a bomber since it would be insane to direct air traffic to a war zone'.

The problem is that since the Russians probably didn't know what actually happened, they were genuinely caught flat footed and exploring the issue. Having watched how they have managed press releases in Syria I have concluded that they do not do PR management. Contrary to what many state, the Russians totally suck at Information Warfare.

I am not commenting on what actually did happen with MH17 but taking the opportunity to comment on U.S. vs Russian Information Warfare . We have dozens of NGO's that will issue press releases stating 'Assad, Russia, Iran guilty of war crimes, ranked #1 in executions, corruption, #144 in the Democracy index'. Russia doesn't have anything like our NGO's. Here is one reference that I book marked because I found it so amusingly obvious, 'Physicians for human rights', a U.S. based NGO
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/moscow-politely-calls-bs-after-us-accuses-assad-barrel-bombing-maternity-wards-fun/ri19984 I couldn't find the source of their funding but I'll bet someone a steak dinner that govt money would be in that trail.

The other avenue of U.S. Information Warfare is when the FBI / CIA give anonymous leaks or otherwise feed stories to the NYT / WaPo . Now the Russian govt does have access to RT but we still have a much more influential press corp. We also have more power in charting course in investigations that are supposed to be neutral. We killed OPCW investigations in Syria and the one for MH17 was dubious.

Tel said...
What always confused me about MH17 is that some of the wrecked panels clearly had holes punching BOTH inwards and ALSO outwards on the same plate. Plenty of photos on the Internet can be found showing at least some of the holes are nice and neat and ROUND which the Dutch report ignored, but possibly could be a machine gun. BUC fragments are not round and would never leave a neat round hole.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150927225501/http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/thumb/a/ae/MH17_cockpit_right_window_frame_bullet_holes.png/400px-MH17_cockpit_right_window_frame_bullet_holes.png ">http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/thumb/a/ae/MH17_cockpit_right_window_frame_bullet_holes.png/400px-MH17_cockpit_right_window_frame_bullet_holes.png">https://web.archive.org/web/20150927225501/http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/thumb/a/ae/MH17_cockpit_right_window_frame_bullet_holes.png/400px-MH17_cockpit_right_window_frame_bullet_holes.png

Also, they never released the full cockpit recording, and they never released the air-traffic control conversations with the aircraft (especially at the critical time when the craft changed off their normal course to instead fly over the hot zone of rebel held territory). No aircraft would normally fly over a war zone so the conversation around that course correction is absolutely critical to knowing what happened that night.

Bandit -
I appreciate the contributions forum members give to this important MH17 event that the MSM has been recently ignoring after it published so many lies and omissions in its previous articles. I think most of us just want the truth, and the evidence to support it. Whoever is responsible, Russia, Ukraine, or the US, needs to be revealed to the world. But, many of these types of atrocities tend to disappear after their "newsworthy" merits are exhausted and there is more money to be made by exploiting the Trump trend.

Much like the Kennedy assassinations, the US does everything to cover up and mislead the public, and it takes years and the advent of the internet to get the facts more widely viewed. By that time, the perps are either dead or Alzheimer zombies, and a new generation of citizens have more pressing concerns than what happened some 50 years ago. But, for me, MH17 will remain current news as long as it takes for the truth to be revealed.

VietnamVet said...
PA

The problem with the wartime information operations underway since 9/11 is that people who should know better start believing the propaganda, the public is uninformed, corporations buy silence and they now include Russia. Besides MH-17, Ukraine's ongoing trench war or the potential nuclear flashpoint at Al-Tanf; there is the is the Airbus fly by wire computer control system that is implicated in at least three crashes that killed all souls on board and Qantas Flight 72 that had a narrow escape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72

Thomas said...
"If it had been a Ukranian BUK, the Russians could have fried the Ukrainians very easily and would not have missed this opportunity."

That is exactly what the Noveau Khans wanted so as to drag the United States into their war. Thanks to a lazy government official's commode computer, the Russians probably knew it too (see F U EU). Funny that Nato won't provide their proof to the public the those Russkie Rebels did the deed. Why is that?

Chris Chuba said...
The Information War
U.S. Modus Operandi: Whenever something big happens, the U.S. immediately comes up with a simple narrative that is accepted by the MSM and our western allies and never changes it. In the case of MH17, within a day or two, 'the rebels killed innocent civilians armed with an illegally supplied Buk from Russia'. Khan Shaykhun, same thing, 'Assad poisoned children from this airfield and is being protected by the Russians'. Come hell or high water nothing will ever change our narrative.

The Russians, they respond with multiple theories that sometimes contradict each other within a matter of days or weeks. Is this the sign of Information Warfare or possible innocence, what would you do if you were suddenly called a baby killer? I think it is clever that we have spun a natural response to a standard tactic of 'Russian information warfare' that U.S. experts call 'deny, obfuscate, and overload'.

It's great to have money to burn, we have tons of it to throw at consultants, think tanks, and the like.

[May 30, 2017] When Intelligence Is Not by Patrick Armstrong

Notable quotes:
"... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
"... intelligence sources ..."
"... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
"... four years earlier ..."
"... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
May 29, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.

In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret), probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many rewrites produced a consensus opinion.

A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy, or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So: question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin. All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that don't look like the real thing.

Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.

So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand, has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day). It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake. There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social media.

An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.

So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"?

I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when Marie Harf, the then US State Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.

There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were were then modified to please the Boss.

If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants to hear.

We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a modified hangout and very far from convincing .

Russia "invaded" Ukraine so many times it became a joke. The "evidence" was the usual social media accompanied by blurry satellite photos . So bad are the photos, in fact, that someone suggested that "Russian artillery" were actually combine harvesters . In one of the rare departures from the prescribed consensus, a former (of course) German Chief of Staff was utterly unconvinced by thse pictures and explained why . By contrast, here is a satellite photo of Russian aircraft in Syria ; others here . Sharply focussed and in colour. The "Russian invasion" photos were lower quality than the Cuban Missile Crisis photos taken six decades earlier! A hidden message? See below.

The so-called Syrian government CW attack on Ghouta in August 2013 was similarly based on social media; heavily dependent, in fact, on "Bellingcat". Quite apart from the improbability of Assad ordering a CW attack on a suburb a short drive away from arriving international inspectors, the whole story was adequately destroyed by Seymour Hersh . (Bellingcat's "proofs", by the way, can be safely ignored – see his faked-up "evidence" that Russians attacked an aid convoy in Syria .)

A dominant story for months has been that Russia somehow influenced the US presidential election. As ever, the Washington Post led the charge and the day after the election told us " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ". But when we finally saw the "secret assessments" they proved to be laughably damp squibs. The DHS/FBI report of 29 December 2016 carried this stunning disclaimer:

This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the DNI report of 6 January 2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the 2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". ( See 10:30 ). Jeffrey Carr: " Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange: not a state actor. Even those who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the NSA can mimic Russians or anyone else .

In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that the responders didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media machine wound up its sirens. The intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting" and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart by Theodore Postol .

So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.

There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed, of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.

In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:

Where done? By whom? That remains to be discovered. More Swamp to be drained.

[May 02, 2017] Last years report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people. Separatists did it vertion looks more and more like propaganda peddled by neoliberal MSM such as WaPO and NYT

Carlton Meyer , Website September 14, 2016 at 4:18 am GMT \n

300 Words Better examples are found in an article that I linked:

Sep 12, 2016 – The Ukrainians Shot Down MH-17!

I highly recommend this brilliant article about how the New York Times and Washington Post have become propaganda machines for the American Neo-Con Empire.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/07/new-york-times-and-the-new-mccarthyism/

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming "Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories." The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that "The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia."The Dutch Safety Board's reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014.

But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar's claim is not "the simple truth," as he put it. Last year's report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.

Indeed, the DSB's report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO's intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

annamaria , September 15, 2016 at 1:24 am GMT \n
@Quartermaster

The problem with accusing the Ukrainians of having shot down MH-17 is found in the wreckage. The type of pellet that did the damage is not found in the version of the Buk missile in the possession of the Ukrainians. Only the newer version, owned only by the Russians, have the type of pellet that did the damage.

Russia shot down MH-17. Russian troops are known to be in eastern Ukraine operating heavy weapons. Russia has also come clean that regular troops have been sent to the Donbas and a lot of the artillery fire that has been aimed at the Ukrainians has come from Russian territory.

You've swallowed a load of Putinist propaganda.

You habitually accuse the UNZ Review readers in "swallowing Putin propaganda" when you asked to provide proofs for your cavalier Russophobic statements. In case you have not noticed yet, UNZ Review does not publish Eliot Higgins (and other experts in selling ladies underwear), but prefers to deal with the serious thinkers and professionals.

Joe Wong , September 15, 2016 at 2:59 am GMT \n
200 Words @Carlton Meyer

Better examples are found in an article that I linked:

Sep 12, 2016 - The Ukrainians Shot Down MH-17!

I highly recommend this brilliant article about how the New York Times and Washington Post have become propaganda machines for the American Neo-Con Empire.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/07/new-york-times-and-the-new-mccarthyism/

They rarely print corrections when caught in a lie, and even attack those speaking the truth by implying they are foreign agents. In reality nearly all major media have become spin machines evidenced by that article's interesting news item that I read nowhere else:

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming "Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories." The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that "The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia."

The Dutch Safety Board's reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar's claim is not "the simple truth," as he put it. Last year's report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.Indeed, the DSB's report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO's intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

NYT has been fabricating stories as long as it exists to assist USA government engineer regime changes and colour revolutions, and wage reckless wars on the fabricated allegations around the world, as well as white wash American war crimes. NYT is the core of the Western black information network to spread disinformation and misinformation for the American conquest of global full spectrum dominance via organised violence and committing crime against humanity.

It is puzzling why the NYT has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance because it works with the government to suppress stories, covering up election fraud in the ruling party and ruthlessly campaigning against the main US opposition leader Donald Trump while it has been doing the same unscrupulous things since its existence? Is it because the author's sense of justice is selective, and he feels the American is exceptional, injustice applies to people not American does not count?

annamaria , September 17, 2016 at 1:02 pm GMT \n
100 Words @blert 1) The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation. Only in 2012 did the NY Times -- of all publications -- flatly admit that they'd suppressed the truth all those years -- at the request of the Pentagon for obvious national security reasons.

A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) -- properly detonated -- could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway.

Hundreds of these rounds were ultimately recovered. The enemy never understood what they had their hands on, as Saddam had ensured that these nerve agent rounds looked identical to conventional rounds. He's the only madman that crazy.

( He did so to hide their usage from the French military advisors during his Iranian invasion. )

2) The Dutch are correct. MH-17 can't be resolved as the Russians and Ukrainians have essentially identical counter-air assets. Both parties have every reason to lie; and to screw up. The flight should never have been routed anywhere near the conflict. KAL 007 and Iran Air 655 should've been warning enough.

3) The US MSM is over concentrated to a ruinous degree. Ditto for America's J-schools, whose ethos is to propagandise the World for its betterment.

4) It's no joke that the NY Times regards anyone west of the Hudson to be rubes.

5) They can spew it out -- but can't take correction -- at ANY level. This causes a profound detachment from ground truth. "The WMD in Iraq were being unearthed straight through the occupation"

Thank you for reminding what country had provided the chemical WMD to Saddam:
"How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons:" http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
"Rumsfeld helped Iraq get chemical weapons:" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
"CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran:" http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

And thanks for the alert, "A SINGLE binary nerve agent round (155mm) - properly detonated - could have killed thousands of New Yorkers commuting by subway."
There is more for your attentions.
"Concern in Russia is increasing over the growing number of hard-to-access, double-purpose medical laboratories, financed by the US Department of Defense, appearing alongside its borders " https://sputniknews.com/world/20160908/1045088663/us-russia-biological-laboratories.html
"Russia Says U.S. Expanding Bioweapons Labs in Europe:" http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-says-u-s-expanding-bioweapons-labs-in-europe/

Alfred , September 14, 2016 at 4:25 am GMT \n

There is a giant billboard going up again across the street from the NYT calling them out on 9/11

"ReThink911's "New York Times Billboard" Is Here"

http://rethink911.org/news/november-campaign-new-york-times-billboard/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

[Apr 17, 2017] To think how the US is acting different now to the past I would probably point to MH17

Notable quotes:
"... Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing. ..."
"... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
"... The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:04:29 PM | 64

@ outraged

I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth lead time, to what we are seeing take place?

create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?

Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.

The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician.

The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.

I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take down the US.

The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.

What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?

US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines put out by these type think tanks.

[Apr 07, 2017] Ukraine BUK battery passing theorugh north Donetsk April 2014.

Apr 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
HowdyDoody -> Volkodav , Apr 6, 2017 4:18 PM

The news of the 'attack' has wiped other news off the front page. Bellingcat has just released a report with videos and photos of whole Ukrainian BUK batteries around Donetsk from April 2014 up to a few days before the shooting down of MH-17. The Ukrainians have always claimed they had no BUKs in the eara, so it must have been a Russian system, for which they created an elaborate tale of BUKs on tour.

This report destroys the whole Ukraine narrative. The Ukraine media are all over it. Where's the coverage in the western media?

Ukraine BUK battery passing theorugh north Donetsk April 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfRQqXeg14

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF...

[Mar 11, 2017] John Helmer: Australian Government Trips Up Ukrainian Court Claim of MH17 as Terrorism

Notable quotes:
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014. ..."
"... In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime." ..."
"... Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there. ..."
"... Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement. ..."
"... There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later. ..."
"... On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan. ..."
"... My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes. ..."
"... This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won. ..."
"... You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends. ..."
"... This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though ..."
"... How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind. ..."
"... If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine. ..."
"... As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts. ..."
Mar 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on March 11, 2017 by Yves Smith By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014.

The Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has written to advise Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; right image, Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko) there is insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act. Because the Attorney-General's legal opinion flatly contradicts Turnbull's public opinions, Brandis's advice is top-secret; he refuses to answer questions about the analysis of the MH17 incident which he and his subordinates, along with Australian intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police, have been conducting for more than two years.

In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime."

On Wednesday Turnbull was asked to explain why, after so long, the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, refuses to designate the MH17 incident as criminal terrorism according to the provisions of the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act. Turnbull replied through a spokesman that he is still investigating. "The criminal investigation of MH17 is ongoing. The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant in determining whether this incident should be declared for the purposes of the Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme."

Brandis was asked to explain the reason for the legal opinion Canberra sources confirm he has sent to the prime ministry denying the MH17 incident was terrorism. That he has provided the advice on AVTOP is confirmed by a source in Turnbull's office.

AVTOP is the Canberra acronym for Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment. This is how the AVTOP scheme operates, and how eligibility is decided, according to the Australian social security ministry. It records that the last terrorism incident for which Australians qualify for AVTOP compensation was the Westgate shopping mall killings in Nairobi on September 21, 2013. There were 67 fatal casualties in that incident, and more than double that number of wounded. One Australian was killed. On October 6, 2013, two weeks after the incident, the Australian prime minister issued a formal designation of the terrorist incident for AVTOP compensation. That commenced on October 21, one month after the incident, according to the statutory filing in the Australian parliament.


Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013L01799/Explanatory%20Statement/Text

The prime minister then was Tony Abbott; his attorney-general was Eric Abetz.

In March 2016 Turnbull had replaced Abbott as prime minister; the attorney-general was Brandis. They agreed to designate three bombing attacks in Brussels, at the airport and at a city train station, as terrorist incidents for AVTOP. The date of the incidents was March 22 (pictured below). The date of the Turnbull-Landis designation was May 6 – 45 days later.

There are press reports that Australians were in Brussels, and were anxious; there are no reports of Australians being killed or wounded in the attacks.

Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there.

The 2013 and 2016 designations, along with the Canberra sources, identify a terrorist incident according to the Australian Criminal Code. Officials working under Brandis and Turnbull must satisfy the Attorney-General and Prime Minister that the incident comes under the Code's sub-section 100.1(1). This says a terrorist act "means an action or threat of action where: (b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public."

For background on the debate among government officials, police and lawyers about the impact of Australian law on the MH17 incident, read this .

Canberra sources explain that even if Brandis had told Turnbull there was enough evidence to certify the MH17 shoot-down as a terrorist incident, according to the criminal code provisions, the prime minister still has a broad discretion in deciding whether or not to make a declaration regarding a particular incident.

That Turnbull hasn't done so for the MH17 carnage means he doesn't want to do so - and not only because of his attorney-general's advice. Turnbull was also behind press leaks that as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Abbott in August 2014, he opposed a scheme of Abbott's to send 3,000 Australian troops to join Dutch and other NATO forces in a US-backed military operation in eastern Ukraine. Abbott and NATO had prepared the justification for the military operation as Russian state terrorism in downing the MH17. Turnbull arranged for his son-in-law to reveal the cabinet papers and intelligence reports from the time, and to record his assessment that Abbott was foolhardy. For that story, click here .

Australian sources who know Turnbull don't agree in their interpretation of what he is now saying and doing. Some sources believe that with his political mouth Turnbull is backing the US position against Russia and protecting himself from opposition party attacks that he is "soft" on the Kremlin. With his legal mind Turnbull knows there is no admissible evidence and no prospect of prosecuting terrorism in the MH17 case.

The Australians haven't realized that their decision that the MH17 is not a terrorist act undermines this month's proceedings in The Netherlands, where the Ukrainian government has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17. The lawyers engaged this week at The Hague haven't realized either.

The 45-page Ukrainian claim against Moscow to the ICJ is dated January 16, 2017, and can be read here . The US law firm Covington & Burling is defending the Kiev government; the advocates for the Russian side include British and French lawyers.

Advocates for Kiev at the ICJ this week: left US lawyer Marney Cheek; right, Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine

According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of terrorism. "When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was aiding The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their previous pattern of disregard for civilian life."

"By the early summer of 2014, the Russian Federation was well aware that its proxies operating on Ukrainian territory were engaged in a pattern and practice of terrorizing civilians. Yet rather than intervening to abate those actions, the Russian Federation's response was to substantially increase these groups' firepower by supplying them with powerful weapons. An early result of this decision was the attack on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. In July 2014, as part of this escalation of arms supplies and other support, the Russian Federation delivered a Buk surface-to-air missile system to DPR-associated forces. Those illegal armed groups used the Buk system to commit a devastating surface-to-air attack, destroying a civilian airliner transiting Ukrainian airspace and murdering the 298 individuals on board These perpetrators committed this terrorist attack with the direct support of the Russian government There is no evidence that the Russian Federation has taken any responsibility before the peoples of the world for supporting this horrific terrorist act."

"Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility, by virtue of its sponsorship of terrorism and failure to prevent the financing of terrorism under the Convention, for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including: a.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17."

The Russian presentations in open court so far can be read here . Ilya Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the Russian Foreign Ministry, testified in front of 16 judges of the court on March 7. Rogachev was followed for the Russian side by London Queens Counsel, Samuel Wordsworth.

According to Rogachev, "it should be noted that during the summer of 2014 the Ukrainian Army's anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with 'BUK-M1' missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment's headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT."

He went on to argue that whether the Ukrainian forces fired the BUK missile, or whether the separatists did, there is no evidence that either force intended to do so. "It is enough to note," said Rogachev, "that neither the DSB [Dutch Safety Board] nor the JIT [Joint Investigation Team] appear to be concluding that the civil airliner was shot down with malicious intent or, which is what matters most for today, that the equipment allegedly used was provided for that specific purpose."

The JIT, according to Turnbull's spokesman in Canberra this week, includes Australia,Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine. The spokesman said they "remain committed to ensuring those responsible for the downing of MH17 are held to account." On the other hand, the evidence so far produced by the JIT hasn't satisfied the admissibility and prosecution tests of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers on the JIT staff. The AFP's Commissioner Andrew Colvin reports to the Australian Justice Minister and he, as well as the AFP , are part of the portfolio of Attorney- General Brandis.

In two Australian coroners court hearings, the AFP has revealed serious reservations about the Dutch evidence and Ukrainian claims in the MH17 investigation; for details read this and this .

Turnbull adds through his spokesman an additional qualification. "The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant" in determining whether the downing of MH17 was a terrorist act. In Australian law and in the Prime Minister's judgement, could means not now – and not at the International Court.

"For the action to fall under the Montreal Convention," Rogachev testified this week in The Hague, referring to the principal international treaty covering compensation for aircraft incidents, "the intention must have been to shoot down a civilian aircraft "

Wordsworth told the ICJ judges that for every act alleged in the court papers by the Kiev regime, "there is a separate requirement of specific intent. So far as concerns Ukraine's allegations with respect to Flight MH17, Article 2.1 (a) incorporates the offences under the Montreal Convention, which comprise the unlawful and intentional destruction of a civilian aircraft. So far as concerns the other allegations of Ukraine, there is a requirement of both specific intent and purpose. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to: "(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

Wordsworth was repeating in open court what the Australian Attorney-General has already advised the Australian Prime Minister. Because the Australians have decided there is no case for a terrorist act to justify compensating their own citizens, the Ukrainians have already lost their case.

Ivan , March 11, 2017 at 2:20 am

Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement.

hemeantwell , March 11, 2017 at 7:49 am

I'll add the usual point that the charge is all the more incredible because none of the US' radar and satellite coverage at the time has been brought to bear to "prove" Russian complicity. Ukraine air space 7/24/14, unplugged?

Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:12 am

There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later.

There were also a number of commercial imaging satellites that passed through the area that day.

On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan.

There were numerous (too many to list) SIGNIT satellites operated by a number of countries from LEO to HEO (SBIRS).

My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes.

But what do you mean by 'prove'?

susan the other , March 11, 2017 at 10:48 am

This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won.

If intent cannot be proven against the Russians, it can't be proven against the Ukrainian army either because the evidence presented eliminated all the above top secret details. So now the whole thing was an "accident". When, if all the evidence were reviewed, a case for intent falls against Nato and Ukraine – they intended to frame Russia for the incident to gain support for their cause. And as such it does meet the definition of terrorism. At least Turnbull refused to call it Russian terrorism.

rkka , March 11, 2017 at 2:38 am

What I want to know is why the Ukrainian air traffic control system directed this flight over a zone of active hostilities, where the Ukrainian Air Force had previously had a good many military aircraft shot out of the sky.

Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:19 am

The answer to the first part of your question is that countries get paid for over flights. The second part of your question is that all the Ukrainian Air Force planes that had been shot down were flying much, much lower and it was assumed the equipment being used to do it couldn't go as high as the commercial airliners were flying.

You, know sort of like the Soviets couldn't reach the U-2.

tgs , March 11, 2017 at 9:29 am

And of course the tapes from the control tower have simply disappeared.

Here is a another Australian lawyer who outlines why the investigation was compromised from the beginning.

MH17 and the JIT: A Flawed Investigation

dcrane , March 11, 2017 at 4:32 am

Indeed – even if they had no reason to believe that a capability to shoot down airliners at 30,000 feet plus (i.e., a weapon like the Buk-M1) was present on the ground at that point, commerical airliners are sometimes required to descend rapidly to much lower altitudes (e.g., by pressure emergencies) so it makes no sense to rely on an assumption that hostile weapons can't reach the usual cruising altitude. It is a fair question what the airline ops people were thinking as well.

Agreed that this has always seemed more likely to be a reckless screwup by the people running the BUK than a deliberate terrorist act. (Then again, I think the host nations do make money from these flyovers.)

Bill Smith , March 11, 2017 at 9:16 am

I agree with your conclusion that it was a total screw up. Only part of the system was present and that cut down the ability to see the entire picture (or better see the entire picture).

martanus , March 11, 2017 at 5:20 am

interesting study of accident MH17

https://mh17web.wordpress.com/

Barry Fay , March 11, 2017 at 10:05 am

What a great article! Must read!

Quentin , March 11, 2017 at 6:32 am

You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends.

The Rev Kev , March 11, 2017 at 7:39 am

This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though.

How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind.

Following American policy for this area, of which Australia has no connection, has led to all sorts of weird repercussions. Tony Abbott wanted to send a brigade of our troops to eastern Ukraine as part of a NATO force. That would of worked out well! If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine.

andyb , March 11, 2017 at 8:23 am

As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts.

Persona au gratin , March 11, 2017 at 10:34 am

Agreed. This would not be an issue at all were it not for the propaganda smoke screen the western MSM was ordered to throw up to protect those who must never be named.

originalone , March 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I remember reading that Putin was traveling back to Russia and his flight path was changed prior to the shoot down of MH17, which was on the same flight path, but wasn't altered. A mistake by the Ukrainians who didn't get the word? As for the silence of the U.S., seems to go with the territory considering who is/was at center stage in the overthrow revolution.

[Oct 25, 2016] karl1haushofer

Oct 25, 2016 | gravatar.com
says:

September 28, 2016 at 10:46 am Russia made another mistake back in 2014 when it handed the MH-17 wreck to the West. What Russia should have done is to keep all the evidence to itself and conduct its own investigation, denying the West any role in it. Reply
        • marknesop says: September 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm Yes, I'm sure an investigation by Russia – which the west had already designated the prime suspect – of wreckage it controlled in secret and would not let the west see would have had all kinds of credibility. But you don't think that either. You're just trolling. Reply
          • Moscow Exile says: September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm Skimming through the UK newspapers this morning, as well as the BBC, the Dutch MH-17 report seems not to have caused headline news.

            The Telegraph front page is dominated by a shock-horror football corruption scandal (I mean that big girl's game with a round ball - what they like to call "soccer" outside the UK), the Independent has as its lead story the Congress veto on Obama, the BBC - the same. A far cry from when news of the downing broke and such headlines as "Putin's Killed My Son!" screamed out from the British gutter press.

            And that's not the distressed father's son pictured next to the headline: it's the British monarch's great-grandson, George, whose parents are at present waving to Canadians,the child's mother displaying, as ever, her inane, fixed grin. Reply

[Oct 24, 2016] the Dutch investigators were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU

Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
cartman , September 28, 2016 at 7:53 am
John Helmer has his analysis up. This part is important, since the Dutch "investigators" were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU (such as the one that appeared on YouTube a day before the crash?)

"Westerbeke acknowledged that all the telephone intercepts and wiretaps reported as evidence of Russian involvement in the reported missile operation originated from the Ukrainian secret service. Evidence of the missile movement, ground launch, and smoke trail from social media, photographs and videotapes, and purported witnesses presented at today's JIT session have all appeared publicly before; much of it already discredited as fakes."

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16440#more-16440

marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 8:03 am
The Ukies must be dancing in the corridors of power – the west supported them in spite of the ridicule and disgust that political decision incurred. This must surely be evidence of their national greatness.
cartman , September 28, 2016 at 9:38 am
The report is also based off of "social media"

Too bad they didn't see that map that "journalists" were breathtakingly sharing that showed that pro-Trump tweets originated in a Russian bot factory in St. Petersburg. It turns out that map is a complete fake, probably created by Hillary's troll bots.

marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:45 am
The west is doubling down, but it will only harden Russian resolve. Things just escalated a few more notches.
Pavlo Svolochenko , September 28, 2016 at 8:42 pm
The lazy swamp monkeys should mail it back to two years ago when anyone remembered or cared about MH 17.
Jeremn , September 28, 2016 at 6:48 am
Video used in the JiT presentation on MH17. Watch all of it, if you can bear it. But look at the back of the low-loader platform at 03:31 exactly. The red upward ramps sudddenly disappear.

This is proof of a fake. Good God.

et Al , September 28, 2016 at 9:24 am
It's fairly clear that Bell End's Cat is just the medium to feed carefully doctored intel so that the United States doesn't have to show its satellite recording of the launch, the one John Kerry said the US had but no-one has heard of since.

On CNN this morning, John Kerry said the US actually observed the missile launch with satellite imagery and watched it hit the plane. And yet there were no assets in the area t the time of Benghazi – or at least that is what the Administration tells us. There was no drone in the air.

marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:36 am
Yes, the US can make exorbitant claims now that the decision has been rendered, cut and dried, and it no longer has to show its evidence. Now Kerry can strut and whoop and beat his chest and say we saw this, we saw that. Nobody will ever know. Reply

[Oct 24, 2016] the newly-released raw radar data from Russia marknesop ,

Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
September 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Typical of Eliot 'Tubby' Higgins, his take on the newly-released raw radar data from Russia is that it proves they faked their previous evidence. Keep on trollin', Tubby. What of all Bellingcat's 'evidence' of the surreptitious Buk launcher being smuggled into Ukraine from Russia and back again? It looks like a lot of theories may go up in smoke – not least the one that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet, since the Ust-Donetsk radar would surely have seen that.
Chinese American , September 27, 2016 at 1:48 pm
But then that means he thinks the new evidence the Russian defense ministry released must be genuine, since it can be used to prove something?

Of course, the Russian defense ministry never claimed an Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the airliner. If have always be very careful to only say "this is what we observed; we are putting it out there". For me, it's interesting to consider the timing of Russia's new revelations. Clearly, Russia is playing a careful game in the info war against the powerful Western brainwashing machine.

[Oct 24, 2016] Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed

Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Jeremn , September 26, 2016 at 8:01 am

Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed:

16:05
Kyiv has still not published info on Ukrainian surface-to-air missile systems, conversations between dispatchers on day of Boeing crash – Russian Defense Ministry

16:02
Ukrainian air defense means were located near Boeing 777 crash site – Russian Aerospace Forces

15:52
Russian Defense Ministry accuses Ukraine of manipulating investigation into Malaysian Boeing crash

15:48
Russian Defense Ministry says Ukraine conceals info regarding 2014 Boeing crash

15:46
Netherlands will get from Russia irrefutable info on Boeing 777 crash in Donbas – Russian Defense Ministry

15:39
Russian radar station didn't register air objects coming towards Boeing in sky over Donbas from Snizhne side

15:28
INTL INQUIRY INTO BOEING 777 DISASTER IN UKRAINE IS ON THE WRONG TRACK; MISSILE TYPE, PLACE OF LAUNCH DETERMINED WRONGLY – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

15:25
RUSSIA TO GIVE OBJECTIVE AND IRREFUTABLE INFO ON BOEING 777 CRASH TO NETHERLANDS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

15:24
KYIV CONCEALS INFO ON BOEING 777 DISASTER, FLIGHT WAS FOLLOWED BY UKRAINE'S RADARS, AIR DEFENSE FORCES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

15:24
UKRAINE HAS NOT PUBLISHED INFO ON LOCATION OF ITS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES BUK ON THE DAY OF BOEING 777 CRASH, MILITARY DISPATCHERS' CONVERSATIONS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

marknesop , September 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Recently unearthed raw radar data from a civilian radar at Ust-Donetsk. The memory chips were replaced in July 2014, and they have recently come to light. Russia claims they are solid proof of the direction from which the attack came, but I'm not over-hopeful. The western point of view will be, the radar doesn't show anything. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. Maybe the radar just wasn't working properly. Or maybe the information was there, but has been edited out somehow. Of course, if the raw data shows MH17 right up until it is hit, it might be extremely valuable. We'll see. Can't wait for the Ukrainian reaction.

Hmmmm….I guess I should have paid closer attention on the first run-through. According to the story, the raw video does indeed show MH-17, as well as two other civilian aircraft in the vicinity, the closest at only about 30 km away at the time it was shot down.

Kiev will of course scream that the info is faked, and Russia is panicking because the final report is due, and the US State Department will of course back Kiev up for as long as it can. But experts will be able to tell if anything has been altered, and if they cannot find any such evidence they may have no choice but to accept it in the absence of any contradictory evidence – or any evidence at all – from Kiev.

Ooooooo…the system also detected an Orlan-10 drone; much smaller than an SA-11. A lot slower, though. Reply

[Oct 24, 2016] Some very interesting new aspects on the crash of flight MH17. Looks like the investigators forgot a possibility of a missle armed drone from nearby NATO maneuvers or from SBU

That would be a pretty devious plot indeed...
Notable quotes:
"... a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ). ..."
"... Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17. ..."
"... There is a video of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle". ..."
"... According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats." ..."
Oct 23, 2016 | mh17scenario5.wordpress.com

In August 2015, a Russian study suggested that MH17 was shot down by an Israeli Python-5 air-to-air missile (which usually targets the cockpit of a plane due to an advanced electro-optical guidance system). Yet the authors still assumed the missile must have been fired by a fighter jet. Because Ukraine has no fighter jets that can carry a Python-5, the authors speculated that a special version of a Georgian fighter jet may have been used. This seems unlikely.

However, a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ).

Why did the official investigation not even consider the scenario of a combat drone?

Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17.

Excerpt from the JIT presentation (after they have excluded an accident and a bomb):

Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile ?

The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is that two pieces of butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were "found" in the debris of the plane:

fragments-found-mh17
Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).

These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead of type 9N314M1 :

bukshrapnel-11
Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.

There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above). However, even the official investigation acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38 . Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard 9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314 , which does not contain the butterfly-shaped warhead fragments (see image above).

There is however a much more plausible explanation for the two butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris: they may simply have been planted prior to the examination in order to incriminate the rebels (and Russia), while overlooking the fact that the only warhead containing these fragments is perhaps not even compatible with a standard BUK missile.

This explanation is in line with several other facts:

  1. No butterfly-shaped holes were found on the cockpit or fuselage of MH17
  2. The corpses of the cockpit crew, in which one of the butterfly-shaped fragments was "found", got a "special treatment" at a Ukranian mortuary prior to their delivery to the Netherlands
  3. The tests carried out by the manufacturer of the BUK system showed that if indeed a 9N314M1 warhead had been used, not only would there be many butterfly-shaped holes in the fuselage, but many more than just two such fragments would have been found in the wreckage. These results were again ignored by the official investigation.
  4. There is already strong indication that a third butterfly-shaped fragment was indeed planted in the wreckage after the crash.

More faulty logic

The next excerpt from the DSB report shows again the faulty logic applied by the official investigation:

  1. They first assume that "air-to-air" can only mean a local (Ukranian) fighter jet. Wrong!
  2. Because of this, they consider only locally available (Soviet/Russian) air-to-air missiles. Wrong!
  3. They identify three (Soviet) missiles with a fragmentation-explosion warhead (R-33, R-37 and R-40). However, because none of these contain "bow-tie" (butterfly) shaped fragments, they exclude the use of any air-to-air missile. Wrong!
  4. Because of this, they think they can exclude the air-to-air scenario altogether. Wrong!
  5. Finally, they add that in the case of an air-to-air attack, "another aircraft" (near MH17) would have to have been recorded "at least by primary radar data". Wrong again! Besides, the investigation didn't even have access to primary radar data (see point 5 above).

... ... ...

If the downing of MH17 was indeed a carefully planned operation, the preparation of such false photos and videos putting the blame to the rebels (and Russia) would have been an integral an rather easy part of it.

Who controlled the airspace in which MH17 was downed?

It is perhaps noteworthy that MH17 was downed in the airspace of Ukrainian Oblast (region) Dnipropetrovsk . In July 2014, this Oblast was controlled by Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi , who had been governor of Dnipropetrovsk since March of that year. Now:

Perhaps all of this is not important. Or perhaps it is. At any rate, the official investigation never looked into it.

Why did nobody – not even Russia – ever mention the drone scenario?

If MH17 was indeed shot down by an armed drone, it is not guaranteed that Russia can prove this in any way. Without a clear proof, what should they say? Moreover, in the case of a combat drone, they cannot simply accuse the government in Kiev, but they would have to accuse far more powerful actors. Perhaps it is easier to just trade some meaningless allegations between the Ukrainian military and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.

Recall that after the attack on a UN aid convoy in Syria in September 2016, the U.S. also immediately blamed Russia (without any proof, of course). Russia denied, but again it didn't – and probably couldn't – present any proof for another scenario.

Final note

Even if there were arguments speaking against an armed drone, the fact remains that the official investigation (both DSB and JIT) did not even consider this option. Thus no matter what, the official investigation used a faulty approach and prematurely ruled out the air-to-air scenario.

  1. A reader remarks that on the very day MH17 crashed (July 17, 2014), a ten day long NATO military exercise in the Black Sea ended (BREEZE 2014) . In other words, the military of the United States and nine more NATO members were present and active in the Black Sea region right up to the day of the MH17 disaster. According to a press release , these war games even involved "commercial traffic monitoring".

    According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats."

    The same report notes that "200 U.S. Army personnel normally assigned to bases in Germany were in Ukraine during the time of the MH-17 fly-over. They were participating in NATO exercise RAPID TRIDENT II . Ukraine's Ministry of Defense led the exercise."

  2. A reader notes that another option might be a so-called "suicide drone" , i.e. a loitering strike drone that includes a warhead in its fuselage and self-destructs into its target. These are basically missiles that fly like a plane. Due to their small size, they are invisible to radar detection systems. Examples include e.g. the Israeli IAI Harop and Hero-30 . Usually, such drones attack ground targets and therefore operate at a low altitude (and rather low speed, about 200 km/h). If a high-altitude suicide drone exists at all, it would also require a fragmentation-explosion warhead to cause the damage observed on the wreckage of MH17. Moreover, due to its low speed, timing would be more difficult compared to a drone-fired air-to-air missile.
  3. If a radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile was used, there are two options to provide the radar signal: active radar homing with an integrated radar transceiver, or semi-active radar homing with an external, ground- or air-based radar signal. Thus the drone itself doesn't have to be equipped with a radar unit. In fact, this is another clear advantage over the BUK scenario: since the rebels didn't have their own radar unit (even the "videos" only show a launching unit), they would have fired the missile "blindly". This is unlikely to begin with, but it is even more unlikely that they would actually have hit a plane at 10 km altitude without radar guidance.
  4. A reader asks: can a BUK be fired from a drone, like other missiles that can be fired both surface-to-air and air-to-air (AMRAAM, Derby)? Officially no airborne version of the BUK exists. (There is a navy version, though.) So this would have to be experimental. However, air-to-air missiles such as the R-33, R-37 or R-40 have a fragmentation-explosion warhead of comparable size to the BUK.

[Oct 21, 2016] The Bellingcat research collective War propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism"

Notable quotes:
"... The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence." ..."
"... Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria. ..."
"... Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies. ..."
"... By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine. ..."
"... How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest." ..."
"... In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council ..."
"... Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck." ..."
"... By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der ..."
"... In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia. ..."
"... I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda . ..."
www.wsws.org
In its report, released last month, on the 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) blamed Russia. The JIT, in which the authorities of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine are collaborating, stated that the missile that downed the plane "was brought from the territory of the Russian Federation and, after launch, subsequently returned to the Russian Federation territory."

The JIT noted, "[M]any journalists carried out their own investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat. This resulted in different scenarios and theories being raised, both in the media and on the Internet."

The JIT report is cursory and based largely on Ukrainian sources. It does not provide definitive evidence to back up its conclusions, leaving unresolved the question of who shot down MH17.

This reference to Bellingcat, however, is significant. The speculative scenario sketched out by the JIT, utilizing animation, images, un-sourced mobile phone recordings and references to unavailable satellite and radar data, is almost identical to that advanced by Bellingcat.

The Bellingcat "research collective" is a web site established in July 2014 by Eliot Higgins. Originally from Leicester in the UK, Higgins is, as of February, a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Future Europe Initiative.

The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence."

Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria.

From 2012, Higgins maintained a blog, "Brown Moses," which became notorious for its pro-imperialist coverage of the Syria conflict. Higgins trawled social media posts--primarily Facebook, Twitter and YouTube--for images and clips that purported to reveal the many types of both homemade and industrially manufactured weaponry in use in the bloodbath provoked by US imperialism.

Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies.

In 2013, Brown Moses became embroiled in allegations by the main imperialist powers that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. By "studying" social media posts of damaged rockets embedded in the ground, the angle of shadows cast and satellite images of the area, Higgins claimed to be able to show that rockets, alleged to contain sarin, had been fired by the Syrian army.

Higgins' efforts were recycled by the world media. At the time, the US government and NATO were on the brink of a major military escalation in Syria, with the alleged chemical attacks meant to provide the pretext.

Later that year, veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh debunked the chemical attack allegations, pointing out that numerous forces in the Syrian conflict, including US-backed "rebel" groups fighting the Syrian government, such as the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and [were] capable of manufacturing it in quantity."

Higgins' work was rubbished by a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists, led by Professor Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security. Postol told Mint Press, "It's clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian government-controlled areas as the White House claimed." Higgins, he added, "has done a very nice job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it's so lacking any analytical foundation, it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about."

By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine.

How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest."

In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council, we explored Russia's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine in the report 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine,' which led VICE News to track down one of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine who had been identified in the report." [Emphasis added]

The 2014 civil war in Ukraine, which included the Russian annexation of Crimea, was triggered by the far-right US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year. It brought Russia and the US closer to a military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and served to transform Ukraine into a platform from which provocations and operations could be launched against Russia.

MH17 was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists but contested by the Ukrainian government and far-right Ukrainian militias. From the first moment, prior to any investigation, the crash was seized upon by the US and its allies to denounce Russia as the world's main aggressor and isolate the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck."

In contrast with Bellingcat's hack work, a 2015 report by the Dutch Safety Board into the MH17 crash is a sober piece of work. The Dutch investigators concluded that the most likely missile was a Buk of the 9M38 series with a 9N314M warhead. The investigators identified the potential launch site, based on a 320 square kilometre area, but made no attempt to further define the location or draw conclusions as to who controlled it.

By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der Spiegel was forced to apologise for its uncritical recycling of Bellingcat allegations that the Russian Defense Ministry manipulated satellite image data to support its position on MH17. According to Jens Kreise, an expert in digital image forensics, Bellingcat's technique of "error correction analysis" was "subjective and not based entirely on science." He added, "This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it." Kreise went on to describe Bellingcat's work as "nothing more than reading tea leaves."

Immediately after the JIT's MH17 report was released, Higgins took part in an online Atlantic Council panel discussion. Commenting on Higgins' work, VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky noted that Bellingcat gave "a view into the evidence that we wouldn't have understood otherwise... imagine if there hadn't been that narrative and the lies that were being produced by the Russian MoD [Ministry of Defence] had a fertile soil in which to grow, in which there wasn't this very public counterweight."

In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia.

Red_Mariner
I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda .
thucydide
Thanks for this much needed review of Higgins' work and evolution. It is not surprising that he's been picked up by a big pro-war thinktank, and now works hard every day engineering new conflict and untold suffering.

A quick correction. While Seymour Hersh did publish a piece describing al-Nusra's chemical weapons and sarin production capability, this fact cannot properly be attributed to Hersh. In his piece, Hersh attributes this information to a joint U.S. intelligence assessment, provided to him by a senior US intelligence official. The fact must be attributed to US intelligence, not Hersh himself.

Bob Beal
Thank you for helping detail the mechanics of propaganda. Perhaps editors will open their eyes and question more their reporters' sources, be they think tanks or PR operations.

[Oct 04, 2016] MH17 How investigators were able to prove rebels shot down plane with missile from Russia

I would understand that launcher can be transported from Russia. But how it can be transported back after the tragedy so that nobody saw, despite huge interest in its detection of USA, its allies and honchos from Provisional government (which probably has a network of spies in the Donetsk territory) it is much more difficult undertaking, which fails Occam razor. Ukrainian Buks were at the place -- and Russian need to be transported back and forth.
Notable quotes:
"... Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work. "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them." ..."
"... Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence. ..."
Sep 28, 2016 | independent.co.uk
Investigators have released footage showing the missile system used to down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 being transported from Russia by rebels.

International prosecutors found separatists were responsible for shooting down the Boeing 777 and killing all 298 people on board on 17 July 2014, during the conflict in eastern Ukraine .

A report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said there was "no doubt" the missile that downed the plane was brought in from Russia and fired from rebel-controlled territory as militants sought to fend off attacks by the Ukrainian air force.

Investigators pinpointed the launch site atop a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, having traced the convoy carrying the Buk from the Russian border through Donetsk, Torez, Snizhne and on to the launch site in the hours before MH17 was downed.

6-Ukraine.jpg Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash

The JIT has reconstructed the weapon's journey using data from rebels' mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms.

In several tapped phone calls, men's voices are heard discussing the transport of the Buk missile system from and back to Russia, while audio previously released by Ukrainian officials appears to show a panicked militant saying MH17 was shot down in the mistaken belief it was a military plane.

He tells a superior: "It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper."

Journalists arriving at the scene of the missile launch the following day found a scorched patch of earth measuring 30m by 30m, which could also be seen on satellite images showing caterpillar tracks nearby.

Hours after MH17 was downed, the Buk was seen being driven back towards the Russian border - missing one of its four missiles - before the convoy left Ukraine overnight. Shortly after MH17's disappearance, a post attributed to separatist leader Igor Girkin, a Russian army veteran known as Strelkov, claimed rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane.

The swiftly-deleted post on Russian social network VKontakte was accompanied by a video of rising smoke and said: "We warned them - don't fly in our sky."

Much of the footage cited by the JIT had already been analysed for a report released in February by investigative citizen journalists in the Bellingcat group.

Its analysis concluded the Buk missile system used to down MH17 was transported into Ukraine by Russian soldiers with "high-level" authorisation, although it was unclear whether Russian or separatist fighters operated the weapon after it crossed the border.

An extended and uncensored version of the report was sent to JIT investigators in December, including the full names and photographs of soldiers said to be involved.

"Although it is likely that the head officials of Russia's Ministry of Defence did not explicitly decide to send a Buk missile launcher to Ukraine, the decision to send military equipment (with or without crew) from the Air Defence Forces to Ukraine was likely made at a very high level and, therefore, the Russian Ministry of Defence bears the main responsibility for the downing of MH17," Bellingcat's report concluded.

"This responsibility is shared with separatist leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and (to a lesser extent) the Luhansk People's Republic…ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with its two head commanders: Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin ."

Separatist groups have denied any involvement in the disaster, while Russian officials have continually dismissed allegations of soldiers or equipment being deployed in Ukraine.

The Russian government refuted the JIT's findings and accused the report of being "biased and politically motivated".

Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work.

"To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them."

Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence.

In its own investigation, Russian Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey claimed the deadly missile was fired from Zaroschenskoye and that Ukrainian forces were stationed there.

"We investigated this and have been able to establish that this was not the launch location, and moreover that it was controlled by pro-Russian rebels at the time," said Wilbert Paulissen, head of the Dutch Central Crime Investigation Department.

The JIT said it had only received partial responses to its requests for information from Russian authorities and had not yet been sent primary radar data cited by officials at the Kremlin.

Comprising prosecutors from the countries with the most passengers on board the flight – the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and Belgium – and Ukraine, the JIT previously said it would "ensure the independence of the investigation".

The body has primary responsibility for establishing the case for prosecutions after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have established an international tribunal for prosecuting those responsible for downing MH17 at a meeting in July 2015.

When questioned by journalists, members of the JIT would not specifically name the militia or faction responsible for firing the missile but said they were investigating around 100 people linked to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk missile.

A spokesperson said officials are also looking at the chain of command that led to the disaster, adding: "Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors?"

Read more

[Oct 01, 2016] Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State by THE EDITORIAL BOARD

NYT is clearly a neocon outlet. Very clear demonstration of that it is essentially a part of Hillary campaign and Hillary made bet of demonizing Russia as a path to the victory in Presidential elections.
Sep 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.

This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.

[Oct 01, 2016] John Helmer Four MH17 Questions – The Answers to Which Prove the Dutch Police, Ukrainian Secret Service, and US Government Are

Notable quotes:
"... These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board. ..."
"... Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
"... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? ..."
"... 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes ..."
"... The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified. ..."
"... According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft? ..."
"... The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east. ..."
"... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south. ..."
"... Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence? ..."
"... What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards. ..."
"... It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated. ..."
"... without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up ..."
"... Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along. ..."
"... There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications. ..."
"... proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention. ..."
"... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." ..."
"... Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive. ..."
"... We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s. ..."
"... Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by: ..."
"... It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate. ..."
"... As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect. ..."
"... Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or……… ..."
"... Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. ..."
"... The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another. ..."
"... In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests. ..."
"... I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left. ..."
"... The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team. ..."
"... He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't). ..."
"... Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise." ..."
"... "everybody's gotta eat" ..."
"... How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots? ..."
"... A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular. ..."
"... Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. ..."
"... In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it." ..."
"... The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery. ..."
"... As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly. ..."
"... But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch ..."
"... And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter. ..."
"... 3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up. ..."
"... The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs). ..."
"... The investigation does not pass the smell test. ..."
"... JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement. ..."
"... BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it. ..."
"... The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all. ..."
"... The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical. ..."
"... A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up. ..."
"... any of the suspects ..."
"... Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved. ..."
"... Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ..."
"... BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. ..."
"... constant bearing, reducing range ..."
Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on September 30, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. Note that Robert Parry also has serious doubts about the latest MH17 report .

By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

You don't need to be an expert in ground-to-air warfare, radar, missile ordnance, or forensic criminology to understand the three fundamental requirements for prosecuting people for crimes. The first is proof of intention to do what happened. The second is proof of what could not have happened amounts to proof that it didn't happen. The third is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board.

The JIT case for Russian culpability hinges on five elements occurring in sequence – that a BUK missile was launched to the east of the aircraft, and approached it head-on, before exploding on the port (left) side of the cockpit. Pause, rewind, then reread slowly in order to identify the elements of intention, causation, and culpability:

  1. the BUK missile was aimed with a target acquisition radar by operators inside a BUK vehicle at a target flying in the sky and ordered to fire;
  2. they fired from their vehicle parked on the ground facing east towards the aircraft's approach;
  3. the missile flew west and upwards to a height of 10,060 metres;
  4. the warhead detonated;
  5. the blast and the shrapnel tore the cockpit from the main fuselage; destroyed one of the aircraft engines; and caused the aircraft to catch fire, fall to the ground in pieces, and kill everyone.

On Wednesday afternoon, in the small Dutch town of Nieuwegein, two Dutchmen, one a prosecutor, one a policeman, claimed they have proof that this is what happened. For details of the proof they provided the world's press, read this . Later the same day, in Moscow, a presentation by two Russians from the Almaz-Antei missile group, one a missile ordnance expert, the other a radar expert, presented their proof of what could not have happened. Click to watch .

The enemies of Russia accept the Dutch proof and ignore the Russian proof. As Wilbert Paulissen, the Dutch policeman, claimed during the JIT briefing, "the absence of evidence does not prove [the BUK missile] was not there."

Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 1. ... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude?

What evidence is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military source asks: "did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle is not very large for target interception."

Question 3. When a BUK warhead explodes, it releases about 7,800 metal fragments or shrapnel.

Source: JIT presentation of NATO test-firing of BUK warhead in Finland -- https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead's shrapnel – that's about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015, 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes

BUK WARHEAD SHRAPNEL – BOWTIES AND CUBES

DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL

Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

For more details, read this .

The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.

According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?

According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered. Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead's characteristic bowties.

The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east.

"The hypothesis of a missile hitting the plane head-on was not credible. There is no way to explain the lack of fragments [shrapnel] as per the Dutch 3D model…" Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIPo8dW9b0 -- minute 20:51.

Question 4. ... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south.

So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen, along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?

A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.

KEY
Red line - MH 17.
Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei version.
Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html

Topographically, between Snizhne (Snezhnoe) in the east and Zaroshchenskoe to the southwest, there is a distance of less than 25 kilometres. Politically, between them as suspected missile-firing sites there is all the difference in the world

visitor September 30, 2016 at 6:50 am

What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards.

It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated.

The MH17 shooting will join the numerous other cases ascribed to dastardly diplomatic opponents:

1) the assassination of Rafi Hariri (blamed on Assad, but evidence implicating Israel not followed upon);
2) the bungled terrorist attacks in Thailand (blamed on Iran, responsibility of Iranian opposition highly likely given the evidence);
3) the bus bombing in Bulgaria (blamed on Hezbollah, investigation of involvement of Sunni jihadist groups abruptly cancelled);
4) the chemical attack in Syria (blamed on Assad, convincingly demonstrated by Hersh to be an Al-Nusra false flag action);
5) cyber-breach at Sony (blamed on North Korea, evidence points out at an insider job within Sony);
6) cyberattack at OPM (blamed on China without proof);
7) cyberattacks against the Democratic party (blamed on Russia without proof);

Notice how those widely discussed, important cases have sunk into a news black-hole - without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up .

We will probably never know for sure in our lifetime what happened in all those cases.

Carolinian September 30, 2016 at 8:22 am

Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along.

visitor September 30, 2016 at 9:47 am

There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications.

Nobody denies that the MH17 was shot down, or that Hariri in Lebanon or Israeli tourists in Bulgaria were blown up, or that a chemical bomb exploded in Eastern Ghouta. This makes any debunking somewhat more arduous: proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention.

human September 30, 2016 at 11:41 am

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

David Rockefeller born June 12, 1915 … likely the most powerful man in the world.

sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:27 pm

The alleged poisoning of V. Yuschenko.

The murder of G. Gongadze.

The alleged Russian invasion of South Ossetia.

Tinky September 30, 2016 at 6:57 am

Excellent work. Thank you.

Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive.

That would never have happened had the anti-Russian alliance not discovered information that severely undercut their original, reflexive claims.

Does anyone believe that this most recent report is other than a feeble attempt to keep the original, and quite obviously false narrative alive?

Nelson Lowhim October 1, 2016 at 5:46 am

I'm guessing it's always been like this? Screech hard and loud about imminent threats (to physical self or honor) and do so loud and often, claiming any moment to think is close to treason (or simply cowardice). Note that it will always be harder to refute (finding facts) than to come up with lies, of which there will be many (and if even a single is correct, it makes the next lie even better) and keep at it. until there is an actual punishment for doing this, there is no reason not to. Am I missing something?

BringOnTheHotWar September 30, 2016 at 7:08 am

We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s.

And a complicit and/or childlike media is happy to swallow whatever official story comes their way. We know – as with any major power – that crazy shit is going down in, and with Russia (Putin ain't a saint). But poking, and prodding this nuclear bear – as a way to, among other things, justify $1 trillion in nuclear re-armament – is as foolish as it gets. DJT is a moron of nth degree. but i just don't believe he will drive us to armed conflict (whether by proxy or not) with russia. that, alone, would be enough for a vote against HRC. and with the mess the GOP is in, if HRC get in, she's in for 8 years. #untolddamage.

ltr September 30, 2016 at 7:49 am

Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

September 28, 2016

Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 30, 2016 at 7:52 am

Agree, if they really had the goods this would have been blaring 24/7 from Hilary's War Advancement & Promotion Team, oops I mean CNN. Even simpler though is just to note that when Obama/Hilary are pressed on what exactly Russia has done overall to deserve the "existential threat" label, they mumble and finally blurt out ""Crimea".

So I guess a fair plebiscite where 96% voted to rejoin Russia and a peaceful transition without a single shot fired now qualifies as a threat to the US. And of course zero mention of the murderous Neo-Nazis we installed in Kiev.

hemeantwell September 30, 2016 at 8:58 am

It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate.

Paid Minion September 30, 2016 at 8:17 am

The Russians have a long history of lying their asses off when they (or their minions) eff up. They are much better at it, after watching Fox News for the past 30 years.

Funny, but their surrogates didn't mind taking the credit for the half dozen or so Ukrainian jets zapped by missiles in the couple of months before this incident.

As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect.

And remember how they were pushing the "Ukrainian SU-25 Theory" before anyone who knows anything about airplanes shot that one full of holes.

But whatever. Nobody is going to be able to prove anything, since the airplane crashed on Russian controlled territory

If the conspiracy theorists think the airplane was shot down as a pretext to starting a war with Russia, answer me this……. Why zap a Malaysian airliner, with no US or British passengers? All you need is an Internet connection and Flightaware,to know what airplane you are shooting at.

Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or………

A couple of yokels sitting inside a SAM launcher who effed up and zapped the wrong airplane, who subsequently were made to "disappear"?

vidimi September 30, 2016 at 8:18 am

more reasons why people shouldn't and no longer do trust 'experts'. it's a meaningless charade intended to make an agenda credible. when one of the main suspects is one of the lead investigators and the whole sham of an investigation is led by nato, it's only aim is to increase tensions with russia. well, it looks like they will finally get the war they have been wishing for when mrs clinton takes over the white house.

Nikki September 30, 2016 at 8:23 am

Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. He published the chapters separately in various law reviews. Read the last chapter first for an overview and understanding that he is motivated to get rid of the bogus standard with medieval theological roots– after all, how many have been wrongly jailed due to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Bill Smith September 30, 2016 at 10:37 am

The simplest explanation is that the rebels made a mistake and shot the wrong plane down.

hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:48 pm

Bill Smith, and it's been pretty well debunked as inconsistent with the evidence, but toddlers need something to believe. Try again, this time with your fingers out of your ears.

sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:31 pm

While I don't pretend to know who shot mh17 down or why, an simpler explanation is that the junta government did so.

They were known to have Buk anti-aircraft rockets in the area.

So far, I have seen only conjecture that the rebels did.

pictboy3 September 30, 2016 at 10:50 am

This is one thread subject on this otherwise excellent site that I think is absolutely ridiculous. I can understand putting people to their proof on the evidence, but what exactly is the point of this article? To prove that the separatists didn't shoot down the plane? Considering that Strelkov actually bragged about shooting a plane down right after it happened (the post was quickly taken down, but luckily caching is a thing), and there were witness accounts of a missile battery being driven out of Luhansk at the same time, I think it's a bit much to suggest that the Ukrainians did it.

Our policy towards Russia is stupid and short-sighted, as it has been for most of the past three decades, but our own failings don't make the Russians into saints. They're capable of stupid and evil decisions just as much as we are. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target? There's a line between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot, and there's a lot of people here who need to look at which side of it they're standing on.

ChrisFromGeorgia September 30, 2016 at 10:59 am

The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another.

In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests.

I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left.

Iceland, maybe?

Vatch September 30, 2016 at 11:27 am

Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target?

Good comment. I don't think any reasonable person has implied that the separatists intentionally shot down a civilian plane. They thought it was a military plane, and it was a tragic mistake.

I can't comment on all of Helmer's questions, but I can comment on #1. He says that newer BUK systems don't match what was seen on the ground. Well, it's possible the Russians did not provide the new variety of BUK systems to the separatists. Maybe they let the separatists use the older variety, and the Russians kept the newer systems on their own soil.

Regarding question #2. Maybe the pilots didn't see the missile because it was below their field of vision until the very last second. Or maybe they weren't looking at that part of the sky, so they didn't see it right away. Or maybe they saw it, and briefly froze, wondering what the heck is that?

hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:53 pm

Almaz-Antey alleges that Russia hadn't had any older models in inventory to supply for some two years before the attack, but that the Ukrainian military hadn't upgraded yet.

zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:55 pm

The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team.

Johan Telstad September 30, 2016 at 12:14 pm

Thank you!
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would listen to this John Helmer person.

He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't).

BTW, if you want a real expert on Russia, try someone like Mark Galeotti ( https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com ).

OIFVet September 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

And you are expert?!?! SAMs generally attack targets from above, and BUKs are specifically designed to do so. As an expert in "aeronautics" and ballistics you will no doubt explain to the audience why that is. Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise."

optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Helmer spills a lot of ink as a kremlin mouthpiece, "everybody's gotta eat" I guess.

How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots?

how can one assume anyone in the cockpit was looking out the window as it was on autopilot, no less in the relevant piece of sky?

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/

zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm

A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular.

Tobin Paz September 30, 2016 at 4:34 pm

Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.

In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it."

The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery.

Libya, the wealthiest country with the highest standard of living in Africa, was the next major target of more lies. From Gaddafi bombing his own people to the distribution of Viagra to his troops so that they could go on a raping spree. Little mention is made of the bombing of Libya's Great Man-made River project, the largest aqueduct and network of pipes that supplied water to %70 of the population. The water crisis created continues to this day.

The illegal war of aggression on the sovereign state of Syria requires it's own discussion. I will only mention the allegation of Assad using sarin nerve gas. Seymour Hersh's reporting would later show that it was a false flag carried out to cross Obama's chemical weapons "red line".

This brings us to Ukraine, a country in which the United States spent $5 billion on regime change. It was coup d'etat that brought in Svobada and Right Sector, both Neo-Nazi parties. From the fake Russian troop photo's presented by Senator Inhofe, to the invasion of Crimea, a peninsula that hosts Russia's Sevastopol naval base. If there is any doubt about it being an invasion or not, it should be noted that not only did Crimean's vote to secede with a 96% majority in 2014, they overwhelmingly voted for independence both in 1991 and 1994.

As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly.

Expat September 30, 2016 at 12:56 pm

The technical aspects of the two reports are not verifiable by me based on either account so I cannot say which is more likely based on this article. However I can say that disputing the shoot-down by a BUK based on the idea that it was unlikely the separatists would choose that plane and fire at it is about as valid as saying the shoot-down theory is impossible because everyone knows commercial airliners are shot down only once every decade. The plane WAS shot down. Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason for a commercial airliner being struck.

So we have the Dutch on one side with a potential bias because they are part of NATO and interested in crucifying the evil Soviets…whoops, Russians at any price. And on the other side we have the suppliers of the missile and sponsors/supporters of those accused of firing it. Which side is more likely to fabricate an explanation? Maybe both are lying. But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch.

tgs September 30, 2016 at 2:26 pm

But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch

And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter.

visitor September 30, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason

BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

There are currently three versions of the MH17 case:

1) A motley crew of separatists did it with equipment provided by Russia.

2) An Ukrainian oligarch with his own badly trained militia did it with equipment diverted from Ukrainian reserves.

3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up.

There is no incontrovertible evidence for any of those scenarios. Note that (3) would not be the first time that the Ukrainian army shot down a civilian airplane by mistake; it already did it in 2001 (look up Siberia Airlines 1812).

The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs).

The investigation does not pass the smell test.

sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:33 pm

Verily.

optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:58 pm

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/
JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement.

optimader September 30, 2016 at 7:21 pm

BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

Requiring 6-12mnths of training is not exactly an endorsement of sophistication. That said, what I read (a couple years ago!) and recall about the buk systems is that there is at least one degraded permissive level that will allow the system to launch a missile, and several targeting radar/telemetry apparatus (remote/local) that allow the system to function in a degraded manner -- like if the systems truck with "the meat" in it gets blasted.

My opinion remains that it was a BUK system supplied by the Russians to what was less than fully qualified separatists, or was subsequently put in the hands of less than qualified operators who launched on purpose thinking it was the ubiquitous Ukie cargo plane, not realizing it was a commercial airliners.

Who would do that on purpose? really? This is EXACTLY the kind of idiocy that occurs in war

zapster September 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm

The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all.

optimader September 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm

Zapster, even the BUK mfgr conceded it was shot down with a BUK missile over a year ago. Isnt it time to give up the imaginary SU-25 confabulation already?

The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical.

visitor October 1, 2016 at 7:06 am

A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up.

(a) Because so far, all BUK systems in Ukraine, especially at the time of the MH17 downing, have been conclusively identified as Ukrainian ones. There are no conclusive images of the supposed separatist BUK battery before, during or after the MH17 incident. Despite all radars monitoring the battlefield…

(b) Because being at war and given the dilapidated state of the Ukrainian army (going back to the early 1990s), there was an urgent need for personnel, and only fast training was possible. No careful year-long schooling when the next separatist offensive or much-touted Russian invasion can strike in a matter of weeks.

(c) Because a training scenario explains the presence of Ukrainian SU25, serving as practice targets - but BUK radars locked onto the much larger signal corresponding to the MH17.

(d) Because shooting actual missiles when one is not supposed to do, and aiming them at the wrong target is exactly the kind of error that "green" personnel may commit while stressed in time of war - but that experienced operators who had time to go through all possible scenarios recognizing various target types and locking the right ones after months of drill will avoid.

Personally, I do not believe that any of the suspects ever deliberately fired at MH17.

Crazy Horse September 30, 2016 at 11:03 pm

Add two more suspects to the list:

4- Putin did it. After all, the American mass media told us so almost before the airliner hit the ground.

5- An American clandestine agency (CIA, NSA, Blackwater, etc. did it by supplying planning and logistical support to their client Ukrainians.

A crime did take place. Since we are uncertain as to who the perpetrators were, let's apply crime scene logic:

MOTIVE:
Hard to conceive of a motive for Putin or the Russian Federation. The only conceivable result of such an attack would be to further the Western propaganda effort to demonize Putin and the separatists and to open the door to increased US military and economic support for Ukraine.

On the other hand the USA (and the Ukrainian government) clearly had the motive to create a false flag situation to justify expanded intervention, and the US has a long history of doing so. Gulf of Tonkin, World Trade Center, Syrian gas attacks - to name but a few.

MEANS:
If the plane was downed by a Russian built BUK missile instead of by fighter jets as it first seemed, then all five suspects could have conceivably have been in possession of the missile and launch and fire control apparatus. Using an analysis of the attack direction to derive the launch site is plausible but far from convincing. Both the Russians and the US had their most sophisticated spy satellites focused on the region and probably knew exactly what happened in real time.

OPPORTUNITY:
The real smoking gun in this affair was the fact that the Ukrainians purposely re-routed the airliner far south of its normal route, and then disappeared the air traffic controller in charge. Without this diversion it would not have been possible to target the plane. Was this event planned and coordinated by one of the US spook agencies or mercenaries under contract or was it solely an Ukrainian operation? Did the sophisticated American communications ship stationed nearby assist with logistics?

Somehow I can't buy the argument that it was all an accident.

Optimader October 1, 2016 at 12:14 am

Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn something.

Now then, the facts in this case are:

the body of the chauffeur was found in the bedroom of the second maid. Fact!

Cause of death:
Four bullets in the chest. Fact!

The bullets were fired at close range from a .25 caliber Beretta automatic. Fact!

Maria Gambrelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact!

The murder weapon was registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind you, in the glove compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact!

Now then, members of the household staff have testified that Miguel Ostos beat…
[snaps his pointing stick]

Clouseau: You fool! You have broken my pointing stick! I have nothing to point with now!… have testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently.

And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Madame Ballon, as well as all the members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis.

Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable conclusion?

Hercule LaJoy: Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.

Clouseau: What? You idiot! It's impossible. She's protecting someone.
Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?

Clouseau: Instinct!

Hercule LaJoy: But that facts…

Clouseau: You are forgetting the most important fact – motive.

Veri September 30, 2016 at 5:07 pm

Why did this story on MH17 come out now?

Al Nusra senior commander admits US is on Jihadis side.

Reported in German Press.

likbez September 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm

Note: the previous variant of this comment went to moderation.

You need to understand that after JFK assassination the notion that truth will eventually surface in such cases is open to review. So a plausible hypothesis might be all we can have. Yes, there is a line "between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot", but the evidence strongly suggests that in this particular case Western MSM promoted version has huge hole in it.

The default suspects according to "quo bono" principle should be Ukraine and the USA, unless good counterarguments are provided. There are none so far.

Of cause we do not know for sure (and might never get the real facts), but there are several chunks of evidence that strengthen this "accident into false flag" or "false flag from the very beginning" hypothesis:

1. Why there were no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

2. Strange, never explained, story of Spanish aircontroler twits immediately after the tragedy. To whom belong pretty alarming twits in the Spanish blog from an air traffic controller working in Boryspil airport, which completely contradict official Ukrainian and Western MSM story?

3. Testimony of a defector to Russians from Ukrainian air force (technician on the nearby military airfield I think), who suggested that it was a fighter jet that downed the airliner.

4. The fact that SBU immediately confiscated all the evidence from air control towers and those records were never presented to international investigation commission.

5. Why the agreement that was reached between Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to classify the results of investigation ?

6. Strange resistance and procrastination with getting evidence from the crash site. Shelling of the crash site by the Ukrainian artillery.

7. Why the normal route over Ukraine for the airliner was changed ?

8. Attempts to provide proof of rebels involvement which later were discredited as fabrications (unverified phone intercepts that experts proved to be fragments of conversations stitched together to implicate rebels)

9. Striking speed with which Ukrainian and Western MSM just after a few minutes after the plane disappeared from screens of radars, has started well coordinated and pretty vicious campaign

10. Fake satellites maps at the time of the tragedy. Fake photo of BUK track which allegingly shoot down MH17.

11. Attempts to capture the crash area, despite previous agreement for ceasefire in this area.

Skippy September 30, 2016 at 8:18 pm

Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved.

Dishevled Marsupial…. its not like innocent people are not maimed or killed in gang turf wars day in and day out….

VietnamVet September 30, 2016 at 9:07 pm

Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wargames between nuclear powers inevitably escalate to use of ICBMs. I am so old I remember the Civil Defense program that was made obsolete in 1953 when the Soviet Union exploded the first deployable hydrogen bomb. The USA is losing. Washington DC is befuddled. Western propaganda doesn't make any sense. There is no indication that there is any comprehension of the danger to mankind by the insane decision to start a war with Russia or that a miscalculation or accident could cause a nuclear holocaust not just a 777 shot down.

Skippy September 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm

Yeah its a wee bit like taking a Contiki tour through a combatant zone…..

https://www.contiki.com/au/en?c3apiks=110690064669&contiki%20tours&e&gclid=CKHN-vnBuM8CFQQDvAodwYQAgw&kendelid=p.403.95c0db64-851a-46c8-b140-c9362dc078a4.cr2408100

Disheveled Marsupial… Like the ad saez…. "One Life. One Shot. Make it Count‎"….

Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 5:24 am

As to the questions…

(i) Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. 120 degree arc is huge when you already have some knowledge of the direction where the radar ought to point. Since TELAR unit can't tell what exactly it is that it is shooting (you would need TAR for that) the identification can't really be even expected to happen.

(ii) BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. Given the speed of the objects the missile would have approached the aircraft at around 1000 m per second – with the diameter of missile being around 40 cm it would have been difficult to see it just from 100 meters out – which would have left less time to react than in which human would have been able to react. So lack of reaction from the crew is exactly what there ought to have been.

(iii) Homing method used in most missiles (including BUK) means that it never flies parallel to the its target. It is always flying on the basis of ' constant bearing, reducing range ' navigation (i.e. proportional navigation) – you may want to read about that. Also given the semi-active radar homing used in BUK if the radar (i.e. the launch vehicle) would have been on the side of the aircraft then it is very unlikely that the missile would have been headed for the nose either. Lack of found shrapnel is not particularly surprising either as site was unsecured for quite a while.

And it wasn't like JIT would have ignored the Zaroshchenskoe possibility. It was investigated. But nothing to support it was found. Furthermore captured rebel communications made it clear that (i) the locality was either in partial or total rebel control and that (ii) no missile launch was witnessed. Given that the the launch plume (& burned field) has been located via several different images provided by JIT it is quite clear where the launch occurred.

likbez October 1, 2016 at 11:59 am

This concentration on Buk missile and exclusions of other possibilities has IMHO one serious problem: complete absence of witness reports of the missile launch. This is a pretty densely populated area and Buk missile launch produces dense smoke trace clearly visible from the ground. The supposed launch happened during daytime in fair weather conditions. Huge, dense smoke trace from Buk missile launch can't be hidden in such a conditions, can it ? It should be visible for at least ten minutes or more before dissipating.

But there is no witness reports, no photos, nothing. I never head that launch site was located "via several different images provided by JIT" BBC tried soon after the tragedy and have a correspondent on the ground explicitly searching for it for a week or so. They failed.

Fighter jet hypothesis is somehow swiped under the carpet despite the testimony of military aircraft technician who defected to Russians and Russian radar data that had shown a second (military, no transponder) plane in vicinity at the time of shooting.

As for "Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. " this is questionable explanation. There were multiple planes in this area flying at high altitudes the same day, so the selection of the target and timing looks bizarre. Why not an earlier plane, why not a later plane ?

Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm

Had you familiarized yourself with the JIT report you would have noticed that they had witness reports, as well as photos depicting the smoke plume from several different angles. Also it is quite likely that the sound people believed at the time have heard as 'jet engine' noise was actually noise from the missile's rocket engine. So that kinda leaves your version full of holes. And it kinda depends on the prevailing weather as to how long the smoke trail will persist – link
You can see (closer to the end) the trail starting to disperse immediately. And oddly enough for your story there were reporters who had no trouble locating the burned of patch of field following the photos and witness reports.

The fighter jet theory is just nonsense. Belongs to the same category as the 'Spanish air traffic controller' story. There is nothing in Russian radar data that would hint of a presence of another aircraft. Only additional detection occurs after the incident has occurred which means that instead of being an aircraft it was likely just debris from the MH17. That Russians claimed it would have been an Su-25 was a rather dishonest act.

As to why MH17 was shot down and not any of the others. In all likelyhood no one intended to shoot it down. So that falls to the category of bad luck (in part of the crew and passengers of MH17).

Yves Smith Post author October 1, 2016 at 2:32 pm

While your points about witnesses may have merit, the video falls in the category of "web evidence" as it may have been doctored and hence is not reliable.

likbez October 1, 2016 at 5:25 pm
Again, my point is that like in case of JFK assassination we might never know that truth. So your supreme confidence is very suspect.

I see you as a hardened type of information warrior not a person who try to dig out the truth. You are fixed on a single version no matter what evidence is available and discard any conflicting "separatists did it" evidence.

BTW I do not exclude any possibilities: it can be separatists, it can be Ukrainian Buk, it can be a fighter jet. But need to see all augments on the table, not a selective set supporting a single most convenient to the dominant parties in the investigation. And weight all three hypothesis.

And Ukrainians and the USA should be considered primary suspects due to obvious benefits they got from the tragedy. Absence of Russian citizens among victims is for me a kind of alarming fact by itself as it allowed to exclude Russians from the investigation and pointing in the direction of "false flag".

Moreover the whole investigation became essentially an exercise in proving "separatists did it", despite the fact that Ukrainian authorities were clear beneficiary of the event and Provisional government consisted of very dangerous and reckless people (especially Parubiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy ) .

BTW it was separatists that provided black boxes of the aircraft to investigators and much of the evidence were collected and guarded by them. And it was Ukrainians that shelled the area to prevent investigators from working after the tragedy.

Also any investigation that uses Bellingcat materials should be automatically labeled as a propaganda exercise (or disinformation war, if you wish). Think about it…

As for Su25 you are way to too quick to dismiss this possibility: IMHO there was some evidence of presence of the plane from Rostov airport radar telemetry. It was long ago and I do not remember details but there is a collection of materials on the Web with "week-by-week" selections at
http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/Tragedy_of_flight_MH17/Bulletin/mh17_bulletin0719.shtml

Please compare your version with the selection.

Also Parry points out that exact location of Ukrainian Buks at the moment of the tragedy were never revealed by investigators. If this is not a clear bias, I do not know what is.

Where is the map with the location of Ukrainian units and radar on the day of the tragedy, I would like to ask you? Where are transcripts of communication of Ukrainian military and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic controllers for this day?

https://www.sott.net/article/329653-The-JIT-MH17-report-Troubling-gaps-vague-evidence

The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn't address questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO) intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down. A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels.

Dismissing 'Spanish air traffic controller' story shows your true colors, as this event happened just after the shooting, twits were in Spanish which would be atypical of Russian and Ukrainian three-letter agencies, and as such has less chances to be a planted disinformation.

[Sep 12, 2016] Why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

thesaker.is

T1 on October 14, 2015 · at 9:04 pm UTC

I get confused easily so perhaps someone can explain to me: why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

Little things like that make me suspicious.

Peter, on October 14, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC

That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though.

I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model) 14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly less due to the acceleration stage.

So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.

According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report was for midday on the 17th.

But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke plume.

In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.

[Aug 24, 2016] Tragic mistake

Notable quotes:
"... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
"... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
"... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
"... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:12 am
MH17 – сбили по "ошибке"

In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.

Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake.

What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos.

Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:13 am
Over to you, Secretary of State Kerry…
marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 10:43 am
Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could be anyone.

It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless.

Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 12:22 pm
But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?

The translation reads:

Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives…

Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .

[Aug 16, 2016] The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine

marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , August 14, 2016 at 1:19 pm

The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine , for "Failing to protect life" by taking the appropriate precautions to vector air traffic away from the war zone.

Which means Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility for its own airspace.

Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.

[Aug 16, 2016] 3 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet.

marknesop.wordpress.com

Jeremn, August 15, 2016 at 7:07 am

Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically, the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the Malaysian flight was coming down.

"The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."

https://energia.su/mh17/en/article/1/

marknesop, August 15, 2016 at 10:20 am
Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.

[Aug 07, 2016] The key idea behind MH17 provocation was neutralizing a threat for a determined time frame, taking them down politically and promote more pliable actors

In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface, the necessary effect was already achieved.
Notable quotes:
"... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
"... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

Jen , August 6, 2016 at 4:56 am

Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17: you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
et Al , August 6, 2016 at 7:48 am
Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable actors.

MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber.

Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise.

[Jul 28, 2016] Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

marknesop.wordpress.com
Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-nyt-retract-latest-anti-russian-fraud/ri15814

[Jul 17, 2016] MH17 crash: Malaysia Airlines 'strikes deal on damages', says lawyer

www.bbc.com

Dutch media say there are no further details because both parties have agreed to secrecy.

A memorial service was held for the victims on Sunday near Schiphol.

Under the Montreal Convention, which regulates air travel, airlines must pay damages of up to about $145,000 (£109,000) to victims' families, regardless of the circumstances of a crash.

[May 30, 2016] MH17 Coroner Michael Barnes, Australian Lawyers in Head-On Crash With the Rules of Evidence

www.nakedcapitalism.com

naked capitalism

Barnes also ignored the warning from the state lawyer, Catherine Follent. Read her statement in full here . In written testimony she told the coroner: "as to the manner of deaths then, in our submission it would be appropriate for your Honour to adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board as to the source and mechanics of the detonation, in addition to finding that the deaths of the New South Wales passengers were the result of the actions of another person or persons."

Follent (right) also told the coroner, according to a SkyNews report: "It would be inappropriate for the coroner to declare the deaths were a result of 'the action of another person or persons', as criminal investigations are still under way."

Coroner Barnes (below, left) was asked to explain why his claims lacked evidence and contradicted what his counsel had testifed he could judge. Follent (centre) was asked the same question. Barnes and Follent said through Angus Huntsdale (right), a press officer for the coroner: "Ms Follent did not make the remarks." Also, according to Huntsdale, "she didn't do an interview with Sky News or any other media."

The SkyNews report of Follent's remarks was published on May 17, the day of the Barnes inquest. Days later, on May 23, when Barnes and Follent were asked to clarify what she had said, they and Huntsdale were provided with the story link . Huntsdale did not deny the media report; in guarded comments he left open the possibility that Follent had made her warning in open court, for which no transcript has been made available. But several hours after Barnes, Follent and Huntsdale had reviewed what Follent had been quoted as saying, her warning to the coroner was removed from the SkyNews version of the story.

The coroner and his associates were unable to remove Follent's quote entirely. This is how it appeared originally, on May 17 .

Barnes and Follent were asked to explain why they had imposed a secrecy order on the evidence, and to identify the sources of the documents they had classified. They replied through Huntsdale: "The documentary evidence included portions of the Dutch Safety Board's report, the reports of the deaths to the coroner by NSW Police, two statements of Australian Federal Police officers providing an update on the status of the investigations (including the Dutch Safety Board and criminal investigations) and forensic pathology reports."

One of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) statements, dating from last November, had been tested in the Victorian Coroner's Court in December. Kept secret in Sydney last week, this statement was publicly accessible in Melbourne five months earlier. At that time AFP Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe (pictured above) said the evidence on what caused the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the passengers and crew was inconclusive.

Donoghoe also said : "it was also necessary that other scenarios – such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type of missile, or that it was shot down from the air – must be ruled out convincingly." Donoghoe repeated the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB report."

By gagging Donoghoe from testifying as a witness, and keeping his 2015 testimony secret, Barnes has claimed the DSB report warranted his conclusion there had been deliberate aiming of a missile at MH17 and intentional "mass murder". Barnes and Follent refuse to identify what parts of the DSB report they relied on for this conclusion.

Instead, Barnes ordered a DSB videotape to be played in court. Watch it here .

The original DSB videoclip runs for 19:58 minutes. But according to Huntsdale, the coroner's spokesman, "the first 15 minutes of the clip were played. It wasn't necessary to play the remainder of the video because it went beyond the scope of the coroner's inquiry."

Did Coroner Barnes decide that the last 5 minutes of the tape were unnecessary, he was asked, and why. According to Huntsdale, "the NSW State Coroner made his findings on the basis of the documentary material tendered…coroners do not provide additional commentary on their cases outside of court."

The missing five minutes of the DSB tape which Barnes suppressed contain two charges by the DSB chairman, Tjibbe Joustra.

The Dutch official blames the Ukrainian government for failure to close the airspace and for putting MH17 at risk. "Ukraine had sufficient information to close the airspace to civil aviation prior to July 17, " Joustra said. He also criticized the operator of MH17, Malaysia Airlines, for ignoring the risks and flying through the conflict zone.

On Saturday, as Skinner was advertising his claims against Russia in the Australian papers and stalling his claims against Malaysia Airlines in the Sydney court, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced his own agreement on MH17 with President Putin directly.

"'I understand and feel the sadness and pain experienced by the families of the victims. I lost my step-grandmother, Puan Sri Siti Amirah Prawira Kusuma in the tragedy,' said Najib in a post on his website Saturday evening. 'I see that we have started on positive steps towards seeking justice for the family members and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I reached an agreement that follow-up action will be determined after the results of the investigation are presented by the Joint Investigation Team in October. I pray that the families of all the victims remain patient in facing the challenges,' said Najib."

According to a spokesman for the Dutch prosecutors, who are leading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), there will be no JIT report in October. Alex morfesis , May 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm

Oh thank goodness…I was worried they were going to tell the public the truth…

and then where might that lead to…

even more expectations…

and you know where that might lead to…

peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy…

so none of that, thank you very much….

Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 7:47 pm

Anyone know what compensation was paid to the victims of that Iranian airliner the US Navy shot down back in 1988?

Harry , May 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

US$75k each. But that was an accident ;)

Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 8:32 pm

I just skimmed Capt Rogers III, commander of the Vincennes, in the wiki article. He was not reprimanded or relieved of his command for the shoot down of the civilian airliner. However his next assignment was a shore position and he retired after those last 2 years in 1991. Punishment was going from fast track to earlier than expected, honorable retirement.

polecat , May 30, 2016 at 7:48 pm

Are the Ausralian public that clueless and /or crazy enough not to push for the truth…or do they love Murdoch so much they just don't care??

[May 26, 2016] Nearly everyone concerned is trying to prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability

Notable quotes:
"... An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers…. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , May 24, 2016 at 9:42 am

John Helmer.net (via Russia Insider): MH17 CORONER MICHAEL BARNES, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS IN HEAD-ON CRASH WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15710

An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers….

####

Much more at the link of course.

marknesop , May 24, 2016 at 11:31 am
That nearly everyone concerned is trying to

(a) prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and

(b) suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability, is telling.

What the west would like to arrive at is a situation in which it can continue to blame Russia, but does not have to prove it. It would be like gold for the Barnes charges to get in front of the ECHR, but there seems little hope of that as it appears to have been just a grandstanding stunt, and the ECHR has already warned that it will not hear it.

[Feb 20, 2016] Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties

Notable quotes:
"... Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. ..."
"... The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently dont mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings? ..."
"... But there were also many radar-based satellites. ..."
"... The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery. ..."
"... Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems. ..."
"... Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe! ..."
"... Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. – quote from the above referenced article. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

Terje M, February 19, 2016 at 1:47 am

3 Stories about MH17:

An eyewitness account from someone who was part of the team of OSCE inspectors and observers :

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/10/28/they-are-playing-tennis-three-sets-every-match-to-try-and-kill-us/

Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. They also have 5 billion webpages to cherry pick from.

https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtlnieuws.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fbinnenland%2Fom-zomer-bewijs-over-raket-mh17

Which brings me to the third story, what types of Western satellites were over SE Ukraine at the time.
http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/sigint-imint-and-mh17.html

The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently don't mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings?

But there were also many radar-based satellites. From the article:

2. Radar IMINT

The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery.

Apart from the USA, the German military also operates a radar satellite system, the SAR-Lupe satellites. The French military likewise operates its own radar satellite system, the Hélios system. Japan operates the IGS system (which includes both optical and radar satellite versions).

All of these satellites made passes over the Ukraine at one time or another on July 17 2014, so all of them might have provided useful imagery. FIA Radar 3 made a pass right over the area in question near 11:43 UT for example, some 1.5 hours before the tragedy. FIA Radar 2 made a pass over the area at 18:00 UT, 4.5 hours after the shootdown. These are just a few examples.

Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems.

The article has more interesting information about these satellites.

Cortes , February 19, 2016 at 4:09 am
MH17 is likely to become just a minor curiosity like the affair of the Libyan pilot, dead for 12 days, allegedly responsible for the Ustica Massacre:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870

Jeremn , February 19, 2016 at 2:31 am
Very interesting. I also think the Germans said that they had picked up some Target Acquisition Radar of the launch unit)?

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flug-mh17-regierung-hat-keine-sicheren-erkenntnisse-ueber-abschuss-a-990288.html

Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 4:54 am
Astounding!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe!
Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 5:12 am
'Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. " – quote from the above referenced article.

[Jan 04, 2016] MH17 crash: Dutch investigators to assess new study implicating Russian soldiers

Agence-France Press an article of which that Guardian dutifully reproduced really lost their heads in anti-Russian hysteria if they cite Bellingcat as a source of information for investigators. Bellingcat is a propaganda outlet and would be discarded as a source of information by anybody with at least high school education. It would be funny if it is not so tragic. By propagating this propagna outlet nonsense they just reveal their real position and aversion to truth. Welcome to Ministry of Truth, this type in NATO incarnation.
Notable quotes:
"... Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge. ..."
"... Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down... ..."
"... Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower. ..."
"... NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved commercial traffic monitoring . It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17. ..."
"... The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact its not led by the Dutch. Its led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. Its delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it . (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist) ..."
Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com

jbrewster911 , 4 Jan 2016 22:20

Clear evidence of Ukrainian compliance in this murder - however expect Ukrainian failure to admit responsibility to continue endlessly. Stare organised terrorism, sabotage, default on debts, murder of political opponents & COVER-UP is a clear part of Ukrainian strategy. Concoction of outrageous stories to cover-up the murder is a part of Bellingcat strategy as well. Not only Ukraine didn't block the war zone airspace, its air traffic control directed the liner there to be shot down by a fighter waiting in in ambush. All that to simply point the finger at Russia.

All those "investigations" are mere window dressing, and all the involved know it. That won't be the first time Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner either. They won't get away with 15 million compensation this time though.

TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 18:36 6 7 At last the Kiev Government has, reluctantly, told us why it could not provide any radar data in the MH17 investigation. Because the Ukraine's two primary radar stations were down for repairs on the day MH17 came down. So why did they not tell us that a year and a half ago? Perhaps the LangleyBots can enlighten us.

Still no excuse forthcoming on why Ukraine cannot provide their full air traffic control recordings. The ones the Ukrainian FSB siezed. Ah well. Maybe in a year or two.

Manolo Torres , 4 Jan 2016 18:17

This things can hardly be named citizen journalism. From wikipedia:

In 2015, Higgins partnered with the Atlantic Council to co-author the report Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine which examined direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine.

. In June 2015 on the invitation of former Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, Higgins together with his report co-author Atlantic Council's Maks Czupersk i presented Hiding in Plain Sight at the European Parliament alongside Russian opposition figure Ilya Yashin and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. [11]

From wikipedia as well:

In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel.[3] In addition, other Council members also left to serve the administration: Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN ,

and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

Four years later, Hagel stepped down to serve as US Secretary of Defense.
The Atlantic Council has influential supporters, with former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation", [5] .

Surely a Russian "citizen journalist working with the Eurasian Integration council whose members have worked for the Russian minister of defense and the FSB would not be referred as a citizen journalism anywhere.

TonyBlunt -> psygone , 4 Jan 2016 18:27
"The investigation is complete"

No so Psygone. The criminal investigation in Australia - that will affect compensation payments - thinks the Dutch crash investigation inadequate. See below.

TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 16:48
The Australian and Dutch government now are accusing the Ukrainian FSB of hiding the radar data. Link to article in the Dutch media proving such:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/12/24/mh17-investigators-ukraine-russia-refuse-to-provide-radar-images /

According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images of the MH17 disaster stating that they were "erased" or that are no images due to "maintenance", the Telegraaf reports.

Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance.

Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight.

According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable and suspicious.

The headline is intentionally misleading. It is Ukraine that now says the radar data was erased due to maintenance, not Russia. Russia has complied fully already and released a fully radar data presentation on July 21st, 2014. The real story here is that Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance. Ukraine is hiding the truth. Link to Russian radar presentation from 4 days after MH-17 was shot down. To watch the full Russian radar presentation simply Google the phrase " Russian Ministry of Defence Briefing on MH-17 Boeing 777"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKCaEmvhr6w

http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with

The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide "conclusive evidence" of what exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations to the contrary from DSB.

The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused the crash. Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage fragments were handed over for inspection and that "some fragments were not consistent with debris of the aircraft".

technotherapy -> Alderbaran, 4 Jan 2016 16:33

Having found a link to the heights of aircraft shot down over Eastern Ukraine prior to the downing of MH17,

You haven't. You've found a graphic that show the service ceiling for the aircraft, not the height they were at when they were shot down. For example it shows MH17 at 43000 feet - it was shot down at FL330 (33000 ft).

I had not realized until now that in month prior to the downing of MH17, a transport plane was shot down at nearly 40,000 feet.

Thats because its not true. See above.

With that sort of critical analysis and attention to detail, maybe you should consider working for bellingcat?

John Smith -> Alderbaran , 4 Jan 2016 16:42
You're looking at the wrong sources Alderbaran. That Ilyushin was shot down on a landing approach at the Lugansk airport. That AN-26 was also in a range of MANPADS and there is a video of that shot down and there is no characteristic BUK ( or other powerful missile) trail on it. There is also a video available with an interview with one of the survived crew members. They were delivering supplies to encircled troops at the border and you can hardly drop those from higher than 3000-4000 ft.

You have misjudged that graphic that is showing the service ceiling of those aircraft and not an altitude where they were hit (which is also wrong, Su-25 has a ceiling of 10.000 m or 33.000 ft).

Ian Rutherford -> truk10 , 4 Jan 2016 14:31

"Everyone, apart from a few lost souls, now accept that a Russian BUK missile system brought down MH17 and we are at the stage of identifying the crew members."

Everyone who had time to look into it properly now accepts that it was an old model of Buk which was manufactured in Ukraine and was no longer in possession of the Russian Army.

It is also a common knowledge that the original "evidence" provided by "Bellingcat" amounts to nothing more than a baseless speculation.

Nice try anyway, "truk" ..

By the way, what is your real name ..

LordMurphy , 4 Jan 2016 13:17

Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge.

madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:33

I am still surprised that Uncle Sam has not produced some sharp, detailed images of the border. When they want to, they can but this time no. Bellingcat seems to enjoy doing this research but it all comes out like some Robert Ludlum novel.

ID075732 -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:45

Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down...

SHappens -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:46

Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower.

Consider this:

NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved "commercial traffic monitoring". It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17.

Since March 2014, NATO Boeing Awacs were over Ukraine checking every aerial and ground movements and intercepting all the communications and electronic signals. Thanks to these abilities three Boeing Awacs are enough for controlling the whole Central Europe.
Yet they have not individualized the missile responsible for the downing of MH17. And it has not sensed the electronic wake of the radar which has hooked the flight either. As blind and deaf were the CIA satellites. Yet the same satellites had previously photographed a column of three tanks T64 and other weapons at the border between Russia and Ukraine.

It is thus legitimate to wonder how come the Americans, so prompt to photograph and to follow the movements of three antiquated tank T64 at the time, had let escaped or had not documented the passage, strategically more remarkable, of a missile system.

The Dutch reports says:

"The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. So says the investigation report published by the Dutch Safety Board today. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine already had sufficient reason to close the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution before 17 July 2014. None of the parties involved recognised the risk posed to overflying civil aircraft by the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine."

"The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact it's not led by the Dutch. It's led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. It's delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it". (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist)

Moreover when two countries, either part of the investigation primary panel, or of the advisory panel, both shot a civilian plane and never apologized for it, both actively participate in killing civilians in the Donbass, concerns can arise as to their reliability and impartiality in such an inquiry. And there is the infamous non disclosure deal, that is that these countries are not obliged to communicate all of their findings, and on top they neglected most Russian's material provided to them.

The Commission demonstrated its incompetence by the fact of not having sent experts on, not having secured the area immediately to the investigation, it had not brought any of all the pieces of the plane to reconstruct and visualize how the carcass was touched. And the Ukrainian army was bombing the area.

How can you then believe this inquiry is not biased ? You cant. The US satellite were active over the Donbass the day the flight was hit, yet the US refuse to show the images proving their claim that Russia is guilty, like the Ukrainians dont relaese their ATC.

prayle , 4 Jan 2016 10:53

Spiegel was bitten quoting Bellingcat - surprised TheGuardian would follow their footsteps:

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/bellingcat-bericht-zu-mh17-was-wir-lernen-a-1037135.html

oddballs 4 Jan 2016 10:47

Sometimes readers comments give information that offer insight into the many questions still left unanswered into the circumstances surrounding the downing of the aircraft MA 17' The points raised by Davie Macdonald is a good example of this.

"Some points worth noting 26 February 2014 Russian Forces in Western Military Distract put on Alert That would have triggered NATO observation and comment > Confirmed

US Spy satellites would have been more focused on the area >obvious

Moving forward when MH17 was shot down claims were made through audio intercepts the Separatists ( Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion) had done the downing and boasted.

Then later is was claimed Strelkov admitted it. later and it was an error. . Some three days later as these transcripts was proved fake.

Higgins and the Ukraine Government immediately claimed it was the 18 infantry Brigade. This didn't exist in the Russian Western Military District . In desperation a picture was then posted of a Russian selfie with BUK 312 by Higgins proving Russian involvement It very soon proved to be a Ukrainian soldier and Ukrainian Buk.

By September 2014 the claims were being made that it was 53rd Brigade which is also interesting because that is not (for the forensically accurate Higgins claims he is) Is actually 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.

Now the only heresay we are given is by Higgins. It has already been clearly established that the BUK unit as claimed was 312 and in Ukraine army possession Can you really imagine this vehicle would have been driven to and from a site that was a battlefield in broad daylight ? Afterall the Ukraine has its airforce.

As for the first claimed launch field where it was supposedly fired from on July 17 you will

1) find no evidence of burnt grass Higgins faked a Google Earth map

2) It was as pointed out in one of my other responses an battler field ebbing and flowing

3) Higgins claims it was a bright sunny day to show a Buk plume when it was in fact overcast see initial and final DSB report

4) BUK M1 cannot fire accurately at a target sight unseen and seen It still requires in simple terms the acquisition target Radar unit to guide missile....which when reaching target is designed not to hit but explode above the target.

The DSB report does not show this and only one BUK Bowtie missile shard (there are 8,000 in missile) was found in the wreckage along with a stabilizer fin, engine exhaust manifold. Only one person found this material a Dutch Journalist Julian Borger

None were found by site investigators and the origin of another 2 allegedly found at the site is deemed classified. Even the Malaysians have not been given this information Why keep,it secret"
Many people are convinced that the Russians were responsible, if they could 'answer Macdonalds questions it would go a long way in convincing me that they actually 'know' the truth

ID075732 4 Jan 2016 10:35

Investigative journalism old and new here's what Robert Parry winner of the J.f. Stone award for independent journalism has to say on the subject. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/20/mh-17-case-old-journalism-vs-new/

[Expect some catcalling, wailing and nashing of teath from the bellingcat babes]

John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:08

Oh please, no Bellingcat again.

That Atlantic Council minion doesn't even know how the Russians and Ukrainians are marking their military hardware.

sokolnik100 4 Jan 2016 09:57

The sources for this include photos posted on the Internet and army data about personnel deployment that was available online, NOS said.

Of course it must be true as it was "on the internet".

Considering the the fact that each side to this saga routinely denounces contrary internet information as complete bollocks, how can the Guardian ascribe any credibility to this "study". Clearly, whilst all information is equal, some is more equal than other!

SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 09:34

BUK is a complex piece of weaponry, more so than your average T60/T72 tanks requiring a lot of lengthy training. They're not the sort of equipment provided to insurgent/rebels because of the threat they pose. If they did obtain one then it was more than likely crewed by actual trained Russian troops. In either case this was a genuine mistake and a tragedy as it happens in all warzones. The US shot down the Iranian Passenger plane in the 70s in far more dubious circumstanced and refused to even apologise for the ''mistake'' (leading many to believe it wasn't a mistake). Now if you think you'll find, trial and convict anyone for this mistake...good luck with it. You'll get about the same results as those Iranian families

John Smith , SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 10:26

If someone uses some logic, why would they (The Russians) give that BUK to the militia? There wasn't any need for that because they're doing pretty well with MANPADS, they didn't have any needs to hit high flying aeroplanes.

The second thing, if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them with those advanced weapon systems.
The third thing is, a BUK single TELAR (if they had an operational one) without an observation radar 'Kupol' (or any other) cannot find such a high and fast flying target, a radar beam on that TELAR is simply too narrow for that. A BUK is a system ( complex) with an observation radar and a command vehicle and all data that is comming to a TELAR have to come through that command vehicle and an observation radar is easy to detect

Dimmus , John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:46
"if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them"
- obvious by feelings, but not logically obvious. As there are other possibilities, just few for example:
1) not a BUK, but something else; 2) not separatists/Russia, but Ukrainian military/batallions; 3) if separatists, they were able to take BUK from some base there, for example, the air defense base A-1402 near Donetsk... etc.

[Dec 24, 2015] Israeli-made air-to-air missile may have downed MH17

Notable quotes:
"... "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects," ..."
"... "intricate shape" ..."
"... "most probably incorrect." ..."
Dec 24, 2015 | RT News

A report on Malaysian Airlines MH17 air disaster in Ukraine last year by a group of old-hand aviation security experts maintains that the Boeing might have been downed by an Israeli Python air-to-air missile.

Trends: Malaysia MH17 plane crash, Ukraine turmoil

The report was leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex) late on Tuesday and has already been widely discussed by social media communities in Russia.

The authors of the investigative report have calculated the possible detonation initiation point of the missile that hit the passenger aircraft and approximate number and weight of strike elements, which in turn designated the type and presumed manufacturer of the weapon.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

Malaysian Airline Boeing 777-200 performing flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, crashed on the territory of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crewmembers aboard.

The aircraft disintegrated in the air and the debris of MH17 were scattered across an area of about 50 sq. km.

The external view of MH17 hull pieces indicates that "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects," the report says, stressing that similar damage could be found on the inner side of the cockpit.

The report specifically points out that chips of the body coat around the holes in the fragment are typical of wave effects created by hypervelocity impacts.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

Some damage, though larger and less clustered, could be found near the air-scoop of the left-wing engine of the aircraft.

The nature of the damage allows for the identification of the source as a high-explosive fragmentation warhead from a modern anti-aircraft weapon, claims the report.

Apart from the large puncture holes, the debris of the nose and the cockpit of the aircraft bear a large number of scattered micro-craters resulting from the impact of high-velocity dust and tiny debris, such as an unburnt blasting agent and elements of the ordnance that accompany a shock wave from a blast that occurred very close to the target. In the case of MH17, the pilots' cockpit.

The report says that as a rule, the initial speed of the striking elements of modern anti-aircraft weapons vary between 1,500 and 2,500 meters per second.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

Altogether, the experts considered photos of five fragments of the cockpit and left port of the flight MH17, on which they counted some 230 "battle-damage" holes and punctures.

All this considered, the experts claim that the exact zone of the blast impact could be established with a fair degree of accuracy.

The warhead of the missile exploded very close to the cockpit, to its left side at a distance of 0.8-1.6 meters from the cockpit windows, exactly opposite the sliding window of the aircraft commander.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The dimensions and character of the puncture holes left by the strike elements allegedly allow their size and form factor to be established, which in its turn makes it possible to identify the type of weapon used in a particular case.

The cross dimension of absolute majority, 86 percent, of the 186 hull holes studied by experts measure between 6 and 13mm, with explicit maximum of them having cross dimension of 8mm.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

This fact brought the expert group to a conclusion about the size of the strike elements of the warhead. If the warhead had been armed with two types of strike elements, the majority of the holes would have been of two types, the reports notes.

The strike element has been established of being a rectangular block measured 8mm x 8mm x 6mm, with margin of error of 0.5 mm, a high probability it was made of steel and an estimated weight of 3 grams each. The total number of such elements should have varied between 2,000 and 4,000.

The bulk of the strike elements are estimated between 4.88 – 14.8 kilograms.

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The report confutes the argument of Russia's Almaz-Antey military concern that early claimed that "intricate shape" double-t steel fragments, similar to those used in warheads of surface-to-air Buk missile systems, have been extracted from the debris of MH17 flight.

Howwever, the double-t strike elements of a Buk missile weigh 8.1 grams, more than twice as much as a single damage fragment among those that pierced MH17's hull. Thus, according to the report, the hypothesis about a Buk missile system being involved in the crash is "most probably incorrect."

With 95 percent probability, the group of experts estimates the weight of the missile's warhead (explosives plus strike elements) that shot down MH17 of being between 10 and 40kg.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

This led the experts to determine the exact type of the weapon used against Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

The report says that that Soviet- and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems use more powerful warheads than the established maximum 40kg, as is the case with MH17.

Moreover, Soviet- and Russian-made air-to-air missiles which have a similar 10-40kg warhead capability use other types of strike elements within one warhead - obviously not the case with MH17.

A whole range of existing foreign air-to-air missiles have corresponding warhead characteristics, yet lack of physical elements of the missile used against MH17 prevented experts from establishing the exact type of the weapon used.

Still, the circumstances and conditions of the assault allowed experts to make certain assumptions.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The missile that attacked MH17 had a passive radar homing head, which explains why the missile exploded so close to the cockpit. Under the radar-transparent nosecone of a Boeing 777-200 there is a surveillance radar station operable during the flight, so most likely the missile homed on to this radar as the target.

Apart from a radar homing head, the missile could also be equipped with an advanced, matrix type, imaging IR seeker, which enables the missile to determine the size and the type of the target and choose for attack its most vital element. For a huge Boeing aircraft, that's the cockpit.

A simulation of the missile attack has proved that missiles with that type of guidance choose to attack a big passenger plane from the front hemisphere.

There are four air-to-air missiles that fit the description established by the experts, namely: French Magis-2, Israeli Shafrir, American AIM-9 and Israeli Python – all short-range.

The first three have been struck off the list for various reasons, including type of warhead or guidance system specifications. The Python deserved a closer look.

The Python is equipped with a matrix-imaging IR seeker. It enables a relatively moderate power warhead to effectively engage big aircrafts. The warhead is armed with a set of ready strike elements. Even more importantly, some open military sources suggest that in early 2000s a number of Sukhoi Su-25 assault fighter jets we refurbished to use fourth and fifth generation Python missiles, which look very similar to the Su-25's standard air-to-air R-60 missile.

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The unofficial report leaked in LiveJournal has become yet another one among many other unofficial versions presented over the year that has passed since the catastrophe occurred on July 17, 2014.

The Dutch Safety Board that has been heading an international investigation into the cause of the crash is due to release its official report in October.

[Dec 21, 2015] Australians has doubts about Dutch safety board conclusion about the type of monitions that destroyed the aircraft

Notable quotes:
"... "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …." ..."
"... What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart. ..."
"... It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Jen, December 19, 2015 at 7:12 pm
Wooooh, this news is a doozy:

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14787
http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with/

First two paragraphs:
"The Australian Federal Police and Dutch police and prosecutors investigating the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 believe the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) has failed to provide "conclusive evidence" of what type of munition destroyed the aircraft, causing the deaths of 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.

Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators.

Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghoe told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments, and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. "Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other types of missile," Donoghoe said, intimating that "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …."

marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 7:31 pm
Great catch, Jen!! Wow, you're right – this is big, especially in view of the wavering by some EU members on sanctions. I wonder what Merkel has up her sleeve; she says Germany – while going ahead with Nord Stream II, which is "first and foremost a business proposition" – is "seeking ways to ensure that Ukraine is not completely excluded as a transit country".

Ummm…what role would that be? Because if, in exchange for pushing ahead on Nord Stream, Russia is maneuvered into still sending gas through Ukraine so that Ukraine can collect transit fees, the project would be self-defeating. I trust the business minds in Russia are sharp enough to stay ahead of that one. Ukraine will still receive gas from Russia, if it wants it and can pay in advance for it, but it will be for domestic supplies only and consequently not subject to transit fees. Russia must not weaken on this, because the EU still hopes to rebuild Ukraine using Russian money, and it cannot do it without Russian help and support. If that is withheld, Russia only needs to wait them out.

Needless to say, Tusk supports Renzi's position, not because he is an Italiophile but because he supports Ukraine and would like to see it remain a transit country, and pocketing $2 Billion a year in Russian cash.

What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart.

marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:37 pm

It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. There were revelations in the original post such as that Australia had sought permission from the Novorossiyan authorities to collect evidence and artifacts, as well as Kiev – thereby implicitly recognizing Novorossiya – and that when it solicited witnesses to testify, some agreed only on the condition their names would not be revealed, that the Ukrainian authorities would not be involved and that the investigators would protect them. Sure sounds like they want to say something they know the Ukrainian government will punish them for saying, if it can identify them. This whole inquiry just got interesting again.

At the moment it looks like a faction of the Australian investigation disagrees with the pat finding of the Dutch, but the Victorian state coroner is totally on board with the "Russia did it" scenario and is determined to have his way no matter how foolish it makes him look. This one could go anywhere from here.

Moscow Exile, December 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm

Clearly that Aussie cop is in the pocket of the Evil One!

Isn't he the one who said earlier that the Russian-backed terrorists at the MH-17 crash site behaved like decent human beings and treated the crash victims' remains with dignity and did not loot their belongings?

I mean, what a ludicrous thing to say!

Everyone knows that these Russian beasts are ….blah, blah, blah ...

davidt, December 20, 2015 at 2:03 pm

Donoghue is not the only AFP cop speaking up for the crash site locals. Their sensitivity and humanity is a rather at odds with a disparaging comment about the AFP on these pages over a year ago (and which I objected to at the time). I noticed last week that Patrick Armstrong is now reconsidering the Sukhoi did it scenario because of an apparent lack of fragments from a Buk warhead.

This has always been a serious concern to the Russian investigators, see
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/russians-angered-dutch-probe


[Oct 21, 2015] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

October 19, 2015 | Antiwar.com

Russophobia compromises the media and academia

The truth is often ignored, at first, and when that becomes impossible, truth-tellers are often punished. As two incidents starkly reveal, this is certainly the case when it comes to the civil war in Ukraine and Washington's unfolding cold war with Russia.

The first illustration of our truth-telling principle occurred after the "Maidan revolution" had already captured the imagination of the Western media, which was busy promulgating the official view as given expression by US government officials. According to this narrative, the "protesters" were heroes, the government of "Russian-backed' Viktor Yanukovich was a coven of devils, and the catalyzing incident that led to Yanukovich's ouster, the shooting of protesters in the Maidan, was the work of the Berkut, the Ukrainian government's militarized police.

There's just one problem with this story: it isn't true. A leaked phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, revealed that the protesters were shot by their own leaders – the radical nationalists who had military control of the Maiden.

... ... ...

Ashton's main concern seemed to be that this would get out and discredit the new government "from the very beginning."

Oh, but not to worry: it didn't get out, at least not in the United States. There were oblique mentions of the recording in the mainstream media, but only weeks afterward and then without any specifics: two months after the fact, the Los Angeles Times referred to it in the vaguest terms, only to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." The New York Times didn't cover it: neither did the War Street Journal, Time magazine, or any of the other usual suspects. The Daily Beast, typically, served as a mouthpiece for the official Washington-Kiev account, citing Dr. Bogomolets as claiming her conversation with Paet was a "misunderstanding." Yet Paet didn't cite her as his sole source: he said "all the evidence." No doubt the Estonians have their own sources in the country, and it's improbable the Foreign Minister would have made such an assertion based on a single person's testimony.

In any case, the story was pretty much buried here in the US, with the exception of this space and a few other alternative news sources.

But in Europe, it was a different story: the German public television station ARD carried a report which threw the identity of the Maidan shooters into serious question. And more recently the BBC produced a documentary, "The Untold Story of the Maidan Massacre," in which eyewitnesses assert that the Berkut were fired on from positions controlled by the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, which, along with the neo-Nazi "Right Sector" organization, ran Maidan security.

Still, the story was ignored in the US, but that may not be possible much longer, and the reason springs from an unlikely source: the current Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko.

Last week Ukrainian police raided the homes of Svoboda Party leaders Oleksandr Sych, who served as Deputy Prime Minister in the post-Maidan government, and Ole Pankevich, whose 2013 appearance at a neo-Nazi memorial event provoked the ire of the World Jewish Congress. The Ukrainian prosecutor's office confirmed that the raid was conducted as part of an investigation into the Maidan shootings:

"The court warrant for the raid on the apartment of Pankevich, a former MP and the ex-head of Lviv regional council, explicitly referred to a BBC documentary on the subject, according to a copy of the warrant … In the documentary, journalist Gabriel Gatehouse spoke to an opposition nationalist rifleman who had acknowledged having fired on riot police in the morning of February 20."

The warrant, posted online,

"[A]lso refers to video footage that showed a rifleman firing out of the Hotel Ukraina, situated on Maidan. The room from which he fired was occupied at the time by Pankevich, according to the court warrant.

"Police also raided the apartment of Sich, vice-prime minister in the immediate post-Maidan government in 2014, also in connection with shots fired from the same hotel, where he was also staying on February 20.

"An assistant to Ukraine's prosecutor general, Vladislav Kutsenko, confirmed to the Ukrainian TV channel 112 that searches of the Svoboda leaders' apartments were linked to an investigation of the February 20 events."

So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow.

Why this stunning turnaround?

Both Svoboda and Right Sector have declared war on the Poroshenko regime and are calling for a "national revolution" – one that would install them in power. The ultra-nationalists are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians. The far right is accusing Poroshenko of "betraying the revolution." They scoff at the ceasefire as a "sellout" because they want the civil war to continue: and as Poroshenko makes draconian cuts in the government budget in order to mollify Ukraine's creditors, and to ensure the flow of Western funding, the rightists are gaining ground politically. And they are getting increasingly violent, staging a riot in front of the parliament building in which three officers were killed by a grenade hurled at policemen: 130 cops were injured. The rightists were protesting the decision by the parliament to grant the eastern rebels some small degree of autonomy. This incident followed a series of shoot-outs with the armed rightist gang known as Right Sector, which played a key role in the Maidan protest movement.

That the Poroshenko government, which had previously stonewalled any serious effort to investigate the shooting deaths that sent Yanukovich packing, is playing this card now is an indication of the regime's desperation in the face of a challenge from the ultra-right. For to upend the official narrative – one that is fully supported by their Western sponsors, and their amen corner in the media – is to subvert the very foundations of the post-Maidan order. If the truth comes out, the ultra-nationalists may be finished – but so may the government that exposes their murderous role.

... ... ...

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud. I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and ISI Books, 2008). You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

[Oct 21, 2015] Son of two Australian MH17 victims says Ukraine should have closed airspace

Oct 13, 2015 | The Guardian
www.theguardian.com

The report, even in its highly-politized form, gives the families of the victims the right to file lawsuits against Ukraine for its criminal negligence in complying with flight safety rules. These suits can cost Ukraine billions of dollars.


idance 14 Oct 2015 12:51

Partly repeating my comment to another article here I must admit this POV agrees with today's (but not yesterday's) US standards.

The US has just refused to accept the UNSC statement condemning the shelling of the Russian Embassy in Damascus. They said the responsibility for the security of diplomatic missions lies on the receiving party, that is on Damascus.

Applying this standard it doesn't matter who shot down MH17. The responsibility lies on Ukraine cause it was Ukraine who should have ensured security of the flight.
Yeah! How do you like it!

SHappens 14 Oct 2015 03:31

"Russia's got a role and they haven't been very helpful," he said. "So I blame Russia partially but not completely. There are many other players that are also to blame."

Some people see through. Rightly, as highlighted by the report, Ukraine failed to its obligations, by not closing its airspace, rerouting a flight which casually got shot. They bear the main responsibility in this disaster.

DeConstruct -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 23:05

You are 100% on the money in relation to shorter route length and air navigation fees. The penny should have dropped when it became obvious from the altitudes of previous military shoot downs that medium range (up to 70,000' +) weapons were being employed and not just low altitude MANPADS.

summaluvva -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 22:35

Quoting Guardian's article, "Many of the world's best-known airlines – including British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace due to safety fears for months before the downing of flight MH17.".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

[Oct 18, 2015] MH17 downed by outdated BUK missile fired from Kiev-controlled area – Defense system manufacturer

Notable quotes:
"... if you can explain any single interest of Russia to destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false flag, but I am sure that this is absolutely risky business with the same bad PR as first case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later, be sure ..."
Oct 13, 2015 | RT News

In October, the BUK manufacturer conducted a second full-scale experiment using the missile and a decommissioned Ilyushin Il-86 passenger airliner. The simulation of the attack on the Boeing "unequivocally proved that if the plane was brought down by a BUK system, it was done with an outdated 9M38 missile from the village of Zaroshchenskoye," in Ukrainian military-controlled territory.

The company also said that the last missile of this type was produced in the Soviet Union in 1986, that its life span is 25 years including all prolongations, and that all missiles of this type were decommissioned from the Russian Army in 2011.

According to Almaz-Antey experts, the Dutch side does not explain why the investigation insists that the possible launch of the surface-to-air missile was executed from the settlement of Snezhnoye, controlled by rebel forces.

A missile launched from Snezhnoye could not have inflicted damage to Boeing's left side and not a single element would have hit the aircraft's left wing and engine, insist the Almaz-Antey experts.

... ... ...

The main proof that the aircraft was shot down from the direction of Snezhnoye was [the Dutch commission's] modeling of that process and interpretation of the damage to the fuselage. It does provide a quite visual imagery of how a missile on a head-on course could damage certain areas, yet this kind of modeling does not explain at all the real-incidence angles of striking elements [hitting the aircraft]," Novikov said.

Analysis of the photos of MH17 debris led the company's experts to believe that the blast of the warhead damaged not only the cockpit of the Boeing 777 that crashed in Ukraine, but also the left wing and stabilizer.

The detonation of the missile occurred at a distance of more than 20 meters from the left-wing engine and most of the strike elements were moving along the fuselage of the aircraft.

... ... ...

The left wing and stabilizer also bear traces of damage, the size of which provides an opportunity to define them as inflicted by the strike elements of a BUK missile complex," adviser of the general constructor of Almaz-Antey, Mikhail Malyshevsky, said.

The Almaz-Antey experts paid special attention to the fact that some of the damage registered on the MH17 debris was caused by disruption of the aircraft's structural components and not by the striking elements of the missile.

The experts of Almaz-Antey also said that Ukraine possesses 9M38 missiles, but fell short of accusing either the Kiev authorities or the rebels in the east of Ukraine of causing the catastrophe.

... ... ...

Simultaneously with the investigation of the Dutch Safety Board, the Dutch prosecutor's office is conducting a separate criminal investigation of its own aimed at establishing the perpetrators of the attack on passenger aircraft.

A Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 flight MH17 passenger aircraft left from Amsterdam to the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014. The airliner was shot down and fell to Earth over the Donetsk Region in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people, 283 passengers and 15 crew, on board were killed. There were 80 children among the passengers. Most, 193 people, were Dutch nationals; altogether the airliner was carrying citizens from 10 countries.

djajakondomis 4 days ago 06:12

As I said. Just read the report and supplements! The specified area consists mainly out of Rebel area...

Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov was involved during the investigation. There were even three main/big meetings, and every meeting took three days!
At the second meeting Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov even presented the 9N314M warhead himself. The investigation team was even happy that there was consensus. On the third meeting Yan Novikov suddenly said; well, it was only an example we presented.

However, based for instance on the butterfly shape, the whole research team (of all countries) were convinced it was a 9N314M warhead, except suddenly the Russian delegation.

This investigation was based on the parts found within the bodies!! Not something found on the ground or whatsoever...
Read the report!

Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:05

hanspy

Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probably

higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or Almaz-Antey .

next they will say Sadam did it.

Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:04

Af Veth
Whatever, anyway Russian Forces downed MH17. Thats was it counting.
not Russian but CIA to justify they needs.

Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:03

Message deleted

EU is slave from USA

vladffff 4 days ago 01:03

Took these rats 1 year to find this out?

alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 21:01

"[Almaz-Antey] added that among the materials received and examined by their experts were heavy fraction sub munitions, which only the older 9M38M1 missile modification is equipped with."

That's a direct quote from the RT article from June 2015 regarding Almaz-Antey's first test.

alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 20:32

After their first "experiment" in June, Almaz-Antey said that "If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system." Why is he changing his story, especially now that the Dutch Safety Board reached the same conclusion? Seems fishy.

Petr Antoš 5 days ago 17:45

hanspy

Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probablymore...

ummm, ok, they even offered to buy old 777 a let it be downed while flying on AP over military area to proof their analysis; if you can explain any single interest of Russia to destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false flag, but I am sure that this is absolutelly risky business with the same bad PR as first case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later, be sure

hanspy 5 days ago 17:28

Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probably higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or Almaz-Antey .

Norma Brown 5 days ago 15:04

this is a good result for Russia, as the only government involved that can be sued for criminal stupidity is Kiev, for allowing the flight into a war zone.

[Oct 18, 2015] Zaroshchenske vs Snizhne as a launch point: early controversy

After MH17 was shot done all intelligence services of NATO (with a lot of high tech) as well as Ukrainian SBU (with a lot of people on the ground; enough to monitor all major roads) were on alert. So the hypothesis that they were unable to locate the launch platform is a very weak hypothesis. It was next to impossible for rebels to move it from Snizhne to, say, Russia. This is a serious problem with version that it was BUK, unless it was a Ukrainian BUK.
Looks like Snizhne was pushed as a smoke screen to deflect attention from Ukrainians.
Notable quotes:
"... The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. ..."
"... the Russian evidence for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than 25 kilometres. ..."
July 23, 2014 | Dances With Bears
Russian generals Andrei Kartapolov (Army) and Igor Makushev (Air Force) have presented satellite pictures showing that on or before July 17 the Ukrainian military moved at least three Buk-M1 missile batteries – comprising a tracked launcher and a target acquisition radar van – out of their depot north of Donetsk, and into positions, all of which were within 30 kilometres of the Boeing's flight path; the SA-11's range is 30 kilometres. One unit in particular was photographed at the village of Zaroshchenske, south of the bigger settlement of Shakhtarsk, and south of the main road H21. This position is about 15 kilometres from the M17 flight path and from the impact site.

The Russian location evidence can be seen on this Google map:

ua_map
Click for wider view of locations: https://www.google.co.uk/

The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. But the Russian evidence for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than 25 kilometres. There is also a gap of several hours between the time of the Russian photograph and the confirmed firing time at 1720. Between the two locations, highway H21 would allow a mobile launcher unit and radar van to redeploy within 45 to 60 minutes.

surface_map

The Russian radar tracks identify the presence of a small Ukrainian aircraft with Su-25 identifiers on the Boeing flight path, and within range of the ground missile launcher within minutes of the shoot-down. The US intelligence briefing neither confirms nor denies the presence in the air of the Su-25; no US satellite or radar records have been released to corroborate the point. Instead, the US briefing denies the Su-25 fired rockets at the Boeing.

Responding to the Russian radar presentation, President Petro Poroshenko told CNN the presentation was the "irresponsible and false statement of the Russian [defense] minister". Poroshenko appeared not to be familiar with the Russian radar evidence. He said: "When the Russian [Defense] ministry makes such a statement, it must provide proof. The sky over Ukraine is monitored by many satellites and air defense systems. Everyone knows that all Ukrainian planes were on the ground several hundred kilometres away [from the crash site]

[Oct 16, 2015] Just three pieces of shrapnel supposedly points to BUK by John Helmer

For some reason they investigate only version of surface to air missile. Possibility of air to air missile was not investigated. Dutch reps could attend Almaz-Antey experiments and collect shrapnel from them. They did not do this. Also they demonstrated provable negligence in collecting evidence (Ukraine at this point was EU vassal state and one phone call from Brussel would exclude any shelling of the area). The question why the plane was brought to the particular area was answered "to avoid thunderstorms". I doubt that at this altitude they can affect the plane. All this points to a cover up of Ukrainian false flag operation.
"... According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers". ..."
"... 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time. ..."
"... The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. ..."
"... Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill. ..."
"... By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. ..."
johnhelmer.net

AUTOPSY OF THE MH17 CRASH - DUTCH SAFETY BOARD REVEALS 3 POSSIBLE PIECES OF BUK SHRAPNEL IN THE BODIES OF THE COCKPIT CREW, AND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE IT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE - AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ISSUE PUBLIC REJECTION OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ALLEGATIONS

Eight pages of the DSB report – pages 88 to 95 - focus on the metal fragments. The number of these starts at "over 500 recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers." Many, apparently most, of these fragments turned out to be "personal belongings, aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact." According to the DSB, "many were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects." Of these just 72 were investigated further because they were "similar in size, mass and shape." 43 of this 72 were "found to be made of unalloyed steel". The term "shrapnel" may be a synonym for "unalloyed steel fragments", but the word doesn't appear at all in the DSB report. According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers".

Of the 43 steel fragments investigated thoroughly - all of them recovered from the bodies of the cockpit crew or in the wreckage of the cockpit - 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time.

The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. These, "although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie". The DSB's exact count is two cubic shapes, two bow-ties. One bow-tie was recovered from the cockpit wreckage; one from the body of a cockpit crew member. Both cubic fragments were found in the bodies of the crew members.

Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill.

Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

In addition, the DSB says it has examined chemical residues of the warhead explosive, and paint particles from the surface of missile parts reportedly recovered from the ground. Exactly where, when, and by whom the purported missile parts were found the DSB does not identify. In Section 2:12:2:8 of the report, the DSB says that "during the recovery of the wreckage, a number of parts that did not originate from the aeroplane and its content were found in the wreckage area. The parts found appeared to be connected with a surface-to-air missile. The parts that were suspected to be related to a surface-to-air missile were transported to the Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base [in The Netherlands; also reported as the Hilversum Army Base] in the same way as the aeroplane wreckage was. On arrival the parts underwent the same examination as the pieces of aeroplane wreckage." By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. At page 53 the DSB admits that "many pieces of the wreckage" were either not examined physically "until four months after the crash", or not recovered for examination for up to nine months after the July 17, 2014, downing.

Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 81

[Oct 16, 2015] "Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing crashed

"... Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on the map. (see map). ..."
www.kp.ru
Moscow Exile, October 15, 2015 at 9:37 pm

"Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing crashed

This time the Netherlands Commission of Inquiry has been caught lying red-handed about the Russian concern "Almaz-Antey", which developed the "Buk" anti-aircraft missile systems. "Almaz-Antey" has announced that a map covering the 320 square kilometer area from where a missile targeted against the Boeing could have been launched is not only erroneous but also that the Dutch in their report had indicated that their data were supposedly consistent with "Almaz-Antey"calculations. That is, they covered up their concoctions with the authoritative report of the Russian company.

Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on the map. (see map).

[Oct 16, 2015] Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 'most likely' it was shot down from ground Discussion

The US key strategy is the same as British -- to cut Europe from Russia. This time it again work brilliantly... The fact the USA are withholding evidence implicates Kiev.
"... Because it was supposed to clearly show that rebels did it . No need to rely on social media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;) ..."
"... How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on you? ..."
"... Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you be not to notice the difference? ..."
"... Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone. ..."
"... Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes? ..."
"... "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky. ..."
"... Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum. ..."
"... Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till now. ..."
"... This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE isn't questioned. ..."
"... the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'. ..."
"... UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. ..."
"... The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'. ..."
"... On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain? ..."
"... Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been allowed to state anything more than they have. ..."
"... I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right on their borders. ..."
"... What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's position and use. ..."
"... Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.) ..."
"... Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of reconnaissance on the matter. ..."
"... Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft. Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But 2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no idea what hit them, ..."
"... Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very thin on the ground. ..."
"... It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication and suggested line. ..."
"... the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report. ..."
"... It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions. ..."
"... This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement with one of the suspects, the Kiev government. ..."
"... Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US. ..."
"... Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ( rebels ) could have driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..) ..."
"... The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers - right ..."
"... Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar. ..."
"... I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no right to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international treaties to civil aviation. ..."
"... I don't understand your statement about the report says there was no abnormal communication . Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong. I wasn't there personally. ..."
"... Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous. ..."
"... I am quite sure that bullets are high energy objects but the Western media seems to ignore that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings. ..."
"... Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100% unbelievable. All of it. ..."
"... All of this is just speculation. Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time? Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers? Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if? Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment? Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find. Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers. Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area? So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative? ..."
"... The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here. ..."
Oct 16, 2015 | The Guardian
Antidyatel -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 06:41

Because it was supposed to "clearly show that rebels did it". No need to rely on social media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;)

How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on you?

Shaneo -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 04:55

Ok, but John Kerry claimed to have seen the imagery of the launch, so you don't need to say 'likely' launch site.

Ask to see this imagery and we will know where the launch site is.

Will you do this?

And does it not make you suspicious that this imagery is being withheld?

Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 15 Sep 2014 03:46

Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you be not to notice the difference?

I will give you a better example. The PRELIMINARY report by FEMA on 9/11 was released in May 2002 - that was very heavy in terms of pages and released in May 2002 (8 months after the event). It was heavy in terms of pages and contained data not only about 4 planes and 3 buildings. It was quite detailed in terms of TECHNICAL data.

There is absolutely no reason to withheld the factual data for public analysis. Particularly in this situation. The facts about the event will not change. Or should I stress on it - the already available facts SHOULD not change no matter how commission will later interpret them.

Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:19

Calm down with Su-25 theory. Even if Russian MoD was implying possible culpability of that plane, they didn't make the direct accusation. The whole mentioning was less than a minute out of the whole 30 min presentation, in which the main focus was on 4 Ukrainian BUKs in the area. Just from this proportion one can asses the priority of the versions that Russian MoD was considering.

So stop fighting windmills, my Don Quixote!

Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:12

First of all, where did you get the data about 55 km?

Even the latest modification of BUK-M2. While everyone is talking about BUK-M1. More to this, it is mainly claimed that a stand alone 9A310 unit was witnessed. It has FIRE DOME radar with max engagement range of 35 km (some sources limit it to 32 km)

So your convinced part goes down the drain!

Second, do you understand that the maximum radar range represents a radius of a 3D sphere? For the target flying at 10 km the relevant projection on the 2D map will be 33.5 km.

Let's stop at this for now.

2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:19

And NO. And SU-25 fighter jet cannot "gain an altitude of 10km" as the Russian Defense Ministry asserted on July 21.

According to its specification its altitude ceiling is 7 km, even though someone working Kremlin servers changed that to 10 km on Russian Wikipedia, hours after the Russian Defense Ministry's press conference.

http://gawker.com/did-russian-officials-edit-wikipedia-to-back-up-a-bogus-1609071757

2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:03

No it is not what they were telling.

What I put in quotes is EXACTLY what the Russian Defense Ministry was telling us.

MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved.

You are not getting this, are you ?
Let me spell it out :

That SU-25 DID NOT EXIST !

Radar would have shown it, and it did not.
Even General Peter Deinekin states that probably what the Russian Defence Ministry showed on their radar image was probably a part of MH-17 breaking off.

If the Russian Defense Ministry would have actually shown the radar timelap (video) of when and where that dot on their radar actually appeared, then we could have all seen that for ourselves.

But they did not, since it was no SU-25. It was a part of MH-17 breaking off.

Instead they used the radar images of the PIECES of a civilian airliner that killed 298 innocent people to create a SU-25 conspiracy and point the finger at Ukraine.

Despicable.

Antidyatel -> jimbuluk 15 Sep 2014 01:30

Is there any original source that explains the meaning behind "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z"?
Where did the Aviation Herald got this data from?

2meters -> Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 01:27

Antidytel, yes, MH-17 was probably about 35 km away from the BUK launch site south of Snizhne when the crew pressed the launch button.

The radar range of a single BUK TELAR is at least 55 km.

At 250 m/sec, MH 17 will thus have been on the BUK search radar something like 80 sec before they launched the missile.

Even with conservative estimates of missile flight time and path, the Snizhne BUK launch crew had about a minute to lock on their radar, and wait for the 'target' to come into range.

Convinced now ?

Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 23:59

I have to disagree with you. Even preliminary technical report should contain the technical data already available. There is no justifiable reason for withholding any information. The next report can just add new information.

So the preliminary report should have provided:

1) Civil and military radar data from Ukraine. It is very unprofessional for them not to at least request it from Ukraine side. If Ukraine refused to provide it, it should have been clearly stated

2) ATC communications along the whole route of MH17

3) full transcript from voice recorder. You can't possible believe that pilots were flying in total silence

4) Technical data from the second black box on plane parameters. Particularly the data from gyroscope that would give the most precise data on the plane actual route

5) other critical parameters.

Seriously it is not a herculean task for a 2 months of job. They have a whole team to do it. How unprofessional can they be to fail with such simple task?

The purpose of the preliminary report is not to give the abridged/filtered version of the data. The purpose should be tor provide the available data but to make only PRELIMINARY conclusions. Only in this sense it can be called preliminary.

The current report can only be described by words SELECTIVE, EDITED, FILTERED and BIASED!!!

Antidyatel -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 22:36

4 different BUKs in the vicinity of the crash site were detected by Russians based on these BUKs' outgoing radar signal.

Let's consider your points:
1) BUK system captured by rebels in Luhansk region, was incomplete so the maximum radar range was 22 km. But we can first consider the improbable scenario that Russians first sneaked in and then sneaked our the complete set for the BUK system. Ok we can exclude the loader. So let's just say 2 units (actual launcher and radar unit), hence temporally I can agree on 35 km.
2) If you go to google maps and estimate the distance from Snizhne (proposed location for rebel BUK) to Krasiy Luch (FDR point) it is approximately 24 km. (version of incomplete BUK system can already be discarded). BUK max missile speed 850 m/s. 24 km it will travel in 28 sec. BUK requires minimum 15 sec to lock on target. So even if we assume that "best" scenario, Boeing was traveling for minimum 43 sec before it's first appearance on BUK radar and rocket hitting it. Cruise speed of Boeing 777 ~ 900 km/h. So we get roughly 11 km. Just nice 35 km. But this is minimum. For example, the rocket doesn't reach 850 m/sec immediately.
The point is that it would have been an extremely "lucky" coincidence for this scenario to work. And again I repeat, it will require the full set of BUK units, not just the launcher. The so named "proofs" of Russians sneaking in and out such a system are so laughable that I can't understand how people can talk seriously about it.
4) The reference to the territory held by rebels is also laughable. The total number of rebels on that moment was ~5000. But even if we take 10,000, you will get a fraction of a rebel per square kilometre, if we assume that they are distributed equally. In reality majority of them were concentrated in fixed positions around Lughansk, Donetsk and Saur Mogila. also large portion of them was involved is annihilating surrounded UA units. If UA wanted to bring in BUKs into so named rebel controlled area there would be no problem with it.

SirDeadpool 14 Sep 2014 22:31

Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone.

bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 18:14

ShermanPotter -- Antidyatel
14 Sep 2014 16:09
The key is in the title it's a preliminary report...

So you basically agree that presented data is incomplete....I also hope your level of English language comprehension will allow you to distinguish black box recordings and conversations between civilian ATC and military command that is not in the report, and according to Ukrainian reports was confiscated from civilian controllers.

notherLex21 jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 16:46

when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"

The DSB rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf shows the transcript (page 15) where MH17 pilots last reply is at 13:19:56.
Sorry, but the Aviation Herald is inaccurate.

jimbuluk 2meters 14 Sep 2014 11:51

I said "The Aviation Herald says problems with MH-17 started over N48.28 E38.08" Just read from avherald.com http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0

"was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"

Transponder data can't become unreliable without reason. And that reason led to the crash within two minutes. The distance between the point the transponder data became unreliable and Snizhne is approx 65 km, that's way beyond the range of BUK's missile, not to say about it's radar, - less than 9 km.

ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 11:09

The key is in the title it's a preliminary report, that examines the technical reasons for the crash of MH-17. In tandem is a criminal investigation.

The Preliminary report, has established that MH-17 was shot down and that immediately before that event was operating normally with normal crew communications with ATC. The rest of what you are talking about is for the criminal investigative team to examine and report to the Court.

Antidyatel -> 2meters 14 Sep 2014 09:46

No it is not what they were telling.

MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved. They only stated yhe facts that there was a potential for it to be involved. That is why additional data was requested from Ukraine to clarify. Stark difference to blanket accusations based on tea leaves in a cup that were loaded by the list of discredited a-holes in the beginning of your post

Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 08:27

For example, the missing part is the primary surveillance radar recordings. It would be expected that if Ukraine wanted to help with investigation. it would supply not only civilian traffic data but also the data of all military radars on that day. Not such a hard task. Report doesn't stress on it but clearly indicates that even civil traffic data was not submitted. They could easily reveal that data in the first few days after the incident or after the Russian MoD report and clarify the issue with military planes in the air at that time. What prevents them from doing it after 2 months?

Out of the whole page of those recordings only 3 lines are with MH17. Nothing of an essence. There was absolutely no reason why not to provide the data from the moment MH17 entered Ukrainian airspace or even from start of the flight. It would take 2-3 hours max to compile the communication with ground control along the whole route. And they didn't need to wait even for black boxes to do it. How unprofessional your professionals can be?

Most of the communication, that was revealed is related to communication between Dnepropetrovsk and Rostov. No point withholding that information as Russians have the same transcript, I guess. For MH17 the only portion of interest is 11 seconds before the disaster. This is bogus. And still there is absolutely no excuse not to release the whole transcript of the black box, in the situation which potentially can bring the world to the WW3. You don't joke with such things.

ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 05:22

So what information are you claiming is missing?

As well as that you list Page 14 also describes that Ukrainian ATC supplied radio and telephone recordings and transcripts relating to MH-17.

The transcript in the preliminary report is just of the last few minutes of its flight before being shot down, what more do you expect from a Preliminary report?

Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 04:18

Actually if you look strictly at the report specifies only 3 sources of ATC data:
1. Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
2. Secondary surveillance radar
3. Automatic Dependant Surveillance

The explanation of the last 2 are given at the end of page 14 of the report. Which shows that primary data from Ukrainian radars is still withheld.

The transcript provided is appearing to be incomplete. It is not like they were afraid of the page limit. Why not to give the whole transcript? Also this transcript is strangely different from the one given in BBC web-site

snowdogchampion snowdogchampion 14 Sep 2014 03:47

Without speculating on who did it, here figures from the markets & background info. Key term: foreknowledge.
The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street

2meters -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 03:07

Isn't that exactly what western media and blogger and US intelligence had been telling us all along ?

Interesting how this works with Kremlin war propaganda.

For starters, please note that General Peter Deinekin with his statement directly contradicts the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia's military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov, who started this whole SU-25 conspiracy theory on July 21 :

The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

and

"The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification," he added. "It's equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure."

Which opened up the floodgates for SU-25 conspiracy theorists and their accompanied anti-Ukraine comments here in the Guardian comment sections and around the MSM.

While in fact there was no Ukrainian or any other fighter jet around.

Now, of course, the pro-Russian trolls will drop the SU-25 conspiracy theory and switch to the next one : that Ukrainians fired that SA-11 missile.

Forgetting to look at the big picture : If the Russia or the Russian military had nothing to do with this BUK, then why the heck were they lying through their teeth on July 21 ?

jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 02:29

US says BUK was launched at Snizhne
https://www.facebook.com/usdos.ukraine/photos/a.431664811935.225869.43732151935/10152288664556936/?type=1

The Aviation Herald says problems with MH-17 started over N48.28 E38.08
http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0

The distance between these two points is approx 65 km. Book's missile could reach 30 km. The Book's radar reaches even less - under 9 km, That's it.

Antidyatel notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 02:25

Probably true. Which narrows down to the simple choice: was it one of the 4 Ukrainian BUKs that were known to be in the area or an imaginary rebel's BUK.

If we go strictly and watch the 30 min presentation by Russian MoD, they never accused Su-25 to be responsible for downing the plane. They only stated the fact that the plane was detected at that time and at that place. If they really wanted to falsely accuse ukie plane they would not state that it was Su-25.

ShanghaiGuy -> Dunscore 13 Sep 2014 22:11

Crap, 30mm cannon fire would require a sustained burst to cause catastrophic structural failure, audible on recorders. 30mm cannon is not typical air to air ordance, ground attack on slower aircraft , taken some chase at high altitude. Sorry your apologists bs is a fairy story.

Ground launched AAM destroyed the airliner.

Antidyatel Hektor Uranga 13 Sep 2014 22:02

My dear Huylo Hector, immediately after the crush every theory was plausible. Each of them had to be eliminated based on facts. The fairy tail about rebels downing MH17 had an upper habd in first week because Kerry promised satellite images that clearly prove rebels' s culpability.

After such images didn't materialise, the statement by Kerry became discredited. He had to be responsible for his words.

So after that any other theory gets the same footing. The assertion that UA downed the plane became more probable after the data presented by Russian MoD. The quality difference to USA/EUROPE/Ukraine garbage comes from first presenting all the known fact and then letting everyone else to make a conclusion. Instead of giving a theory first and then ask to just believe. This stupid idol-worshiping by westerners will never stop amusing me.

notherLex21 13 Sep 2014 17:17

This Russian expects it was a BUK.

Former Air Force Commander of the USSR and the Russian Army General Peter Deinekin:

"Assault can not hit the plane with their weapons, he is a slow, low-altitude. Besides his actions could be seen on radar. And striking effect aircraft missiles are not as powerful as in" Buck "

Shoot down the plane could altitude fighter MiG-29 or Su-27, but it at the time in that area was not, said the expert.

http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html

google translated:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fmh17%2F20140910%2F1023539819.html&edit-text=

merlin2 Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 16:47

karl - entrusted with propagating the disinformation campaign?

based on facts alone, there is not a single shred of evidence typing BUK launced by supposed "rebels" to the downing of MH17. There are, OTOH< quite a few pieces pf evidence pointing to cannon fire from an aircraft. Funny how the disinformation agents never want to draw attention to evidence that in any way points away from their favorite scenarios.

Example: Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes?

And what of the US intelligence evidence showing people on the ground manning a BUK and wearing UK uniforms?

I am not suggesting that it's air-to-air or surface to air only. what we know so far may well conform both were in action. As sedman above mentions.

As for this preliminary report it is quite a piece on work in how hard it strives NOT to point out some pretty obvious facts.

bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 13 Sep 2014 16:42

Not so fast, you do not need records to be provided that are recorded by the black boxes
It is conversations between civilian and military ATC's that are of interest and there is no mention of that in your link.

Secr3t krislej 13 Sep 2014 16:34

Are you still trying to convince people of this idea that an SU-25 shot down MH-17.

Maybe the Former head of the Russian Airforce and Army can convince you then?

He states quite clearly that the idea that MH-17 was shot down by an SU-25 as completely untenable, he goes on to state that it is possible an SU-27 or Mig-29 would be capable but none were in the area.

He also says that MH-17 broke apart in the air as a result of multiple sharpnel strikes and that it was likely from a BUK.

And before you cry western conspiracy he stated this in Russian media.

http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html

MrHMSH MoneyCircus 13 Sep 2014 16:03

Firing a cannon from the side (the holes show entry from the side) would not get the spread of damage that you see, and it's unlikely that you could get that many hits in at all given how quickly you are closing.

A SAM burst (from the kind of missile under suspicion) close to the front left side of the aircraft would yield a somewhat evenly spaced pattern of holes, as the fragments originate from one point and spread outwards.

The gun fires 50 rounds per second, at the closing speed, the pilot would have had perhaps 2 seconds to fire, and he got around 30% of them hitting a target moving across him at 500mph? This theory belongs in Hollywood.

Mrg Billman 13 Sep 2014 14:19

If the Kiev regime can fire and destroy their own APC column like we seen at the begining of the conflict I have no doubts that they are capable of somehow orchestrating a downing of a civilian airliner.

Realworldview ShanghaiGuy 13 Sep 2014 14:10

ShanghaiGuy you need to keep up with the evidence, its not my opinion that it was shot down by a military aircraft, but that of US Intelligence analysts, as reported in US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft .

The conclusion was that it was damaged by an air to air missile that shreds its target with flechettes, and then finished off with 30mm cannon fire that was responsible for the circular holes in fragments of the airframe, as these extracts show:

KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".

Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.

Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.

bobby_fisher Asimpleguest 13 Sep 2014 12:32

The plane was directed in to the war zone, specifically in to the small area, where 13 aircraft were already blown out of the sky in just a few weeks.
It could not have happened without some interaction between civilian and military ATC's.....and these records are completely missing, in fact confiscated by SBU"

http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260

https://twitter.com/wavetossed/status/491468216909053952

snowdogchampion snowdogchampion 13 Sep 2014 08:15

isn't shooting down a civilian plane & blaming Putin for it a wonderful way for justifying sanctions against Russia? venturing far into speculations (quoted journalists have done, so I follow even if everyone here calls me an idiot).. what if someone decided to bring down a civilian plane, to make people very angry, cause everything (the West presents) points his way? then the result arre sanctions, and yuppie, USA can soon replace Russia as the main natural gas providor.. it's been all over the news.. and in the end, it's always about profits for the big multinationals

snowdogchampion 13 Sep 2014 08:01

So who did shoot the plane down? if you lost a relative on MH17, pls read
http://journal-neo.org/2014/08/19/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false-flag/

"The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky.

"Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum. He holds both Ukrainian and Israeli passports and runs his business empire from Switzerland, not Kiev, despite being Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast in eastern Ukraine. His mercenary army does possess the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shootdown of MH-17, and he has threatened terrorist attacks on Russian-speaking officials in his oblast, and even assassinations.

"Estimated to be the second-richest person in Ukraine, Kolomoisky also has strong connections inside Kiev's Borispol International Airport, whose air traffic control tower Ukrainian Interior Ministry troops reportedly stormed shortly before MH-17 was shot down. New Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, formerly wanted by Interpol for fraud, was the man who first designated the east Ukraine rebels as "terrorists," which ostensibly allows him to commit any atrocity against innocent civilians very much as Israel is doing in Gaza today.

"Furthermore, in a personal interview with the Veterans Today Tbilisi Georgia bureau chief Jeffrey Silverman pointed shared with Engdahl the possible complicity of the Inmarsat Company in the MH17. Inmarsat, which lists the Pentagon and US Government as major clients, controls most international air traffic control communications systems. According to Silverman, during the earlier disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 the flight was "lost" due to Inmarsat turning off their signals, and it still refuses today to release the data it has about this flight.

one more article http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140909/192783966/Journalist-MH17-Preliminary-Report-Says-Nothing-Leaves-Questions.html

MoneyCircus -> nemossister 13 Sep 2014 06:26

Look what The Guardian left out of its report - just found a more complete report of what the Dutch chief investigator said:

ROTTERDAM: Dutch prosecutors said today they need to know where a missile that may have shot down flight MH17 was fired from in eastern Ukraine before criminal charges could be laid.

"When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area," and possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam.

Westerbeke said that they had not yet obtained US satellite photos of areas from which a missile might have been launched.

"We will get them," Westerbeke said, adding that it was a "long process."

errovi 13 Sep 2014 03:07

Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till now.

This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE isn't questioned. In the chain of events leading to the downing of the aircraft still assuming it was a mistake the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'.

UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. So why didn't UkSATSE did not close that air space and waited till after the downing of MH17. The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'.

Antidyatel -> Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 05:39

The same AP journalist claimed to see the BUK himself and even the treads inn asphalt tgat this heavy system had left. But surprisingly he forgot to rake a photo not only of BUK but also of treads that ge has described so vividly. Spanish traffic controller story actually less contradictory.

Shaneo -> ShiresofEngland 13 Sep 2014 03:06

Immediately after, John Kerry claimed that the US witnessed the rocket launch on 'imagery'.

So let's see it then.

sedman -> ruffsoft 13 Sep 2014 01:15

The BUK system is designed to deliver the payload from above, yes it avoids the target to get above it, then comes down and explodes above where the cockpit would be... This doesn't explain videos of MH17 descending intact with its right engine ablaze.

sedman 13 Sep 2014 00:52

Ukraine fighter shoots MH17 with air-to-air missile, takes out right engine. MH17 does not break up, but heads for a forced landing. Ukraine fighter finishes it off MH17 on its way down.

But, we are lead to believe that the separatists were operating a BUK system made up of 5 separate mobile installations, 3 radar, 1 launcher and 1 control vehicle, which is capable of identifying B777 aircraft accurately (two transponders), then decided it would be in their interests to take out a civilian airliner, which would, even in an idiots assessment, bring the wrath of the world opon it. They are not terrorists, they are rebels, they are not using IEDs to blow up civilians, they just dont want to have Kiev taking their taxes and telling them what to do.

On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain?

Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been allowed to state anything more than they have. The facts that are being released in this report is evidence enough that the investigation is being manipulated and directed to ensure that conclusions can not be drawn from facts, all we can rely on is speculation from the press and comments. I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right on their borders.

martinusher 12 Sep 2014 23:35

What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's position and use.

Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.)

ThreeCents JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 20:56

"Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should be carefully investigated."

I agree very strongly. And I think the key word here is "investigation".

Ah, but who is going to do the investigating?

Well, I would favor an "Investigation Party" -- which would push hard on investigating all manner of corruption and conspiracy, and which would campaign on that basis.

And I would favor an "Investigation Branch" of government, on the same level as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government. It would be dedicated to making everything in government NOT secret! Secrecy = Tyranny. Truth = Liberty. Click here for more.

UncleSam404 Karl Brandt 12 Sep 2014 20:48

Whatever happened to Carlos anyway lol? I guess they couldn't locate this guy.

tanyushka 12 Sep 2014 20:12

why isn't the International Civil Aviation Organization in charge of the investigation as is custommay in these cases?

why isn't in charge an international comission as the UN demanded unanimously?

now, if we talk about chances... the Ukranian army had six BUK systems operative at the time of the incident while the DPR forces deny having a single one but... let's accept Kiev's claims that there was one, the chances are 6 to 1 that the Ukraninas shot...

on the other hand, Russia claims that there was an Ukranian jet fighter close to the plane & it isn't even mentionedin the investigation

BMWAlbert 12 Sep 2014 18:01

This seems the most likely possibility, but I wonder at the release without any backing detail, it sounds like intended innuendo also.

William J Rood EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 17:55

Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of reconnaissance on the matter.

If the US government had any real evidence whatsoever, you'd have seen that rather than all the photo-shopped social media stuff that's been going around. Lack of evidence is why CIA analysts have refused to support the State Department's lies. They learned their lesson from the Iraq War. Did you?

Rob711 12 Sep 2014 17:35

The shooting down scenario. Obviously they haven't picked up on some of the perfectly round holes in some of the debris. Never mind the question of why the unfortunate plane and it's passengers were flying over an area where 5 planes had been downed in the preceding two weeks

ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 17:22

http://www.just-international.org/articles/flight-mh17-what-youre-not-being-told/

More propaganda, but something which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

So let's tread carefully and just ask a few more questions that these so-called journalists in the mainstream media are neglecting to ask. For example: Why hasn't the US government released its satellite pictures of the area right after the event?

Obviously the USA would have satellites watching, and did expect after it happened that the White House would do some sort of presentation after a few days to prove who shot down MH17. They were quick to accuse and had hoped they had the evidence which would be damning, but they haven't.

ShiresofEngland Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 16:43

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/russia-says-has-photos-ukraine-deploying-buk-missiles-east-rader-proof-warplanes-mh1

Yes, and that is disputed. Each side keeps coming up with propaganda where not one of us knows the truth.

ps the the poster below. It isn't 'lazy self indulgence'. Saying that I do not know who done it is a valid position, and more honest than most on here. Like everyone with any compassion I believe that the relatives of the victims of MH17 deserve the truth, something they have thus far not got.

Luminaire ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 16:33
That would mean a Ukrainian jet yes? Which the russian's showed radar data proving? Just before MH17 vanishes you can see a second trace, which the RU MOD say is a fighter jet.

Except it doesn't. The MH17 trace splits in two, because one part is the 'supposed' location (based on the flightplan and predicted path), and the supposed SU-25 is actually MH17 as it breaks up.

The reason this is obvious to anyone who actually does any research is that 'MH17' becomes a square, and the 'SU-25' is a circle. In that software the circle represents a 'real' radar contact, and the square is a predicted path - as squares always are.

If there was a jet as well there would be 2 circles and a square, because MH17 did just VANISH so there would have been 2 'real' radar contacts.

So there was no SU-25 - but hey dont let that stop you literally making stuff up and being 'quite sure' about it.

Nicole Bresht -> krislej 12 Sep 2014 16:13

A ground missile would have caused the MG17 to explode in a fireball... seems as if the cockpit had been shot out with an airborne cannon... not sure an SU fighter could reach needed speed/ height to pull this off.. more likely a MIG

ide000 -> ShermanPotter 12 Sep 2014 16:05

So far today we've had the SU25 shot down MH-17, and now this. You seem to be absolutely desperate to hang this onto anybody other than Russia. Even coming up with ridiculous scenarios to try and prove your case.

Lets be precise, Russian ministry of defense didn't reliably identify plain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKhA50erngk at 14:04). They claim the plain was supposed to be SU-25.

Actually I expected of Dutch experts at least to clarify whether they confirm or do not confirm presence of military jet in vicinity of MH17.

Brian Beuken LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 15:50

I very much doubt it was a deliberate act, possibly incompetence on the part of the BUK operators...

But it was a BUK, the problem is while we can all spot the smoking gun we can't find enough of the "bullet" to silence the doubters...so lets lay out some facts and let them make up their own minds.

Fragmentation patterns can contain a large number of holes that appear to look like "bullet" holes, but they are simply penetration holes

However there are a lot of holes in a small area in the MH17 pics, this is highly indicative of a fragmentation warhead which can also explain some of the more isolated holes in other parts of the fuselage, the fragments can spread out from the nose to the tail but the concentration will be where the missile was closest where it exploded

Also the holes are fairly small, bullet size some may say.. But modern warplanes do not fire bullets, they fire 30mm shells...quite devastating weapons which when fired from a moving target at a moving target leave a very clear trail, and a normally short burst of fire.

Its logistically highly improbably that a ground attack aircraft, without a pressurised cockpit and not designed to take out air targets, with a max ceiling of 23k ft (unloaded) could get to a 33K ft airliner at cruising speed which is faster than the Su25's top speed..... But that's what some want us to believe...but if it did... it has a 30mm cannon...not itty bitty machine guns....and it would be one hell of a pilot who could get of dozens of shots in the same basic area... (lets also not ignore the fact that the pilot would know he was attacking a civil aircraft...pilots are generally pretty clever people, and know when they are committing war crimes)

It could have been another aircraft, Ukraine and Russia both operate high speed interceptors...but again there's the problem with the gun.....they use cannons, not shotguns or itty bitty machine guns.

Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft. Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But 2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no idea what hit them,

Of course, there's always the lucky shot..but I doubt that...

Iron has been recovered, many SAM's use Iron, some use steel bearings some use both....but shells are depleted uranium....so no shells....no bullets...(bullets are not iron).

So these are facts....
Make of them what you wish...but I'm struggling to see anything other than a large SAM....I don't know from who, or why, that's a different question...

ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 15:47

The plane went down over territory held by pro-Russia rebels, killing all 298 passengers and crew on board.

Oh I get it so the implication is........
Actually nothing as the launch site isn't known, and could just as easily been fired from Ukrainian or rebel held territory.

A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane. Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government support that version of events.

Which might be true, but there again might not and hasn't been verified. Might be propaganda and the source is hardly impartial.
So what do we know? Highly probable that it was a BUK which brought down MH17. Ukraine has these weapon systems, the rebels may have captured one but how serviceable is questionable, and the Russians may have lent one with a crew but that hasn't been definitely verified. All of them could have been in the area, or maybe not.

Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very thin on the ground.

madjens1 12 Sep 2014 15:28

It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication and suggested line.

Then the idiots who read the guardian (who otherwise reject foreign countries being bismirched) swallow it all up

KeloCote Mrg Billman 12 Sep 2014 14:54

That would be true had the Ukrainians not warned the plane to stay away. In fact, ground control ordered the plane to climb to a higher altitude, and the pilot disobeyed.
During its recent war on Gaza, Israel kept insisting that it's perfectly safe for civil aviation to continue landing in its airport near Tel Aviv. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rockets were flying near the whole path that a plane would take to land - at a time of Hamas's choosing. Israel was firing even more dangerous missiles at those rockets. Any claim that it's safe for civilian airlines to fly under such conditions is fundamentally dishonest. But Israel does not want to admit they've lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace. Similarly, Ukraine did not want to admit they're lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace, because there's a war going on. However, in this particular instance, ground control warned the pilot to divert to a higher altitude using a false pretext. Regardless of the false pretext, the pilot should have diverted - and by not doing so - is responsible.

Realworldview 12 Sep 2014 14:36

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17: 'most likely' it was shot down from ground

Since when did a ground to air anti-aircraft missile use 30mm cannon shells to destroy its target. The evidence strongly points to it being a military aircraft that downed MH17 as Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Report: Malaysian MH17 was Brought Down by "A Large Number of High Energy Objects", Contradicts US Claims that it Was Shot Down by a "Russian Missile" argues, despite the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.


EugeneGur Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 14:18

This scenario is just as unproved and likely unprovable as all the others. It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions.

One would think given how fiercely the US accused Russia they'd be happy to provide evidence against Russia if they had any. Could that be that the evidence they have point the other way? And, of course, that non-disclosure agreement, which looks like an attempt at a coverup. Otherwise, why?

This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement with one of the suspects, the Kiev government.


DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 13:32

Your maximum altitude is generally restricted by 2 factors. The first being that the maximum altitude is reached when all power produced by the engines is going into maintaining the altitude. Thus no more power is left available for the aircraft to climb any further. The second factor is pressurization. Thus the max psi differential between the atmosphere and cabin. When the airframe can't withstand the differential value between the cabin and the atmosphere the consequences can and will probably be very bad. This should not be a factor on the SU-25...as its more applicable to airliners (which in turn can reach roughly 40,000' before this becomes a factor)

Thus back to the maximum altitude and the power produced by the engines. Thats btw also the reason why when they strip armament from an aircraft they reduce the weight etc and in turn can reach a heigher altitude with the same engines. Now the first problem here is that everybody assumes the stock version of the SU-25 (which has a max operating altitude of 7km) is the SU-25 the ukrainians used. Thus its impossible for it to reach an altitude of 10km etc.

However...lets look at the SU-39...which is in fact a SU-25 which is upgraded...the max altitude for this aircraft is 10km. Furthermore...the Sukhoi lists its export model the SU-25K as having a max altitiude of 7km...that specific variant. We dont know for sure that Ukraine has any SU-25 variant that are upgraded enough to reach an altitiude of 10km. However we do know it is definitely possible for a SU-25 (depending on engines etc) to reach 10km. In short...its useless to quote the wiki or generic version of the SU-25 max altitiude as reference in saying its impossible to reach 10km.

In the late 90's Sukhoi 25''s could already reach altitiudes in excess of 8.5km's.

Hope all this makes sense :)

Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:29

Thanks for the information !

1) Reuters. Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US.

2) Obviously the incidents are in Crimea etc are orchestrated by Kiev.
Any other explanation is nonsense. The nazi volunteers are the usual suspects. Let's hope that Mr Nuizmieks is given a chance to see the truth. We should prepare for the McCain trolls to try to blame any social problems on V Putin.


Dunscore EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 13:16

I agree with all your thoughts.

Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ("rebels") could have driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..)

The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers - right
www.criminisewar.org

Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar.

Russia asked Ukraine 12 crucial questions a month ago - still no answer.

US produced absolutely no professional evidence for the enquiry, nothing except boasting trolls.

Retired veteran CIA secret data analysts wrote a group letter to Obama and Merkel to condemn US for bringing their profession into disrepute.

Russia provided comprehensive data and evidence to the investigation.

KeloCote Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:15

I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no "right" to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international treaties to civil aviation.

I don't understand your statement about the "report says there was no abnormal communication". Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong. I wasn't there personally.

Rudeboy1 DownSouth77 12 Sep 2014 12:32

The SA-11 has a proximity fused warhead. The missile detonates when it senses it is close to the target (proximity fuses then called Variable Time Fuses were used as far back as WW2 by the US and UK) . Fragmentation at the front end of the aircraft would indicate that the warhead detonated at the front of the aircraft. Damage from the warhead would be localised. Most SAM's (except the most modern) rely on prox fuses as the massive speeds they work at mean a direct impact isn't always possible (particularly on a manoeuvering target).

But you're wrong on the SU-25. There is no way an SU-25 can intercept an airliner at 30,000 travelling at >500kn when that is above the height and speed that the SU-25 can operate at. If you know why it could please let us all know why.


fragglerokk 12 Sep 2014 12:19

of course he says that, the Dutch people would go nuts if they knew that Shell have signed a $10 billion fracking deal with the Ukraines who shot down a load of their citizens, it would be really bad for business especially since they have already started fracking Slavyansk after the Ukie artillery bombed it out of existence and created 1000s of refugees. The truth will out, the problem is they are all in it together, money, oil, gas, failed coups, up to their necks in it. The non disclosure agreement signed by the Dutch, the belgians, the Ukraines and Australians says it all, no facts, no figures and no details.. total fit up.


Malkatrinho -> LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 12:19

As the bookmaker William Hill once said "Believe nothing of what you hear, and believe only 5% of what you see, and be very suspicious of that 5%."

That's got to be one of the most random quotes I've read.

EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 12:13
Typical Guardian, impartial and objective as ever. Do these conclusions point to the hand that launched these "high energy objects"? No, they do not. Even if it is proven beyond any doubt that the airplane was shot down by ground-to-air missile or even specifically by Buk, does it prove who did the shooting? No, it does not.
However, pro-Russian rebels are mentioned more than once, so there is no chance to forget who is supposed to be blamed.

It is possible that Donbass fighters shot down that plane by mistake thinking that was Kiev's plane coming to bomb their cities. Kiev could've done that as well, in its case likely deliberately. For some reason, they did have Buks in that area, although separatists do not have airplanes. Proving which scenario is correct would be difficult. Connecting Russia to this would be even harder if not impossible. Nobody would bother, though. If "Russia" is repeated often enough, some dirt will stick no matter what. It's been done already quite successfully.

maico ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 12:13

The report says there was no shrapnel damage bellow the cockpit floor. This means we can discount an air to air missile which is heat seeking and would hit the engine. The engine is of course well bellow the cockpit level.

The shrapnel holes are various sizes and shapes pointing strongly to a proximity air-burst from a radar guided SAM. Obviously once most of the wreckage is recovered and reassembled in a hanger a definitive answer can be given. Shell casing and powder burn evidence may still be recoverable although I expect Russian security services have tampered with the wreckage.

Robert Looren de Jong -> Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 12:12

http://www.nst.com.my/node/21682

BERA: Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein today denied reports in the social media that Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH17 was shot down by fighter jets.
He said intelligence and evidence gathered from the fragments of the ill-fated aircraft clearly showed it was shot down by missiles that were launched to the air from the ground.
"Based on military intelligence and evidence from a portion of fragments found, it is not likely the bullets were used from air to air but from surface to air. "Whether these were owned by Ukraine or the rebels who supplied by Russia. the bullets must have come from BUK System and this matter cannot be denied by Europe, Nato or Russia," he told reporters after officiating the Bera Umno's Wanita, Youth and Puteri wing division meeting here today. still trying to recycle that old debunked and proven wrong narrative?

KeloCote 12 Sep 2014 12:10

The pilot is responsible. He was ordered by Ukrainian air-traffic control to fly to higher altitude, and refused the order. Formally they told him it's because of other planes in the area, but more likely they knew it was unsafe to fly it being a war zone - and simply didn't want to admit they don't have control over territory they claim as their own. By refusing the order to fly higher - the pilot assumed responsibility for flying in a dangerous path. Since the pilot is dead - the airline is responsible.

Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 12:05

Also, the next day the extremely competent and knowledgable Malay minister said:

"Hishammuddin said he was personally confident that flight MH17 was shot with a BUK missile based on his experience and knowledge as a defence minister. Hence, he advised the people not to be easily influenced by speculation and rumours being spread in the media social."

I would like to put the emphasis on "personally confident" as well as on the title: "unlikely shot down by jet fighter".
It's probably jut another "hunch" he had, like the one of MH370 having crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean... Or in Bangladesh... Or having landed in Pakistan... Or maybe a few miles closer to Australia. Well done Sir!

Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:58

Is this Russian, Malay or US propaganda:

NST 7th August:

"KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it"

http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925

Do you really expect anyone sane and humane to believe any news coming from Israeli media?! Gosh...

SHappens 12 Sep 2014 11:27

What a timely article and what an empty statement. Most likely, probably, it seems, could be, looks like.

Conclusion: "It is going to be a long investigation," he said, while remaining cautious about what results the international investigation might achieve.

Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 11:25

De Jong and his mates: you should read the news straight from NST, not any other "repost" or reference, be it RT.com or ET.mars. Go back to early August news (4th or 7th, if not mistaken) and check out their official opinion on the subject. I've been in Malaysia for 2 weeks last month and though they're pretty careful with what they say - because of they western counterparts - and they truly blame both sides (this is subject is overhelming there), they have little doubt that it was shot down by a jet fighter. And this is supported by german and american experts so be careful with what you are being "fed".

Western media never reported this though western countries only needed a few hours to "choose" who to blame for this tragic war crime.

DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 11:08

Firstly a Su-25 could have shot it down...no doubt about that. Its just a matter of if it happened that way.

I have a question...something I haven't seen mentioned really. while I know aviation (work in the industry) I have very little knowledge of the BUK missle system...therfore the question.

Why is the cockpit riddled with holes...yet other pieces of the aircraft as almost no holes in it. Wouldn't it be that if a BUK did it that the COMPLETE body of aircraft would have had similar amount of damage caused by projectiles? Yet I haven't seen one other piece of the wreckage that had near the type of projectile damage than the cockpit section. Why is that...for those saying it was a BUK missile that caused that damage to the cockpit section?

Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:06

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.615512?

REUTERS - The United States announced more sanctions against Russia on Friday, affecting oil and defense industries and further limiting the access of major Russian banks to U.S. debt and equity markets to punish Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.

The sanctions, which for the first time targeted Russia's Sberbank, were timed to coincide with new European Union economic penalties that included restrictions on financing for some Russian state-owned companies and asset freezes on leading Russian politicians.

The sanctions could be rolled back if Moscow withdrew its forces from Ukraine and established a buffer zone along the border among other conditions, a senior U.S. official said.

SocialistPig 12 Sep 2014 11:00

retired Russian army Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok believes the fact that international investigators have thus far failed to provide conclusive evidence suggests that they have something to hide.

"You can find out what kind of missile was used against a downed plane one day after it was crashed," the retired colonel told The Moscow Times. During his career, Khodarenok operated S-75 and S-200 air defense systems.

"Each missile type has its own shrapnel imprint. The shrapnel should have been preserved in the elements of the aircraft itself as well as in the bodies of the victims," he said.

zelazny fintan 12 Sep 2014 10:54

The Malaysian government disagrees with you and has reported that its experts say a fighter jet brought the plane down by first hitting it with a missile and then firing 30mm bullets into both sides of the fuselage.

Photos of the fuselage contain unmistakable bullet holes. Anti-Putin people can deny the evidence and ignore the opinions of the Malaysian experts, but the fact remains that bullets can't travel 30,000 feet into the air and they must have come from a fighter jet.

The USA certainly has known this fact from day 1, as have all of the Nato governments. They just can't figure out any positive spin, so they have decided to delay the release of the report for a year or so in the hope the public will forget.

I wonder how much it will cost to make the family members of the dead forget?

Jiri 12 Sep 2014 10:54

If there was any evidence that the Russians or the East Ukrainians were responsible for the downing of MH17 it would have been made widely available and the maximum political mileage extracted from it.

Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 10:53

On this scale, and with so few voices to speak against it - yes. This is the first time I'm aware of where the US has effectively dictated the script for the entire western msm without even the Guardian offering a dissenting view.

Since you find my massive 2.26 posts a day so disconcerting, I assume you'd like to drive all dissent from the comments too.

zelazny -> RoyalBludger 12 Sep 2014 10:50

Those look like large caliber bullet holes to me, and I have seen a lot of bullet holes in sheet metal.

And I don't know of any rifle in the world, large caliber or small, that can shoot 30,000 feet or more. None can fire accurately even with the most skilled shooter at more than 2475 meters, the longest confirmed sniper kill.

So if bullets hit the plane, they must have come from a fighter jet's 30mm cannon.

The Malaysian government thinks this happened, but of course their opinion has no role in the Nato cover up.

zelazny -> EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 10:44

Obama has Guantanamo? What equivalent does Putin have?

Obama tortures people and doesn't allow them to have a trial at all in most cases, and if they get one, they get a secret, military tribunal, in violation of the US constitution.

In his 6 years in office, Obama has pardoned 52 people, despite the fact that US prisons hold over 2 million.

Putin has pardoned thousands, including his billionaire political opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The comments threads on western sites show the massive love of war and mass murder among ordinary citizens like you, deceived by a life time of high tech propaganda. Western citizens like to compare those they fear to Hitler, not realizing that the victors in WWII deliberately slaughtered German and Japanese civilians by the millions. War criminals fought WWII, and some lost and some won.

But all decent people lost in WWII, because since then the US and Nato have turned the world into a charnel house of war.

flyingdutchman Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:43

More usually SU25's carry armour piercing or APHE rounds. These will explode on impact even with a soft structure. Even allowing a slight delay after encountering an aircraft's skin these will then detonate leaving a much larger hole.

Simple armor piercing rounds will not explode. APHE rounds will, but with a delay of around one millisecond or slightly less. Since the round travels at several thousand feet per second (and won't be slowed down significantly by anything in the aircraft's structure since the rounds are designed to punch through half an inch of hardened steel with ease) the explosion will only take place a few feet beyond the aircraft's skin. Also, fragments from the explosion will tend to be projected forward.

Although aluminium isn't massively strong, it is stressed on an airliner. It's also not usually followed by empty air.

Beneath the aircraft's skin there are structural parts (stringers and frames) with insulation in between. The structure is all aluminum, except for very few parts at the front that are reinforced with titanium in order to better resist bird strikes. Anyway, nothing compared to the stuff the average 30mm projectile is designed to deal with.

OpiumAddict Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:41

no evidence the rebels ever had a working Buk or anyone trained to use it.

definite proof that Ukraine had several working Buks in the area with crews.

dion13 zelazny 12 Sep 2014 10:37

On 13 August, Pravda published a highly plausible version of the tragedy:

"Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, expert says"

http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/13-08-2014/128268-boeing_crash_ukraine-0/

Just one excerpt:

[...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface area [...] The fleet of the Ukrainian Air Force has fighter aircraft MiG-29 that are capable of intercepting Boeing-777. The fighters are based near Kiev and in Ivano-Frankivsk.

ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:23

An exploding missile would hit the bottom of the plane as it approached and would scatter shrapnel over the entire plane. The fact is that only the cockpit is heavily penetrated, and from the sides, both sides (entrance and exit holes are not hard to distinguish), which points to an air assault targeting the cockpit to disable the pilots.

Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous.

Can someone explain how a missile from the ground would produce both exit and entrance punctures in the cockpit on the sides? That seems impossible.

This is just a phony investigation, with the lead suspect having veto power.

High resolution photos from the following link show clearly holes which are pushed out and in. I am not forensic expert but I can tell in from out.

A missile with exploding shrapnel would not produce in and out holes; the only way to get that result is to shoot from both sides. And a missile exploding would effect the bottom of the plane, in a random pattern; the holes in the plane are in the cockpit from the sides, both sides.

http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/08/the-israeli-photo-of-mh17-who-is-yaron.html

Take a look: holes punched out, holes pushed in: draw your own conclusions because the investigation will never reveal this fact, since Ukraine has veto power over the findings being published.

The photos provided show the pilots were targeted, something an ground to air missile could not do. Also the holes across one of the wings are in a line, such as a machine gun would produce, not a random explosion. The theory of a missile from the ground cannot explain the photographic/physical evidence.

Only an assault from the air makes sense once you examine the evidence provided by the photos Please take a look, especially at the closeup at
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf
which shows holes with raised edges (exit) and holes with pushed in edges (entrance).

ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:04

The nations investigating have signed an agreement not to publish results unless all parties reach a consensus. If the parties found evidence of Ukrainian responsibility, Ukraine would veto and it would not be published. This form of censorship makes an independent investigation impossible, as well as its publication if it were.

I am quite sure that bullets are "high energy objects" but the Western media seems to ignore that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings.

For me, the clincher is that only the front part (cockpit) of the plane was penetrated----a missile that exploded would not target the cockpit---and that the holes in the cockpit show both exit and entrance punctures---something compatible only with being fired on from both sides. A missile would only penetrate from one side. It is not hard to distinguish an entrance and an exit hole, as one is push in, the other out.

This investigation is, by agreement, not independent or impartial, since the Ukraine can block publication of any findings it does not like.

It's just one more piece of the propaganda effort to demonize Russia and thus cover up the crimes of the Kiev regime

Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 10:02

However, Russian mass media information proved to be a fake. On September 9, the Dutch Safety Board published the report, the paragraph 2.5.4 of which says that Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise provided the recording and a transcript of the radio and telephone communications regarding flight MH17

Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100% unbelievable. All of it. There are so many different agendas by so many groups fighting each other like cats and dogs, all in the same buildings, that it is no wonder that so much confusion reigns there.

dhammaguy 12 Sep 2014 09:57

Shocking Analysis of the 'Shooting Down' of Malaysian MH17 http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:44

John McCain has taught you well.
You and he are obviously students of the "Shout it loud and shout it again and again" Goebbels doctrine -- If you are so desperate to put your case, go and join the police investigative team. You're such a cut and paste expert with carefully selected bits from wikipedia, they will find you useful somewhere.

There's a flood of misinformation this morning. Much more than normal.
You're louder than you normally are.

Usually McCain orders the whole team out when the yanks have got something that they particularly want to distract from the public gaze.

Most of your team is talking about the Buk again, sticking to the same old story, so obviously you are worried that the Dutch will latch onto the truth. Well they have nine months to find it, so you and your team of parrots will have to work very hard to keep them distracted. Best of luck !

Given the fact that the steady level flight (in kilometers) above the ceiling is impossible,
How do you KNOW that is true? Do you know every single situation where it might not be true. Are you an expert ? I don't mean a cut and paste expert..

Keep writing, keep writing... you and your mates have got to keep the dutch police distracted. !

Keep writing Keep writing !

Bye...

medievil -> Yatvyag 12 Sep 2014 09:38

shot down over the Persian Gulf in 1988 by the SM-2 surface-to-air missile launched from the USS Vincennes. As a result of the Iranian Flight 655 catastrophe 290 passengers were killed including 60 children. The author emphasizes that after the incident American top officials not only dismissed all the accusations but blamed the Iranian pilot. However, nearly seven weeks after the tragedy the Pentagon had to recognize that all the "facts" the American top officials were referring to in order to shift the burden of responsibility on the Iranians were wrong. Strangely enough, the Pentagon's 53-page report on the incident "still concluded that the captain and all the other Vincennes officers acted properly."

Although Fred Kaplan, the defense correspondent of the Boston Globe at that time, pointed repeatedly to the numerous embarrassing discrepancies in the Pentagon's narrative, the US senior officers qualified them as inessential. The most shocking fact, revealed in 1992 was that the USS Vincennes was in the Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian Flight 655, not in international as the Pentagon reported in 1988.

"Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running to succeed Ronald Reagan as president, said on the campaign trail, "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are," cites Fred Kaplan and adds bitterly, "Not until eight years later did the US government compensate the victims' families, and even then expressed "deep regret," not an apology." Medals awarded While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement", his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." According to a 23 April 1990 article printed in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig for their performance in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all.

Денис Панкратов -> fintan 12 Sep 2014 09:31

If you're interested, I would say. And in Washington and in the Netherlands have long known who shot down the "Boeing". But will hide the truth to the end. Because this really does not fit into the ongoing today geopolitics.

Geopolitics, as a rule, the subject is extremely pragmatic and cynical. For it not only 200 dead, for her and 200 thousand dead - empty words ...

Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 09:26

A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane.

This is the ENTIRE source for the western case that a Buk shot MH17 down. It is a complete lie. The officer was never named, the story was never verified. The officer does not exist. Evidence please, if you disagree?

Canonman -> Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:17

That area has been under satellite surveillance for a long time by various US, NATO and Russian satellites - after all it is a war zone. Rest assured that there will be coverage of that area by various satellites.

Perhaps you should lay off the personal insults? Or do you get off on being rude or a dick - 'Rudeboy-1'?

Hansueli LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 09:16

Well, before engaging in wild speculation, why not start from a simple possibility, like a simple fuck-up by the guys on the trigger? Seems far more likely than any hypothetical planned shoot down by CIA or anybody else, including Russia.

Dunscore Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:16

Of course the utter idiots that gave a highly advanced surface to air missile system to a bunch of idiots are not responsible at all.....it was just a mistake. I'm sure the relatives will understand.

Your master McCain taught his baby trolls well -- But why do we always get the uneducated ones.

Where is all your written evidence for your silly story ? Let's see something on paper and not just oral bullshit...

JCDavis mraak 12 Sep 2014 09:09

Since it hit the cockpit and not the tail, it had to be fired from the direction where the plane was headed.

Not true. If it was fired from an aircraft well below the 777, the impact could have had the same signature. And depending on the guidance system, it could have hit the same area no matter where it was fired from--

Electro-optical seekers can be programmed to target vital area of an aircraft, such as the cockpit.

Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:08

nd as such it is consitant with a buk missile

If you can't even spell consistent, why should we pay any attention to wha you say ?

Everyone is suddenly an expert on missile ballistics.
Tell your audience please the source of all your qualifications.
A PhD from Ronald McDonald's University ?

Two german military pilots saw all the wreckage on the crash site and with 30 years experience, they made a careful detailed explanation over several A4 sides explaining why it was NOT a Buk. Have you read that ? Why do you contradict that ? Come on, let's have your knowledge on the table --
McCain would be proud of you, you follow his script so well.

What will you do when your master loses his job at the next US election?

Canonman 12 Sep 2014 08:31

All of this is just speculation.
Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time?
Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if?
Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment?
Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find.
Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers.
Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area?
So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative?

michaelantony 12 Sep 2014 08:19

This investigation is a colossal waste of time and money and European taxpayers should demand an end to it. We all know what happened to the plane: it was shot down by accident while flying over a war zone where surface to air missiles were in constant use over previous days. None of the belligerents had an interest in shooting in down: whoever did it mistook it for a military craft belonging to the enemy. To try to find out which group to pin the blame on serves no purpose whatever except to further the warmongering agenda of NATO, which is trying to provoke the 3rd World War with Russia or justify even more crushing sanctions to grind Russia's population into further poverty. The real culprits for this horrible accident were Malaysia Airlines for flying over a war zone to save money and the aviation authorities for allowing them to do so. Those are the heads that should roll.

LeWillow -> psygone 12 Sep 2014 08:07

But you have to ask the question 'why would Putin shoot down a Malaysian passenger plane?
It make no sense and would be completely stupid, and I don't think Putin is stupid somehow.
The CIA on the other hand (and US Govt) would have a lot to gain from shooting down a plane and blaming it on Putin. They also have previous form when it comes to blowing planes out of the air.

Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:05

Correct. I joined in 2012 to participate in the Bradley Manning conversation. I have an abhorrence of evil, and the silence of mass media regarding its victims.

What world do you inhabit where such an attitude makes a person 'unreal'?

LeWillow -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:02

"Actually what I find shocking is the bizarre pretence of you people to be real."

By being 'real' do you mean believing everything the Western media tell us and everything the US Government. Is that what being 'real' involves?
If it is, then you can keep it for yourself.

jdanforth -> Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 08:01
Apparently it was an entire year before Libya was blamed -first it was Iran. Al Megrahi's alleged accomplice was found not guilty, and when al Megrahi was granted a chance to appeal his case in court, he was abruptly released instead.

In the case of Lockerbie, satellite imagery was immediately provided by both France and the US, and that was in the 1980s!

ChristopherMyers 12 Sep 2014 08:01
They are sooo hoping it was East Ukrainian fighters supplied by Russia, sounding more like a witch hunt all the time. I wouldn't rule out the Azov Battalion, they were in the area, they have Russian accents, and BUK's, they murder civilians because they are Russian, like in Odessa. They still don't know if it was a missile, or if it was an air to air or surface to air, or bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet (which would be intent on targeting the cockpit). Forensics though, will reveal what struck it, then place the blame. Why not wait until then to burn the witch?
Carl Jones 12 Sep 2014 08:00

The preliminary report suggests MH17 was hit by multiple impacts. There are pictures on the alternative media that shows a section of the plane near the cockpit that was strafed by machine gun fire after it had been hit by an air to air rocket[s]. The preliminary finding are inconsistent with a ground to air rocket and their is no evidence to this effect.

Quite simply, this is a cover up.

SaoPaulo 12 Sep 2014 07:56

The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here.

JCDavis -> palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:55

Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should be carefully investigated. But of course there is no one to do that as the press is almost totally subverted.


palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:50

he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years to identify suspects.

Excellent comparison, the Lockerbie investigation is a great example of how investigators dismissed obvious clues as to the true perpetrators and used circumstantial evidence to "prove" that the Bond villains of the day (Libya) were the culprits.

John Ashton's book lays the evidence for all to see of how everything can


JCDavis JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 07:44

Herbert E. Meyer, Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration--

"If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head - that would also be okay with us."


krislej Daniel Brown 12 Sep 2014 07:35

You're clearly someone who doesn't have a clue:

SU-25's carry the R-60 air to air missile with a range of 5 miles, they also have a 30mm auto-cannon. The wreckage of MH17 is strewn with what are more than likely 30mm shell holes, perfectly rounded and highly unlikely to be fragmentation from a rocket.
SU-25's can also climb to the height of MH17 and stay there for a short period of time before having to descend.

Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 07:33

The Lockerbie investigation was subverted for political reasons and the enemy of convenience was then Libya. Abdelbasset al Megrahi who served 8 years in prison had nothing to do with Lockerbie and they know it.

GoodmansParadox 12 Sep 2014 07:23

...he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years to identify suspects.

An interesting analogy, considering the suspects identified were fabricated in order to frame Libya. Considering the case against the two Libyan suspects required they work together, it was even more notable that only one of them was convicted. So a fabricated prosecution was delivered a perverse verdict, yet the media still lapped it up and ran with the lie.
Funny how, with the toppling of Gaddafi, we were supposed to be provided with the evidence of Libyan involvement. Three years and counting...

And now, the same cheerleaders for blaming Gaddafi are blaming Putin. Plus ca change.

kaptenemo 12 Sep 2014 07:20

Could investigators and journalists please also consider the possibility that the Kiev troops did it? Right now, they should be investigating all leads, not only those pointing to the Eastern Ukrainians. After all, the Ukrainian military did shoot down a commercial plane in 2001, so another mistake cannot be excluded out of hand.

fintan -> DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:18

The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of the Rebels

The Dutch "under orders"? From whom? Have some respect for a democratic, sovereign state that has lost nearly 200 of its citizens to a murderous attack by vicious terrorists and, I have no doubt, very much wants to find the truth about how and why it happened.

Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:14

What's possibly most shocking about this is the reiteration of discredited information - the supposed 'confession' of a rebel (taken massively out of context and heavily denied by the speaker) and the ludicrous fake audio of the rebel conversation which turned out to have been uploaded the day before the crash, then taken down again for editing.

I wouldn't be surprised by this promulgation of lies if I found it on social media, but this is the Associated Press and I'm reading this in a once respected British newspaper. How in the name of any kind of decency did we come to sink as low as this?

DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:12

The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of the Rebels. We may talk about conspiracy theories - but in this case it smells like a cover up. The explosive residue left of the surface of the aircraft would surely indicate the type of weapon used as most explosives have a set 'signature'.

Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:06

There's no surprise in the fact the solution 'getting most attention' is the one most likely to discredit the rebels. I'd be more interested to know if they were giving any attention to anything else.

[Oct 16, 2015] MH17 field Experiment done by Almaz-Antey

"... The Spanish ATC guy's posts were real, but he said the trailing fighters left shortly before MH17 vanished. Presumably they'd been told to get clear. ..."
"... So… the official Ukrainian ministry of the interior had released via their own web site a fake video-audio product, pretending the downing was done by separatists and it was an after-the-event conversation… but the Interior Ministry had produced the video file the day before the downing. ..."
"... The Spanish ATC guy's real-time tweets are consistent with this story. He said ordinary military arrived at ATC first, but then Interior Ministry guys arrived and took over, removing all evidence tapes. ..."
"... The Kiev government absolutely and provably self-incriminated. ..."
"... All Western and Kiev claims (official, leaked and 'expert comments') to the contrary since, have been orchestrated to bury and obfuscate that key evidence. ..."
"... MH17 was downed by a BUK fired by Kiev government forces, intending to down MH17 and claim the Russians were responsible. US fingers in this scheme can be seen in the selection of an Air Malaysia plane. ..."
"... Other points: – right after the event, Russian sources reported their military signals intelligence in the E-Ukraine conflict area had detected a BUK systems targeting radar activation at the time of the downing. That would be rather unlikely to admit, if they fired it. ..."
"... Many other points all indicate Ukie government responsibility for this war crime. And the nature of the Western 'investigation' also shouts of high level awareness of Western guilt. ..."
"... and what about the testimony of a Ukrainian army soldier that he'd seen a pilot return on the day and time of the downing of MH17, confirming that the boeing had been shot by a Ukrainian fighter plane? ..."
"... the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me. we've either been lied to with the expert opinion and the eye witness account, or the BUK story is a fake. ..."
"... Please note that this Almaz-Antey MH17 field Experiment was done to support their commercial interests in a court battle to recover damages for reputation and sanctions. It does not necessarily reflect Russian government position (although it could hardly counter it either). ..."
"... It is a well timed PR 'Buk' at the corrupt and cynical 15-month Dutch insult to their own MH17 dead citizens and the wider global traveling public. ..."
"... I suspect a lot is calibrated end with the fall of Ukraine's nazi Poreshenko regime. One long cold winter (on a month-by-month pre-payment plan) coming up! ..."
"... Who is conceding? All I have heard in the Almaz-Antey press conference was based on an "if", without any definite "it was". So, if it was a BUK, then it was an old one, out of use in the Russian army already 2011. If it was a BUK, it started in the region of Zaroshenskoje, not near Snezhnoje. ..."
The Vineyard of the Saker
TerraHertz, October 15, 2015
"We all know" – Speak for yourself. As soon as I saw the high-res image of that cockpit side panel, I knew it had been a missile. There's clear results of a shock wave loaded with fine (down to dust size) particles. Also those holes were not bullet holes, and they all came from the left side of the plane. Metal edges bent outwards are due to the shockwave gases arriving just after the larger penetrators, forcing between the skin layers, and blowing the outer layer outwards around holes.

The Spanish ATC guy's posts were real, but he said the trailing fighters left shortly before MH17 vanished. Presumably they'd been told to get clear.

All the "fighter planes shot up and/or fired an air to air missile at it" rubbish has been disinformation, designed to bury that one damning and war-crimes trial worthy proof the Kiev Junta (and US puppetmasters) preplanned the event. That was the video released on the Kiev Ministry of Interior's official web site right after MH17's downing. The video was the 2nd released from the same source, in a common style. It purported to be an intercepted communication between separatists and a Russian general, in which they discussed having downed the plane with a missile fired by separatists.

Analysis of the video's audio (the alleged 'conversation') revealed it was an collage edited together using short word sequences. A fake. But also a massive mistake – it was reported that analysis also found the video still contained timestamps from the editing process. It had been constructed the DAY BEFORE the downing.

So… the official Ukrainian ministry of the interior had released via their own web site a fake video-audio product, pretending the downing was done by separatists and it was an after-the-event conversation… but the Interior Ministry had produced the video file the day before the downing. Proof of prior knowledge of an 'accident' (or act supposedly by someone else) is proof of planning it.

The Spanish ATC guy's real-time tweets are consistent with this story. He said ordinary military arrived at ATC first, but then Interior Ministry guys arrived and took over, removing all evidence tapes.

This is real, but it has been flushed down the memory hole. The Kiev government absolutely and provably self-incriminated. And by extension, their masters in the US government were certainly involved in planning too.

All Western and Kiev claims (official, leaked and 'expert comments') to the contrary since, have been orchestrated to bury and obfuscate that key evidence.

MH17 was downed by a BUK fired by Kiev government forces, intending to down MH17 and claim the Russians were responsible. US fingers in this scheme can be seen in the selection of an Air Malaysia plane. More payback to Malaysia for their Trial of Israel for war crimes, and also trying to ship that stolen US military drone control system to China, on MH370.

TerraHertz

eimar, October 15, 2015
@Terrahertz

Of course there is no unanimity about how MH-17 was brought down.

But 'none' is not just speaking for him/herself.

Check out this RT doc at 12.40: a local witness to a jet directly approaching the plane from below, followed by a blue flash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W3Ai0nUxKE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This does not exclude the BUK hypothesis. The pilot may have been instructed to obscure the real cause, or told to deliver a payload too. Or simply act as a lure to divert the plane into the missile path.

Or it was a coincidental presence.

But a Ukrainian fighter jet was on the scene.

TerraHertz, October 15, 2015
@eimar That's an interesting documentary, however you should exercise a little more discernment. These witnesses are not credible, or are speaking of unrelated events. MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet. At that height an airliner is little more than a dot, and a fighter plane may not be visible at all. No chance of telling which one is 'below' the other if they are near each other. How about that guy who says he "ran outside to see" then claims he saw the entire sequence? Yeah, so what made him run outside? As for the lack of sightings of a BUK smoke trail, I'd put that down to the rainy, cloudy weather. And what was the cloud height anyway? Lower than 33K feet seems likely. Also the site the Russians claim the missile was launched from is unpopulated fields. Could easily be no witnesses, especially since the Ukraine military would want to make sure no one saw them (or lived to speak of it.)

Other points: – right after the event, Russian sources reported their military signals intelligence in the E-Ukraine conflict area had detected a BUK systems targeting radar activation at the time of the downing. That would be rather unlikely to admit, if they fired it.

Plus, MH17 flight path would have put it over Russian territory in a few more minutes, and Russian ATC expected it. Why on earth shoot it down over Ukraine, if they wanted it down? From the Russian side there's no conceivable practical motive. The Separatists would have no motive either, since at that altitude MH17 couldn't possibly be mistaken for a Ukie military flight.

Many other points all indicate Ukie government responsibility for this war crime. And the nature of the Western 'investigation' also shouts of high level awareness of Western guilt.

Just for reference, my collected chronology of media reports here: http://everist.org/archives/links/__Flight_MH17_shootdown_info.txt
(and lots more in the same folder.)

SunLion, October 14, 2015 · at 10:22 pm UTC

What a fantastic summary. Chapeau to Russia. The level of expertise and competence of the Russian team is incredible. And this video is so well made…

I knew from the beginning that the UkroNazi were behind this false flag. The purpose was to accuse Russia and support the sanctions. In fact, some of the "evidence" was made-up prior to the "accident". I also believe that the US was part of it. They may plead "Plausible deniability" but their game is well known and for one I am not fooled. If it look like a duck…

If the US wants to fight the Russians, I have bad news for the psychopaths.

mbotta on October 15, 2015 · at 4:32 am UTC

guys, so what happened to the expert opinion that the way the boeing was damaged
1) could in no way be done by a BUK missile, and
2) indicated that it had been shot at by a fighter plane?

and what about the testimony of a Ukrainian army soldier that he'd seen a pilot return on the day and time of the downing of MH17, confirming that the boeing had been shot by a Ukrainian fighter plane?

the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me. we've either been lied to with the expert opinion and the eye witness account, or the BUK story is a fake.

Anonymous on October 15, 2015 · at 9:29 am UTC

Re: "… the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me."

Please note that this Almaz-Antey MH17 field Experiment was done to support their commercial interests in a court battle to recover damages for reputation and sanctions. It does not necessarily reflect Russian government position (although it could hardly counter it either).

It is a well timed PR 'Buk' at the corrupt and cynical 15-month Dutch insult to their own MH17 dead citizens and the wider global traveling public.

Where the MH17 project goes from here is anyone's guess - but in the reputation and credibility stakes Russian share value is rising and EU/Nato is dropping fast. What is clear, is, any 'win' by the usual suspects will be slow and at a very high cost.

I suspect a lot is calibrated end with the fall of Ukraine's nazi Poreshenko regime. One long cold winter (on a month-by-month pre-payment plan) coming up!

Max on October 15, 2015 · at 11:21 am UTC

Who is conceding? All I have heard in the Almaz-Antey press conference was based on an "if", without any definite "it was". So, if it was a BUK, then it was an old one, out of use in the Russian army already 2011. If it was a BUK, it started in the region of Zaroshenskoje, not near Snezhnoje.

[Oct 14, 2015] The JIT report could catalyze an official response from Russia

Notable quotes:
"... A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible. ..."
"... I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is swimming naked. ..."
Oct 10, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com/

John Helmer US Strategy In The Middle East Is Dying, Along With Its Authors, Carter And Brzezinski

optimader, October 10, 2015 at 6:20 pm

Blert,
And BUKs use heat seeking missiles. refers to you post yesterday regarding engine heat of a B-777

BUK missile are radar guided.. period.

You can go find the link..
Target detection

The TELAR radar automatically categorizes targets by 3 types: aerodynamics;

The info is needed for calculation of the trajectory of the missile. The commander can recognize the unique footprint of a target and when agreed with that this is the target he presses a button for launch. The onboard computer will do the calculations for guiding the missile.

This article in Russian language has a lot of detailed information on target recognition.

The missile guiding

Once the missile has been launched it is guided by the radar to the target using radar signals. The radar illuminates the target. The radar return is picked up by the missile. The missile receives control guidance from the ground using radio signals. This system is called a semi active homing radar.

Buk, Buk-M1 and earlier versions of Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 missile systems uses an Argon-15 type of the onboard computer. The Argon-15 is able to detect target radar signal (shape, length, reverberations, envelope and videosignal). Argon-15 does not give to the crew the ability to change target. The commander must choose target on stage Search, then Argon-15 calculate algorithm Meet Zone, then indicate Target in zone, commander open fire it all. More information on the Argon-15 here.

When close to the target the seeker head (radar in the missile) will take over from the guidance of the TELAR and will continue its route towards the target.

The missile has a proximity fuse. This is fed by the radar. When the missile is within range the proximity fuse will detonate the explosive in the warhead. That will be around 17 meters from the target.

Proportional navigation

A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible.

To intercept high-speed targets like aircraft and missiles, a semi active homing missile must follow a lead (collision) course. The intercept point is at the intersection of the missile and target flight paths. The best collision or lead course happens when the missile heading keeps a constant angle with the line of sight to the target. This course requires missile accelerations to be only as great as target accelerations. Specifically, if the target flies a straight-line, constant-velocity course, the missile can also follow a straight-line collision course if its velocity does not change. But in practice, this ideal situation does not exist. Missile velocity seldom stays constant. Irregular sustainer propellant burning changes thrust, and therefore affects speed…

low_integer, October 11, 2015 at 2:40 am

I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is swimming naked.

[Oct 14, 2015] In Australia the news the Dutch investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points refuting some of Dutch claims

"... which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time ..."
"... Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile that corresponds to the fragments found. ..."
"... here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT) investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above, with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JITs claims after apparently having done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime. ..."
Jun 16, 2003 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
low_integer October 13, 2015 at 10:50 pm

It is not just whether or not it was a BUK missile, it is also what type of BUK missile it was, if it was in fact a BUK that brought the plane down. Russia's contention is that the shape of the fragments found, which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time. I'm assuming the new type they use also has a distinctive fragmentation pattern, and I'm not sure how long it has been since they have phased out use of the old type, or if that information has been made available.

Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile that corresponds to the fragments found.

Interestingly, here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT) investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above, with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JIT's claims after apparently having done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime.

I have also been hearing that it was reported that passengers may have remained conscious for up to 90 seconds.

Still very unclear who is responsible, imo.

[Oct 14, 2015] Russia states that their military no longer use older type of BUK missile which supposly hit MH17

"... Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to other southern routes? ..."
"... Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17? ..."
"... Where is the radar plot of the MH17? ..."
"... Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17? ..."
"... The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage. None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon. You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage... ..."
"... The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed. And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ? ..."
"... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC? ..."
Oct 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge
kaboomnomic

About that MH-17. Here's the manufacturer version.
https://www.rt.com/news/318531-mh17-experiment-almaz-antey/

Here's the video of the experiment.
https://youtu.be/EU-weRmf29c

The MH-17 shot down by BUK-M1. Almaz-Antey have long discontinued this model. Russian troops use BUK-M2. It is a known fact. Even in the western military site.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/buk-m2e-air-defence-missile-system/

Russian troops use this new BUK-M2 back in 2008. You can check this if you have the DU (depleted uraniums) fragmented casing, and test them with isotopes methodes. Which for some reasons, the dutch teams refused to do.

- - -

Again. Russian haters fails to mentioned this.

As of the questions of:

1. Why the ATC not closing the route?

2. Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to other southern routes?

3. Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17?

4. Where is the radar plot of the MH17?

5. Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17?

There are alot of questions unanswered. And yet the dutch investigation still release the report.

Why??

The Indelicate ...

The New York Times' clumsiness as to its pro-Israel/anti-Russian {and for that matter anti-constitutionalist and anti-libertarian} propaganda is stunning.

They're either that stupid or that brazen - knowing that Americans are too stupid to parse misleading rhetoric.

Of course, that's older Americans.

Had I time and inclination, before absurd TPP copyright laws prevent it {from what I gather}

a great web site would be unmoderated, space limited comments on ny times stories.

Because imagine what doesnt get through...

PrimalScream

good questions. why the report? - So companies and citizens can claim financial damages. you seem to be implying that the BUK-M1 could have been sold on the black market, or provided by clandestine means. By who? To who? Those are questions that a lot of people hoped would be answered.

ZerOhead

The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.

None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon. You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage...

eurogold

The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed. And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ?

FixItAgainTony

and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC?
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-ai...

[Oct 14, 2015] Bellingcat author worked for STASI

7mei.nl

@SPIEGELONLINE claims http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html … #MH17 #Ukraine #Syria @Mare_Indicum @marcelsardo

Recherche zu MH17-Abschuss: Bellingcat-Autor war hauptamtlicher Stasi-Mitarbeiter - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Die Recherchegruppe Bellingcat wirft Russland vor, Satelliten-Aufnahmen zur MH17-Katastrophe gefälscht zu haben. Einer der Autoren war hauptamtlicher Mitarbeiter der Stasi.

May 27 #01

German Head Prosecutor (ret.) Mrs. Wolff published a new article in her series "MH17 Information War". She researches MH17 Bellingcat and Correctiv research. Fascinating how she dissects the claims both entities make! About Correctiv claim the US has appointed a launch site north of Snizhne:

"Get into the corner and be ashamed of yourself, is my advice for this kind of journalism."
("In die Ecke stellen und schämen, ist mein Ratschlag für diese Art von Journalismus.")

About Bellingcat's claim Donetsk Buk picture is the real thing, expect more from her soon.

Eric van de Beek is professional journalist and 'useful idiot'. Check out his excellent interview with corrupt journo Udo Ulfkotte talking about corrupt journalism.

[Oct 13, 2015] MH17 Report Reveals Shocking Details of Jet's Last Moments

Notable quotes:
"... Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to reach the ground after the blast. Other, lighter parts would have taken longer, the report said. ..."
Oct 13, 2015 | www.nbcnews.com

The warhead - launched 33,000 feet below in the Ukrainian countryside - exploded less than one yard from the aircraft's cockpit, the Dutch report said.

A split-second later, hundreds of "high-energy" fragments pierced the fuselage and the shrapnel instantly killed the two pilots and one crew member inside.

There was no mayday call or attempt to maneuver, the report noted. The cockpit voice recorder stopped abruptly at the point of impact.

Image: Dutch Safety Board Issue Their Findings On The MH17 Air Disaster

The explosion also caused the cockpit to instantly separate from the rest of the aircraft. After that "instantaneous separation," the rest of the plane continued to fly for more than five miles before breaking into further pieces, according to the report.

The center part of the airliner traveled beyond the rear section and came to rest upside down after hitting the ground. "Parts of the wreckage caught fire," the report added.

Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to reach the ground after the blast. "Other, lighter parts would have taken longer," the report said.

The debris field was more than 20 square miles.

... ... ...

Investigators used paint to trace the missile

Ukraine and its Western allies have long alleged that pro-Russian rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine brought down MH17 using a Russian-made missile system - a claim Moscow staunchly denies. While Tuesday's report apportioned no blame, it was the first confirmation that the airliner was shot down using the BUK missile launcher - a Russian-made system.

Investigators came to this conclusion by analyzing a number of minute details.

A 2.3-millisecond noise was recorded on the cockpit's voice recorders before the system stopped working. By triangulating the signal, experts were able to show that it originated outside the aircraft.

Their conclusion was also based on "bow-tie"-shaped fragments found inside the bodies of the flight's crew members that were consistent with a 9N314M missile launched as part of the BUK system.

The Dutch team that compiled the report also based this conclusion on "explosive residues and paint" that were found on some of the fragments

[Oct 13, 2015] What's a Buk What to Know About the Cold War Missile That Downed MH17

Oct 13, 2015 ] NBC News

The Dutch board's Tuesday announcement followed a report by Buk's Russian manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, that contradicted the findings. The company said the damage patterns on MH17 did not match those it found in its own blast tests, Reuters reported.

[Oct 13, 2015] What happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC

"... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC? ..."
Jun 16, 2003 | Zero Hedge
FixItAgainTony

and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC?
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-ai...

[Oct 13, 2015] Russian missile killed flight MH17 pilots and cut plane in half, report reveals

The article contains several interesting pictures... Omitted evidence supports version of false flag operation against rebels. I remember one phone that shows that one shpnel fragment travelling horizontally and scratching the right wing of the airliner. Dutch version makes existence of such fragment impossible. It also does not tell us in how many passenger bodies shrapnel wonds were found as this recreated dispersion pattern of the blast. If does mention that pilots bodies contain shrapnel wounds.
Daily Mail Online

Ukraine and Western countries contend the airliner was downed by a missile fired by Russia-backed rebels or Russian forces, from rebel-controlled territory.

However, a Russian state-controlled missile-maker held a press conference today to coincide with the report's release to say its own investigation contradicts conclusions from the Dutch probe.

Almaz-Antey says it conducted two experiments - in one of which a Buk missile was detonated near the nose of an airplane similar to a 777 - that contradict that conclusion.

The experimental aircraft's remains showed a much different submunitions damage pattern than seen on the remnants of MH17, the company said in a statement.

The experiments also refute what it said was the Dutch version, that the missile was fired from Snizhne, a village that was under rebel control. An Associated Press reporter saw a Buk missile system in that vicinity on the same day.

'We have proven with our experiments that the theory about the missile flying from Snizhne is false,' Almaz-Antey's director general Yan Novikov told a news conference at a sprawling high-tech convention center in Moscow.

Almaz-Antey in June had said that a preliminary investigation suggested that the plane was downed by a model of BUK that is no longer in service with the Russian military but that was part of the Ukrainian military arsenal.

Information from the first experiment, in which a missile was fired at aluminum sheets mimicking an airliner's fuselage, was presented to the Dutch investigators, but was not taken into account, Almaz-Antey chief Novikov said.

Novikov said evidence shows that if the plane was hit by a Buk, it was fired from the village of Zaroshenske, which Russia says was under Ukrainian government control at the time.

A U.S. official told The Associated Press that the draft report said the plane was destroyed by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the village of Snizhne.

[Oct 13, 2015] 4 questions for Dutch probe into MH17 crash

Oct 13, 2015 | RT News
The final report into the causes of the MH17 crash in Ukraine over a year ago is ready and is expected to be revealed within hours. Russia claims some that findings have not been included in the Dutch report while remaining questions hang heavy in the air.

The much anticipated report investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which was downed in Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing nearly 300 people on board, is planned to be released by the Dutch Safety Board (DBS), which led the probe, on Tuesday. The DBS investigation is aimed at providing technical details of the crash, while another investigation carried out by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)will determine who was responsible for the incident. The latter report is to be issued by the end of this year.

The DBS issued a preliminary report in September 2014 which only confirmed that the passenger plane crashed due to external damage. Amid the probe there has been extensive media speculation regarding the causes of the incident.

Days ahead of the DBS official report, a letter addressed to the head of the UN aviation agency about the investigation was leaked to the media. It was published by a Malaysian newspaper on Sunday.

The letter was written by the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency's Chief, Oleg Storchevoy, who was acquainted with the results of the investigation, to Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, the head of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Storchevoy asked the UN aviation body to intervene in the DBS investigation.

Ahead of the DBS report, RT examines some of the controversial points which are expected to be answered by the probe.

[Oct 13, 2015] MH17 Downed by Missile Fired from Kiev-Controlled Territory – BUK Manufacturer

If those two statement "missile exploded 20 meters above portside area of engine" and "explosion was on portside not starboard side of plane, as Dutch probe claims" are true, then it looks like Dutch report is more of the result of political pressure ( justification of Russian sanctions) then an independent investigation.

Moscow Exile, October 13, 2015 at 3:56 am

BREAKING NEWS: MH17 Downed by Missile Fired from Kiev-Controlled Territory – BUK Manufacturer

Contradictory findings to the Dutch probe

Dutch probe findings will be released within the next few hours, stay tuned.

Moscow Exile , October 13, 2015 at 4:10 am

Выводы экспертизы "Алмаз-Антей": "Боинг" под Донбассом был сбит ракетой, которой нет на вооружении России

Full video of Almaz-Antei experiment:

watch-v=VREtudlZeHs

[Oct 13, 2015] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Most Likely Hit by Russian-Made Missile, Inquiry Says

Looks like Dutch report is a cover up of the state US position on the incident... After all it's from a vassal state.
The New York Times

... ... ...

"Flight MH17 crashed as a result of the detonation of a warhead outside the airplane above the left-hand side of the cockpit," said Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, using a common reference to the flight number. The explosion tore off the forward part of the plane, which broke up in the air. The crash killed all 298 people aboard; the investigation found that many died instantly, while others quickly lost consciousness. "It is likely that the occupants were barely able to comprehend their situation," the board found.

... ... ...

The report is unlikely to produce consensus. Based on the impact pattern, the impact angle and other data, the Dutch board concluded that the missile originated in an area of about 320 square kilometers (about 123 square miles) in eastern Ukraine. But Russian experts say the area must be smaller, and Ukrainian experts say it was smaller still.

The team of investigators was led by the Netherlands but included members from four other countries heavily affected by the crash: Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine.

... ... ...

From the outset, the Russian government has tried to offer alternative versions of what caused the plane to break up over eastern Ukraine.

Initially, the Defense Ministry presented what generals said was radar data indicating that a Ukrainian fighter jet had flown nearby, possibly shooting down the Malaysia Airlines flight. This year, officials with Almaz-Antey, the state corporation that manufactures the Buk antiaircraft missiles, held a news conference in Moscow to say that they believed one of their missiles had shot down the plane, but that an analysis of the angle of impact showed it must have been fired from territory controlled by the Ukrainian Army.

Then, this month, after a Ukrainian security official had suggested in an interview with the Dutch news media that shrapnel removed from the bodies of the victims proved a Buk was to blame, Tass, the Russian state news agency, quoted an independent expert objecting that it was too early to conclude such a missile brought down the plane.

Tass quoted the expert, Ivan P. Konovalov, the director of a Moscow research center, the Center for Strategic Trends, as saying that if the Dutch Safety Board indeed "reaches a firm conclusion that the Boeing was struck by a Buk antiaircraft rocket, then it should be taken into consideration that at that time only the armed services of Ukraine had these complexes and the People's Republics of Donbas had no such complex systems then or now." He was referring to pro-Russian separatist governments set up in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.

In Moscow, officials at Almaz-Antey staged a dueling presentation on Tuesday with a dazzling element: the company blew up a civilian airline fuselage with one of its missiles, and showed the blast on video.

The experiment that shredded the cockpit section of a decommissioned Il-86 airliner, company officials said, indicated the Ukrainian military fired the missile that brought down the Boeing, without elaborating on why.

In the sky over Ukraine, the Russian officials said, the shrapnel struck the plane from an angle indicating the missile was launched from Ukrainian-held territory. Also, they said, Buk missiles in the Russian arsenal explode in a cloud of shrapnel that has jagged edges, described as having a "double-T" form. These, they said, leave a characteristic "butterfly"-shaped hole in airplane fuselages. The Russians insisted that no such holes were found in the wreckage; the Dutch report suggests otherwise.

In any case, Yan V. Novikov, the director of Almaz-Antey, said the Ukrainian government bore responsibility for allowing the flight over a war zone. "I cannot say they are guilty, or not guilty, but the obligations of the country where a military conflict is underway is to inform aviation companies, or close its airspace," he said.

... ... ...

[Oct 13, 2015] Flight MH17 downed by Russian-built missile, Dutch investigators say

It was BUK -- Video contains important finding that fragment of missile paint and elements from the missile warhead in pilot bodies. It is mainly non technical watch-v=KDiLEyT9spI and does not cover conflicting evidence. So at last we know that there was a BUK missile the downs the airliner. I doubt that Dutch investigators make a mistake on this aspect of cause of the tragedy (that does not explains accurate round holes is the part of cockpit wreckage though). Still the set of old questions remains. But it we assume this was BUK, why nobody saw the dense smoke trail of the rocket in daylight and perfect weather. The dense smoke trail that should still be visible at the moment when the plane was hit and when several thousand eyes were watching the area in notably absent.
The Guardian
A Buk surface-to-air missile downed flight MH17, Dutch investigators have said as they unveiled a reconstruction of the plane that showed huge shrapnel damage to the cockpit and front section.

Tjibbe Joustra, the chairman of the Dutch safety board, said the Malaysia Airlines plane was hit by a 9N314M warhead on 17 July 2014, as it flew at 33,000ft (10,000 metres) above eastern Ukraine. The warhead was fitted to a "9M28 missile" fired from a Russian-built Buk missile system, he confirmed.

Related: MH17 crash report: Dutch investigators confirm Buk missile hit plane - live updates

Speaking in front of the reconstructed plane – pieced together from parts of recovered debris, fitted around a metal skeleton – Joustra said all other scenarios to explain the disaster, which killed all 298 people on board, had been ruled out.

An animated video was shown to journalists at the Gilze-Rijen airbase in the Netherlands, where the plane was part reassembled over three months. It showed the Buk missile exploding on the left-hand side of the cockpit. Thousands of metal objects were ejected, with hundreds then penetrating the plane with tremendous force, Joustra said.

The impact and ensuing pressure drop killed the three pilots instantly, he said. On-board microphones captured the moment of impact – "a sound ping". This allowed investigators to determine the devastating blast occurred on the upper-left hand side of the cockpit.

The damage was starkly visible. The front section of the Boeing 777 below the pilot's port window was perforated with large shrapnel holes. Other parts were relatively unscathed. Five windows in the business class section were visible, together with a door where the passengers entered. The pilot's seats had been remounted in the cockpit – a haunting sight.

The plane's nose was missing, together with much of its upper front half. The colours of Malaysia Airlines – a red, blue stripe – were still visible. Exit holes left by shrapnel could be seen on the other right side; exploding fragments had ripped through the fuselage.

Animation shows Russian Buk missile hit Malaysia Airlines MH17

According to Joustra, the passenger plane broke up mid-air. The cockpit and the floor of the business class tore away almost instantly from the main body and crashed. The rest of the plane continued flying for about five miles in an easterly direction, hitting the ground about a minute to a minuter and a half later. Debris was scattered over 50 sq km.

In a briefing on Tuesday morning to relatives of the victims, which took place in The Hague, Joustra said the passengers on board – two-thirds of whom were Dutch nationals – would have been unconscious within seconds.

The board had previously made clear its findings would not deal with blame and liability; a criminal investigation by the Dutch prosecutor's office is scheduled to conclude in early 2016.

The flightpath of MH17

Joustra said the Buk had been fired from a 320 sq km area of eastern Ukraine, the scene of a conflict between pro-Russia separatists backed by Moscow and Ukrainian government forces. He said "further forensic investigation" would be needed to determine the exact launch site.

The Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia had all carried out their own simulations into the missile's probable trajectory. Russia was the only one of seven countries involved in the report's preparation that dissented from its central conclusions, Joustra said, adding that Moscow believed "it was impossible to determine the type of missile or warhead with any certainty".

It is widely assumed that Russia-backed separatists were responsible for bringing down MH17, but the US has stopped short of blaming Moscow directly. The Kremlin has blamed Kiev – variously suggesting that a Ukrainian military jet shot down the Boeing 777, or that a missile was launched from a government-held area.

The Russian simulation includes areas under Ukrainian government control. The other simulations suggest the Buk was fired from separatist areas. An open source investigation by the website Bellingcat, published last week, tracks the Buk from a Russian military base in Kursk. It was then smuggled across the Ukrainian border.

In Moscow, the makers of Buk missile systems, Almaz-Antey, gave a press conference on Tuesday morning, apparently to distract attention from the Dutch report.

The manufacturer said it had performed two experiments it says prove one of its missiles could not have been launched from areas under pro-Russia separatist control.

The Dutch safety board report, published in English and Dutch, concedes that family members had to wait "an unnecessarily long period of time" for formal confirmation that their loved ones were dead. The Dutch authorities "lacked management and coordination", he said.

The victims came from nine countries, including Malaysia and Australia, and with 10 victims from the UK.

Joustra also said there was a simple, "dispiriting" answer to the question: why was MH17 allowed to fly above eastern Ukraine? It had not occurred to anybody that the airspace was unsafe for civilian jets at cruising altitude, he said. This was despite 60 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters had been downed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in spring 2014.

About 160 civilian planes flew over the area on the day of the disaster. Three were in "close proximity" when the Buk was fired, he said. Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian traffic, he added.

[Oct 12, 2015] MH17 What we know on eve of Dutch Safety Board report

Notable quotes:
"... At the same time Russias Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone? ..."
"... In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems. ..."
"... "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter jet." ..."
"... "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane." ..."
"... a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters – with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask. ..."
Oct 12, 2015 | RT News

[Oct 11, 2015] What Ambulance-Chasing Lawyers Reveal About the MH17 Shoot-Down

Insufficient evidence for prosecution to declare shooting of MH17 a terrorist act..
Notable quotes:
"... The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is refusing to declare a terrorist act. ..."
"... Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'. ..."
"... If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it. ..."
"... It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good enough in a civil jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can say those crafty Russians got away with it. ..."
"... Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out. ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com

Fifteen weeks later, by the time Abbott spoke in November, he had been briefed on the evidence gathered by Australian pathologists and the Victorian State Coroner from the bodies of MH17 victims. No evidence of shrapnel from a Buk missile warhead had been found. For that story, read on.

... ... ...

The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is refusing to declare a terrorist act.

... ... ...

For the Dutch Government's compilation of its official statements on the MH17 crash, open this file. According to van der Goen, none of the investigating countries has legitimate authority to prosecute, "if only because the Netherlands and the other countries mentioned are possible suspects themselves - and they refuse to see this. So the case will be endlessly shelved. Eventually, it will be adopted at a parliamentary inquiry that mistakes were made, but then noone will still be awake. Excellent solution."

Ilargi, October 8, 2015 at 1:53 am

Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'.

Chris Williams, October 8, 2015 at 2:35 am

I don't know how our clever governments (US, Australia, Netherlands, UK etc) are going to get out of this one. Perhaps, as JH suggests, they will continue to defer and prevaricate, keeping their 'evidence'… until know one cares.

If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it.

JTMcPhee, October 8, 2015 at 9:09 pm

For a different and more complete view, one might read here:

America's Flight 17: The time the United States blew up a passenger plane-and tried to cover it up. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html

And here: Sea of Lies, http://alt-f4.org/img/seaoflies.html

Not some "itchy radar operator," it would seem. But the Narrative must be protected…

low_integer, October 9, 2015 at 6:22 am

So the damage to the body would come from the exploding engine. It's so big, spinning so fast, that the energy released is far, far, greater than the warheads. !!!

So, you can't tell either way based on the plane's body. You'd have to have microscopic analysis of the engine components - which would be very challenging and take just about forever.

Obfuscation. The parts in a passenger aircraft's jet engine that are moving, the turbine blades, are made of nickel-based superalloys and I believe they are single 'grain' components, which means they have consistent strength throughout and would be very unlikely to fracture. Also, damage to the fuselage of a passenger jet from turbine blades would be easily identifiable due to their shape and position as the energy of the turbine blades would be dispersed at right angles to the direction of thrust. Lastly, the casing around these blades would, at the very least, absorb a significant amount of this energy.

Are you the guy who replied to one of my posts that Cthulu caused 9/11?

RBHoughton, October 8, 2015 at 9:17 pm

It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good enough in a civil jurisdiction.

Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can say those crafty Russians got away with it.

If not, eastern Ukraine and Russia will score a huge win and we will have even more egg on our faces than usual. Its bad enough that fewer people believe us but its far worse that they begin to prefer Putin's version.

The hopeful thing here is the lawyers. Older readers will recall people used to study law because they respected the concept of a law-based society. It was not just about the money. Some of these vocational lawyers can still be found and it is my hope that they get fully involved in this case. Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out.

Thanks again Naked Capitalism for reporting important news that is neglected by others.

[Oct 11, 2015] Russian maker of missile that destroyed MH17 to explain disaster

ARTEMIVSK, Ukraine - How do you prove you didn't blow up a plane? In Russia, you blow up a plane.

A Russian missile manufacturer said Friday that it had exploded a missile beneath a decommissioned Boeing airliner similar to that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot out of the sky over eastern Ukraine last year, proving the passenger jet was not downed by one of its missiles.

"The company will present the results of a real-time simulation of a Buk missile hitting a passenger jet which we hope will help us understand what exactly caused the July 17, 2014 crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in Ukraine's Donetsk region," Almaz-Antey said in a statement.

The company did not say when the experiment took place or how it was conducted, and it did not immediately reply to Mashable's request for comment. Its report will be released on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the same day a joint international investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board will release its full report into the causes of the downing.

At a press conference in Moscow in June, Almaz-Antey said it was prepared to carry out such an experiment to prove MH17 was downed by an older version of their missile that isn't in service with the Russian military, but is in Ukraine's arsenal.

Company officials at the time did not say whether the aircraft would be in flight during the experiment.

MH17 was downed over the village of Hrabovo, eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpa on July 17, 2014. All 298 passengers and crew on board the jetliner were killed and their remains scattered over the battlefields in war-torn Donetsk region.

Western governments and Kiev have accused Russian-backed separatists of shooting down the passenger jet, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft, with a Buk SA-11 missile provided by Moscow. Their accusations are supported by preliminary evidence gathered by open source sleuths Bellingcat, as well as investigators and Mashable's own investigation.

On Wednesday, Vasyl Vovk, a senior officer of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) who has been involved in the investigation into the downing, told Dutch news site NOS that the fragments found in the aircraft wreckage and in victims' bodies matched pieces from two Buk missiles that investigators examined for comparison.

The Kremlin and separatist leaders have blamed Kiev for the disaster, insisting it was downed either by a Ukrainian Buk missile or a government jet fighter.

While the Dutch report due next week will shine a light on what caused the plane to crash and burn, it will not lay blame.

A separate criminal investigation headed by Dutch detectives and involving investigators from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine is still pending.

Attempts by the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the crime was vetoed by Russia, a permanent member of the council, in July. Moscow has called the move "premature" and decried the Dutch-led investigation as biased.

[Oct 11, 2015] MH17 crash report is set for release, but it is unlikely to offer closure by Luke Harding and Shaun Walker

Please compare Luke Harding and Shaun Walker article with Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Guardian presstitutes failed to ask any of key questions and just play the case on emotional level. And for them, of course Russians are guilty by definition, despite absence of reliable evidence and the court verdict. Doubt is something that never visits those rascals of pen.
Oct 11, 2015 | The Guardian

Technical report on 2014 air disaster in Ukraine will avoid 'blame and culpability' – though its evidence may further bolster argument Russia was involved

The Kremlin's English-language network Russia Today ran a story on Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins describing him as an unqualified "clerk" whose evidence is dubious.

Almaz-Antey, the Russian defence conglomerate that manufactures Buk missile systems, says it will hold its own press conference on Tuesday. The