Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

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

[Jun 14, 2018] Problem with US and British MSM control of narrative

Highly recommended!
Jun 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

PROBLEMS WITH THE NARRATIVE. No conclusive evidence to blame Russia for MH17 says Malaysia Transport Minister ; no evidence that Russia poisoned Skripals says German int source. What does Malaysia know? It's been kept out of the inquiry . As to the Skripals, well the G(7-1) says " no plausible alternative explanation ". (Once you've dug the hole, I guess you have to plausibly live in it.)

[Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

Highly recommended!
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.

Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States.

False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.

The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.

The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.

The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.

Tags: CIA

[Jun 05, 2018] Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17

Notable quotes:
"... We are still unable to get answers to some questions regarding the activities of Ukrainian air forces in that region, at that place and at that time. ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

MH17 (from the transcript Interview with Austrian ORF television channel )

Armin Wolf: One of the most complicated issues with regard to Russia is Ukraine. In 2014, Flight MH17 was shot down in Ukraine, 290 people died. The international investigative commission announced a few days ago that the jet was shot down by a Russian army missile system, that it was a convoy from Russia that had come to the Ukrainian insurgents in eastern Ukraine. There is a video; there are telephone conversations and dozens of eyewitnesses. You have been saying that this is not true for about a year but practically nobody believes your words.

Are you not thereby putting the veracity of Russian statements at stake? Maybe it is time to acknowledge that the insurgents in eastern Ukraine used Russian military equipment to commit that horrendous crime?

Vladimir Putin: I want to note that both sides to the conflict – the Ukrainian army and even Ukrainian volunteer battalions who are accountable to nobody save their commanders, and the Donbass militia, the armed units in Donbass – they all use Soviet and Russian-made weapons. All of them. The two sides have all sorts of systems – both firearms, aviation, and anti-aircraft systems. All of them were made in Russia.

Armin Wolf: But now they know what missile it was: a Buk system missile. It was a Russian army brigade in Kursk. This is known for a fact, yet you still deny it. Would it not be better to admit that the missile had indeed come from Russia? Would it not be better to officially acknowledge that Russia supported the insurgents in the east of Ukraine with weapons?

Vladimir Putin: If you collect all your patience and let me finish, you will find out my view on this issue.

As I said, both sides use Russian-made weapons, and the Russian army has exactly the same systems the experts are talking about, which were certainly manufactured in the former Soviet Union or in Russia. This is number one.

Number two. Russian experts have been denied access to the investigation, our arguments are not taken into consideration, and nobody in the commission is interested in hearing us out. Conversely, the Ukrainian side, which is a party interested in the results of the investigation, has access to it. Meanwhile, it is responsible at least for failing to prohibit civilian aircraft to fly in the conflict zone in violation of ICAO's international norms.

We are still unable to get answers to some questions regarding the activities of Ukrainian air forces in that region, at that place and at that time. The tragedy we are talking about is terrible, and I feel immensely sorry for the victims and their families, but this investigation must be objective and comprehensive.

Just a second, please, do not rush. Let me speak, otherwise we are going to have a monologue on your part instead of an interview.

Armin Wolf: Nevertheless, let me say briefly – yes, we know where the missile came from. But what do Holland, Australia or Malaysia have to gain by blaming Russia if it was not a Russian missile that belonged to the Russian army?

Vladimir Putin: We do not see it that way; we have a different point of view. You now listed countries that allegedly believe that it was a Russian missile and that Russia is implicated in that terrible tragedy. I regret to disappoint you. Quite recently, Malaysian officials declared that they do not see Russia's complicity in that tragic event; they have no proof that Russia is implicated. Are you really not aware of that? Did you not see the statements by Malaysian officials?

What do we think about this issue? If we really want to get to the bottom of things in that horrendous event and reveal all the factors that would allow us to render a final conclusion, all arguments should be taken into account, including the ones offered by Russia. And it would be entirely fair for Russian experts to have access to the investigation.

Armin Wolf: The international investigative commission now claims that they have in fact taken into account all arguments. Many people do not believe Russian arguments because a few years ago in Crimea you said that the famous "green men," the fighters in green uniforms without identifying insignia, were all local self-defense forces. But a little later it was revealed that they were indeed Russian soldiers. After that, you admitted many times that those were Russian army personnel even though you denied that earlier. Why should we believe you now?

Vladimir Putin: Now that you mentioned Crimea. Do you know that in the mid 2000s, right in the vicinity of Crimea, a Russian civilian jet was downed over the Black Sea? It was done by the Ukrainian army during a drill. And the first reaction of the Ukrainian officials was that Ukraine had nothing to do with it. A civilian plane was shot down en route from Israel to Russia. Everyone onboard died, of course. Ukraine flatly denied its involvement in that terrible incident but had to admit it later. And why should we believe Ukrainian officials? So in response to your question about Crimea, I put the ball back in your court.

Armin Wolf : I am not talking about Ukrainian officials, I am talking about you. You said many times in 2014 that you used the Armed Forces in Crimea to block Ukraine's interference. Later you admitted though that the Russian army was in Crimea, something you had denied before.

Vladimir Putin : Russian forces have always been stationed there. Look, I would like you to try to understand what was actually happening there, not just repeat these things mechanically. Russian forces have always been present in Crimea. Our military contingent was there.

One second, please, let me finish. Do you want to fire questions non-stop or hear my answers?

The first thing we did when the events in Ukraine began What kind of events? Let me tell you now, and you will say yes or no. It was an unconstitutional armed coup and seizure of power. Yes or no? Will you tell me?

Armin Wolf : I am not an expert on the Ukrainian Constitution.

Vladimir Putin : You do not have to be an expert on Ukraine; you just need to be an expert on law, on the constitutional law of any country.

Armin Wolf : I would not like to talk about Ukrainian politics, but about Russian politics. Allow me to phrase it differently. What should happen in order for Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin : There are no such conditions and there can never be.

I will tell you why. You interrupted me again, but if you actually let me finish, you would understand what I mean. I will still do it.

When the unconstitutional armed coup took place in Ukraine, and power changed hands by force, our army was legally deployed in Crimea – under the agreement on our military base there. The first thing we did was increase our contingent to guard our Armed Forces, our military facilities, because we immediately saw that they were being threatened. That is where it all began. I told you with confidence that there was no one else there, but our Armed Forces were there legally under an agreement.

Let me finish, for God's sake. ( Speaks German .) Seien Sie so nett, lassen Sie mich etwas sagen. [Please be so kind as to let me say something.]

Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed for. Russian experts "have been denied access to the investigation," said Putin, while Russia's arguments are "not taken into consideration" because nobody "is interested in hearing us out."

Ukraine, meanwhile, has been given access to the probe.

[May 28, 2018] Blockbuster The MH 17 False Flag, One of Many, Published in Russia by Gordon Duff

Sure looks now like a false flag operation. One of the sign of false flag operation is media hysteria immediately after the event. This holds true for MH17 tragedy.
Notable quotes:
"... MH 17 is simply another false flag operation, this one aimed at Russia as have so many recently. Russia's foreign ministry has begun addressing false flag terrorism and the US policy of staging terror attacks to blame on others after years of standing by silently. ..."
May 28, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

By Gordon Duff with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow

...The airliner was being directed on the same path used by SU 25 and SU 27 jets hitting the cities in the Donbass and Lugansk pockets.

The date now is May 25, 2018. BBC and Reuters have just announced that Russia is "liable" for the events of July 17, 2014, based on an investigation no one understands.

Malaysia had asked for an independent investigation but was warned off by the United States, told to keep quiet. I was part of the team Malaysia had sought to investigate the downing of MH 17, along with VT editor, Washington attorney Thomas Mattingly and a group of former FBI agents under ISI Corp.

Instead, the investigation was done by a Dutch group. It is clear, more than clear, that the United States was aware Kiev had down the plane and was leading a coverup, protecting Kiev and planning to use the incident to blame Russia.

Recent events makes this abundantly clear.

Blaming Russia is a way of life in Washington. Let's look at Ukraine and try to understand what was going on at the time.

... ... ...

The Dutch now claim that Russia had "infiltrated" air defense groups into Ukraine and chose to shoot down a Malaysian airliner for no imaginable reason. That motive, "no imaginable reason," should be a problem for both governments and the media, not that I use the term "should."

However, there is evidence, considerable evidence, that MH17 was downed by aircraft. We are going to examine this hypothesis and the reaction to it when it was brought up back in 2014.

.... ... ...

Conclusion

MH 17 is simply another false flag operation, this one aimed at Russia as have so many recently. Russia's foreign ministry has begun addressing false flag terrorism and the US policy of staging terror attacks to blame on others after years of standing by silently.

[May 27, 2018] Russia 'absolutely' rejects Dutch Aussie accusations it's responsible for MH17 downing

Notable quotes:
"... "Of course, without being able to be a full participant, Russia does not know to what extent the results of this work can be trusted," ..."
"... "responsible for its part in the downing of flight MH17" ..."
"... "The [Dutch] government is now taking the next step by formally holding Russia accountable," ..."
May 27, 2018 | www.rt.com

Moscow has rejected any involvement in the crash of flight MH17 in Ukraine after the Netherlands and Australia declared Russia "responsible" for the deployment of a BUK missile system that downed the jet in 2014. Moscow neither accepts nor trusts the results of an international investigation into the MH17 crash as it was not allowed to take part in it, according to the Russian president's spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

"Of course, without being able to be a full participant, Russia does not know to what extent the results of this work can be trusted," he said.

Peskov echoed the position of the Russian president Vladimir Putin who earlier said that, although Ukraine was included in the probe, Russia was barred from participating in establishing the truth.

Asked if he can confirm that Russia vehemently denies any involvement in the MH17 downing, Peskov replied "absolutely."

Earlier on Friday, Amsterdam and Canberra said Russia is "responsible for its part in the downing of flight MH17" following a Thursday press conference of the Dutch-led International Investigation Team (JIT). The latter concluded that a BUK missile system from a Russian 53rd brigade was transported to eastern Ukraine and used to down the passenger plane with more than 300 people onboard. The system was then said to have returned to Russia.

"The [Dutch] government is now taking the next step by formally holding Russia accountable," Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok said in a statement. However, the Russian military earlier said that not a single weapons system crossed the border.

The allegation that the missile belonged to the Russian military had earlier been debunked by the Buk manufacturer, Almaz-Antey. Its real-time experiment showed that the projectile which hit MH17 (Boeing 777) was from an earlier generation and is no longer in service with the Russian military. It was found that the plane was likely shot down using an old 9M38 missile, not the newer type 9M38M1 with distinct butterfly-shaped metal fragments, which were allegedly recovered by the Dutch Safety Board.

Moreover, Almaz-Antey's findings , which analyzed the angle from which the projectiles entered the cockpit of the ill-fated flight, showed that the most probable location of the launch site could be only on Kiev-controlled territory. Untampered Russian radar data provided by Moscow led to similar conclusions.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Ukrainian forces kept around 20 Buk systems, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The military also stressed that Moscow has not supplied any new missiles to Ukraine since then

[May 25, 2018] British Hostage Video Of Yulia Skripal was released on or nearly on the same day as a 'conclusive' report was issued stating a BUK missile launcher belonging to Russia was escorted by Russian military from Russia into Ukraine and used to shoot down Malaysia flight MH 17

May 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Quentin , May 24, 2018 10:58:32 AM | 30

This is all so delicious coming on or nearly on the same day as a 'conclusive' report was issued stating a BUK missile launcher belonging to Russia was escorted by Russian military from Russia into Ukraine and used to shoot down Malaysia flight MH 17. So there take that Russia even though you were not allowed to defend your version of events at the 'fair-and-balanced' international investigation. 'So what are you going to do about it?' Ukraine gets a free pass again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mh17-missile-ukraine-2014-russia-military-netherlands-deaths-investigation-a8366721.html

Coincidentally the World Football Cup begins in Russia in about three weeks. Who can honestly claim the West doesn't have all its ducks/dicks in a perfect row?

Julia Skripal's photo shoot was just embarrassing, so contrived and forced, a PR agency's hack piece.

'The mother and grandmother of Sergei and Julia Skripal aren't allowed to get in touch with them?', you say. 'Now you're really must think I'm stupid. In the West we are FREE.'

[Apr 10, 2018] The photograph of the wing is particularly interesting to me. The impression I get is that the scoring along the wing towards the pilot's cabin seems to be cut by a projectile that is stable in flight and is smooth on its surface.

Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Tidewater , 4 years ago

I don't want to respond to such a fine philosophical essay like a police reporter hack--which I have been-- but I have just discovered that an airlines pilot named Peter Haisenko argues that the Malaysian flight was brought down by cannon fire. In a follow-up to his original blog post he reports that he has taken a look at the whole question of this ground attack plane's capabilities. By 1984 Jane's had evaluated the SU-25 as having a maximum flight altitude of 10,670 meters. All a pilot would need would be oxygen; which brings to mind that at 29,000 feet a climber on Everest can survive with an oxygen bottle. Global Research --which I read cheerfully but with caution-- has picked up on Peter Haisenko and on the Canadian investigator's remarks.

The photograph of the wing is particularly interesting to me. The impression I get is that the scoring along the wing towards the pilot's cabin seems to be cut by a projectile that is stable in flight and is smooth on its surface. I would guess that shrapnel would have left an entirely different marking line. It would cut more erratically and deeply. I have a piece of wood made into a small table that is a vivid reminder of what a projectile--a rifle bullet in this case--will do when the bullet hits one plane on almost exactly the same plane. Leaving an accident which is a little startling to see. My piece of wood is quite beautifully carved by design on most of it and with an ancient patina; it came from an Buddhist stupa in a temple in Burma that was destroyed in WWII, evidentally burned. It took me a while to figure out why that wing photo bothered me.

I think this thing is going to be as big as the JFK assassination.

zanzibar , 4 years ago
David

Thanks for this very thoughtful note!

At the link below Pater Tenebrarum writes that an OSCE monitor notes the evidence of holes on the cockpit which seems like machine gun fire. This fits closely with TTGs note of an Ukrainian fighter trailing MH17. Apparently, there is a theory that the fighter aircraft and a missile launcher on the ground were coordinating to bring down an aircraft that had Putin returning from South America.

http://www.acting-man.com/?p=32159

With respect to the lead up to the Great War, I am glad you bring up Colingwood. I agree with two of his points - one, events spin out of control; two, "..the hard sciences had caused in man's ability to control nature, and the complete absence of any corresponding increase in man's ability to understand and control human affairs." I have noted for some time that while the human being has developed his intellect substantially, he himself has not "evolved" much in the past 5,000 years. There is an immense role that ambition, ego, greed, fear, jealousy, hate and other human traits

[Apr 10, 2018] Boeing angle of MH17 crash

Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet , 4 years ago

Anna-Marina,

My Dad worked for Boeing. I was shocked when I read that they were not sending representatives to the crash investigation. They're the real experts on the 777. As a major stakeholder they know everything the US government knows; maybe more. Either the corporate need to distance itself from the crash overrides their responsibility to help to find the truth and tell the families why their loved ones died and prevent it from occurring again or the US government told them to stay away. This and the muddled information released so far adds to my feeling of unease that the shoot down was a purposeful act in the rush to war with Russia instead of a terrible accident caused by Ukraine allowing commercial flights to fly over a combat zone.

Anna-Marina , 4 years ago
This new article at CounterPunch suggests a new line of explanation for the MH17 tragedy.
"There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pock-marked. It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven't seen anywhere else."
One of the questions that this article posts is why Boeing does not want to investigate the downing of its own plane. Yet the most puzzling part of the story is the US complete lack of cooperation re satellite images of the plane and its demise.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/04/was-malaysia-flight-17-shot-down/

[Apr 10, 2018] Clearly, the US govt is leading this propaganda attack. If the US has evidence LET THEM PRESENT IT. The Russian have presented their evidence for inspection.

Nothing changed for all those years. There is no real progress in the investigation. Dutch proved to bee complete stooges, following the party line. The Idea that Russian somehow got BUK battery (several units of it as it includes a separate radar truck) into very densely populated area of Donbass with a lot of intelligence assets managed to get it back to Russia undetected is still circulating. No visible smoke trail from the rocket is another interesting fact. The fact that Western media instantly started shouting "Russia, Russia" is also undisputable. And that fact the USA hide the evidence is undisputable too. To say nothing about behaviour Ukrainian authorities, who had hidden everything related to the incident with total impunity. Looks more and more like another JFK story.
Notable quotes:
"... Its very, very notable that the incessant drone of accusations coming from these western corporate media outlets are based on 0, none, Nil, No "evidence" at all -only more baseless accusations from the state department and nameless, faceless, "official" cited in corporate media reports, with the same TOTAL lack of substantiation. ..."
"... The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that if indeed elements among the Kiev authorities are responsible, it will be very difficult to suppress the fact. ..."
"... One thing I can be sure of, if there was any evidence supporting a shooot down by a fighter, it will vanish once the CIA and MI6 are through with it. ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

MiKE , 4 years ago

"The Su25 and the shadowy companion plane which Russian claim exist"....

are recorded on Russian military signals evidence (radar tracking). This is not some "he said she said" CNN equivalency. Also, I believe the (increasingly credible) air - air shoot-down hypothesis involving these two (tracked ,recorded, identified) Su25 aircraft, makes the claim that the crime was committed by at least 1 (Su25) firing its 30mm automatic cannons ("machine guns") and NOT a rocket or missile. Somehow you failed to mention that either in your report or in a reply to a comment that brought up the OSCE reps' "machine gun" statement - specifically. Also your constant insistence on characterizing all Russian media as "possibly state controlled" is, I think, a misleading strategy.

Is Russian media "state controlled" ? Is the Russian media that you refer to "state controlled" ? Moreover, after witnessing the staggering, sickening, completely unprofessional US/EU media propaganda storm being unleashed,I have no doubt at all that British and American corporate media are "state controlled". They have done nothing but widely disseminate prepared US state department accusations and PR releases .

Its very, very notable that the incessant drone of accusations coming from these western corporate media outlets are based on 0, none, Nil, No "evidence" at all -only more baseless accusations from the state department and nameless, faceless, "official" cited in corporate media reports, with the same TOTAL lack of substantiation.

Clearly, the US govt is leading this propaganda attack. If the US has evidence LET THEM PRESENT IT. The Russian have presented their evidence for inspection.

az , 4 years ago
Thank you for this excellent post and discussion.

"if indeed elements among the Kiev authorities are responsible, it will be very difficult to suppress the fact."

Here (

Play
David Habakkuk , 4 years ago
Tidewater,

As a sometimes television current affairs 'hack' who benefited enormous from having spent time as a graduate trainee on the Liverpool Echo, and later spent happy hours delving into the underworlds of local politics in London and Birmingham, the last thing I would be stupid enough to do would be to contemptuous of a 'police reporter hack.' A major problem with much of the MSM today is that those producing it are no longer down-to-earth, in the way that old-style newspaper reporters commonly were.

The piece to which 'Ingolf' links below, and also if I recall right an earlier comment he posted, argues that the impression that the patterns of damage match those one would expect from cannon is unfounded. It is also not clear to me whether an Su-25 operating at the limits of its altitude range, could use a cannon effectively (as distinct from a rocket.) That said, at the moment it seems to me sensible not to rule anything out until we have unambiguous evidence.

As to the scale of the furore which may be about to break, I think you could well be right. It may still be that I, and TTG, and others on this blog sceptical about the conventional wisdom about the MH17 affair are barking up the wrong tree. But if we are not, Western governments may have backed themselves into a corner. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that if indeed elements among the Kiev authorities are responsible, it will be very difficult to suppress the fact.

Ingolf , 4 years ago
For those who haven't yet seen it, the Saker has a "detailed expert analysis" of the MH17 downing.

I've only read some of it so far (it's a 25 page PDF report) but it looks useful.

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh17-downing.html

walrus, 4 years ago

I second what VietVet said, I am totally surprised that Boeing would not send a representative to the crash site and be part of the investigative team. This omission smells to high heaven.

Boeing advice would be needed for, among other things, the determination of the point or points of impact of the warhead, the failure modes of the various parts of the structure and the sequence in which they failed.

This information is needed to correlate the debris field with the point of impact of the missile and to determine the ultimate critical issue of the direction from which the missile was travelling when it detonated.

I am already suspicious that this was a Ukranian false flag operation because I believe that initial indications are that the missile may have come from behind the aircraft from Ukrainian territory. Shrapnel evidence suggests that the cockpit and nose took the brunt of the blast. Since the operating principle of the proximity fuze is to detonate at the point of closest approach to the target - identified when the range, as measured by the fuze radar, just starts to open, then the explosion near the front of the plane is consistent with an approach from the rear. If the missile approached from the front - rebel held territory, I would have expected the blast to be towards the rear of the aircraft.

I would hope that someone with more technical knowledge can disprove my speculation.

One thing I can be sure of, if there was any evidence supporting a shooot down by a fighter, it will vanish once the CIA and MI6 are through with it.

[Apr 08, 2018] I would add to your list of possible MH17 culprits several global corporations; the one's I have in mind, cannot be completely identified to a single nation in the world

Apr 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

smellyoilandgas.com , April 5, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT

@Hepp

I think the question of what is best for the world is best left to the 8 million that live in it; humanity should decide on its government every ten years.

The nation state system fosters uncontrolled capitalism. The nation state system is a middle man between the global wealth of a very few and the slave poverty of the mass of 8 billion.. The problem with capitalism is that it is such a powerful system of economics nothing can block its path.

Uncontrolled, capitalism is like the game of monopoly: in that game, payment is due to the capitalist owner at most landing spots on the playing board; unless the party landing on such spot already owns the spot landed on with each turn at play. In the end, the game of monopoly wipes out everyone; it transfers everyone's wealth to but one player, the winner. Everyone else is a broke worthless loser.

Without internationally enforced rules that prevent powerful, large mega monopolies corporations (the public is unable to vote to change the corporate nature or to restructure by voting those Board of Directors who mange the mega-corporation) to reach the size of nation states and to amass the much more capital to burn than most nation states, nothing is going to change. Bottom up insistence that nations write laws to control the mega-capitalist powered, monopoly secured corporations go unheeded because no politicians or group of politicians is strong enough to write laws that the nations can enforce, hence mega corporations are virtually operating in a completely lawless environment { meaning mega corporations can do whatever they want }. There is no nation powerful enough to reel in many very large corporations; those certain few corporations own and enjoy the security from competition that monopolies guarantee in most of the extremely profitable markets in the world.

No one, including Russia and China can expect to survive trying to compete against the masses of capital, the earning capacities and the wealth building power of monopolies. Monopolies rule the nation state law makers , not the other way around. If I were you, I would add to your list of possible MH-17 bashers several global corporations; the one's I have in mind, cannot be completely identified to a single nation in the world because they are so large they own the lawmakers, most of the assets and all of the earning power in many of the nations.
One the 9/11 clouds is the possible corporate involvement.

[Apr 08, 2018] The Netherlands objected most to sanctions, our export to Russia. The 300 deaths changed that literally overnight.

Apr 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , April 4, 2018 at 2:26 pm GMT

There are three possibilities: Rebels shot, our thought they shot, at an Ukrainian bomber, and hit a passenger plane A Ukrainian bomber used the passenger plane as shield, in the expectation that the rebels would not fire A western plane deliberately shot down the plane, possibly a stealth plane.

That the plane was ordered to fly lower by Kiev air control might support the last two possibilities.

In any case, neither the rebels, nor the Russians had any interest in shooting down the plane. The western interest at the time was clear, the Netherlands objected most to sanctions, our export to Russia. The 300 deaths changed that literally overnight.

What never has been explained was the telephone call from prime minister Rutte to vice prime minister Asscher, at the time on holiday on vacation in the south of France.

Rutte phoned Asscher on his mobile, but asked him to call back on a land line 'so that the Russians could not listen in'.

What at the afternoon of the crash was so secret that the Russians were not allowed to hear, I have just the suspicion that Rutte told Asscher that the Russian had to be blamed.

The Dutch investigation, with suspect Ukraine, drags on until now.

... ... ...

[Apr 08, 2018] A person who lost someone in that crash would like to know the truth, rather than "official" US BS.

Apr 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rurik , April 2, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Don't they want to know who killed them?

no, not if you pay them enough money

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh17-compensation-could-hit-1nbspbillion-in-latest-disaster-for-malaysia-airlines/news-story/6b553d929d3de6fba845dfd0ae346562

(just like with 9/11)

http://www.latimes.com/la-110804compensation_lat-story.html

the wreckage of MH17 was obviously riddled with machine gun fire

only Ukraine could have done that

the way the zio-west immediately blamed Putin proved it was all a lie

it was the zio-west that foisted the political strife in Ukraine

it was the zio-west that allowed the Ukraine to have veto power over the "investigation" into the shooting down of MH17

the whole thing is a devil's farce

just like all the other atrocities and war crimes committed in this century by the zio-fiend

AnonFromTN , April 3, 2018 at 12:55 am GMT
@Rurik

You are even more cynical than I am. I have no doubt that the politicians, Dutch, US, Australian, Ukrainian, and all others, are totally amoral and unscrupulous. Naturally, they are all venal. As the US saying goes, "honest politician is the one who, once bought, stays bought".
But I thought that a person who lost someone in that crash would like to know the truth, rather than "official" US BS. It would be sad to think that none of almost 300 people on board had anyone who cared about them more than about money. If I were related to any of the victims, I'd feel vindictive. I'd want to kill whoever is responsible, not whoever the liars found it expedient to blame. And I'd make damn sure I know who planned this provocation and who executed it in cold blood.

[Apr 08, 2018] The conversation (mentioned in this article) between the Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet and EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Apr 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Tom Van Meurs , Website March 31, 2018 at 3:36 am GMT

In my blog 'contraviews' http://www.contraviewing.blogspot.com post 148 you will find a recording of the conversation (mentioned in this article) between the Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet and EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton. Go to the year 2014 in the margin and scroll down to post 148. One may find more interesting articles on MH17.

[Apr 08, 2018] The manipulation and exploitation of the MH17 incident by the Dutch seems to rival that of Skripal incident by the UK

Russian foreign ministry presentation provided sensational new details during ambassador briefing claiming that the USA know about the fact that Boing was short down before Boeing fall on he ground. And deliberately hide satellite information that they have about the incident that establishedd the sequnce of events in this shooting Live Russian MFA summons foreign ambassadors to a meeting on Skripal case -- statement - YouTube
Notable quotes:
"... The Dutch simply accepted that the Ukraine lost all relevant radar data. ..."
Apr 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

JR , March 26, 2018 at 7:18 am GMT

The lengths Dutch Prime Minister publicly went (serving quote 'geopolitical interests') to get the EU-Ukraine association agreement ratified the clear rejection by advisory referendum notwithstanding, ought to make any well informed reader suspicious of how far Rutte went out of public sight to serve those same 'geopolitical interests' by manipulating both the investigation and public opinion in relation to MH17.

Rutte recently demonstrated his fealty to those 'geopolitical interests' again. When asked if new evidence was presented in the Skripal case to justify the Netherlands support for the UK, Rutte answered that 'such evidence wasn't necessary because May had stated that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible'.

The Dutch Government got a UN mandate to perform the investigation and as such that part of the investigation had to be transparent.

Clearly to serve those 'geopolitical interests' the Dutch separated the technical investigation from the legal liability investigation. The technical investigation was performed under the UN mandate and the second legal liability investigation was organized separate from any UN mandate.

The Dutch, Australian, Belgium government colluded with the Ukrainians to organize a 'Joint Investigation Team' which under the cover of performing a legal investigation refuses any transparency and at regular intervals hints that indictments are close but not there yet.

Also the Dutch Transport Safety Board technical investigation has concluded that the UkSATSE should have closed the Air Control area above Eastern Ukraine, but the Dutch government has thus far never taken any action to hold the Ukrainians responsible for that failure even when 3 days before MNH17 a AN-24 was downed from 6500m and UkSATSE (joint civil-military ATC) continued to control some 100 civil air liners a day over that area.

The Dutch simply accepted that the Ukraine lost all relevant radar data.

JR , March 27, 2018 at 6:40 am GMT
Actually this "Who shot down MH17?" is the wrong question.

The question is "Who is liable?".

Shooting down aircraft above a war zone is SOP. If a civilian air liner is guided and controlled over such war area where 3 days earlier an AN-24 has been downed from 6500m one really ought to question the competence and liability of the ATC involved. That ATC authority UkSATSE as a joint civil-military ATC was fully informed about the situation and still continued to guide some 100 civil air liners ad day for three days over that war zone.

Shooting down a civil air liner over a war zone is tragic but not necessarily always a crime. There was no motive for the East Ukrainians, but as shown by the relentless exploitation by the Kiev puppet regime this Kiev regime most definitely had a motive.

Any liability investigation with the Ukrainian secret service as an investigator like in the Dutch/Australian/Ukraine Joint investigation Team simply can't be trusted to even look for the truth. The JIT was set up with the intention of evading the transparency requirements associated with the UN mandated investigation.

CanSpeccy , Website March 29, 2018 at 2:42 am GMT
@JR

Actually this "Who shot down MH17?" is the wrong question.

The question is "Who is liable?".

In which connection, as may already have been noted:

Malaysia Airlines filed a flight plan requesting 35,000 feet through airspace but was told [by Ukrainian air traffic control] to fly at 33,000

AnonFromTN , March 30, 2018 at 6:54 pm GMT
Thinking people smelled a rat in the case of MH17 straight off. No sensible person can fail to smell it now. Just a few considerations:

1. Donbass freedom fighters (and, by extension, Russia) were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation.

2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. The only logical conclusion is that the perpetrators were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.

3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid that it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it.

4. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and one of the suspects, Ukraine, signed a non-disclosure agreement. It makes no sense unless one or more of the signatories is guilty.

5. The "investigation" is going on for four years, longer than any investigation in the history of civil aviation. The experience shows that a lot less time is needed to uncover the truth. Thus, the length of this "investigation" shows that the real purpose is cover-up.

6. Ukraine never provided the records of pilots' communications with air traffic controllers, or any other air traffic control records. Thus, it must have had something to hide.

One can continue in this vein, but what's the point? Suffice it to say that all international airlines drew their conclusions: they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like they avoid Iranian and North Korean airspace. Sapienti sat.

JR says: March 31, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
@AnonFromTN

Thinking people smelled a rat in the case of MH17 straight off. No sensible person can fail to smell it now. Just a few considerations:
1. Donbass freedom fighters (and, by extension, Russia) were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation.
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. The only logical conclusion is that the perpetrators were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid that it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it.
4. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and one of the suspects, Ukraine, signed a non-disclosure agreement. It makes no sense unless one or more of the signatories is guilty.
5. The "investigation" is going on for four years, longer than any investigation in the history of civil aviation. The experience shows that a lot less time is needed to uncover the truth. Thus, the length of this "investigation" shows that the real purpose is cover-up.
6. Ukraine never provided the records of pilots' communications with air traffic controllers, or any other air traffic control records. Thus, it must have had something to hide.
One can continue in this vein, but what's the point? Suffice it to say that all international airlines drew their conclusions: they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like they avoid Iranian and North Korean airspace. Sapienti sat.

See my comment nr 230: There is not one investigation. The Dutch manipulated this into two separate investigations. There was a technical UN mandated transparent Dutch Safety Board investigation. The Dutch organized a second criminal investigation together with Australia, Belgium and the Ukraine and instigated A Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2017/07/05/jit-countries-choose-the-netherlands-for-mh17-crash-prosecution

The manipulation and exploitation of the MH17 incident by the Dutch seems to rival that of Skripal incident by the UK.

https://www.government.nl/search?keyword=mh17

Rurik, April 2, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT • 100 Words
@AnonFromTN

Yes. I can understand the Dutch government: they serve the US overlords first and foremost. They don't give a hoot about the lives of ordinary Dutch people. What I do not understand is the behavior of the people who lost loved ones in MH17 crash. Don't they want to know who killed them? Don't they object to being grist for the mill of amoral and cynical politicians?

Don't they want to know who killed them?

no, not if you pay them enough money

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh17-compensation-could-hit-1nbspbillion-in-latest-disaster-for-malaysia-airlines/news-story/6b553d929d3de6fba845dfd0ae346562

(just like with 9/11)

http://www.latimes.com/la-110804compensation_lat-story.html

the wreckage of MH17 was obviously riddled with machine gun fire

peterAUS , April 3, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Well, actually I believe that those points do not contradict my theory.
You:

1. Donbass freedom fighters were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation

Me:
1. Donbass freedom fighters were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled down. They saw, on their monitors, what happened.
You:
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. If they could prove that Donbass freedom fighters were the perpetrators, these pictures would have been publicized by the US more than any Hollywood movie. My conclusion is that the perpetrators were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.
Me:
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. They could've pointed to actual surveillance capabilities of the US, either way.
You:
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid that it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it
Me:
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. The investigation was supposed to be as impartial as possible. Interested parties were kept out as much as possible.
Etc .

No need to keep see-sawing this. Being done plenty of times before and it is being done, as we speak, all over Internet.

You believe what you will; I do the same.

Moving on.

AnonFromTN , April 3, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Laughable arguments.

1. If anyone on the US/Ukraine side saw on their screens anything that could place the blame on Donbass freedom fighters and/or Russia, they would have presented their evidence straight away. The US and its vassals (e.g., UK) go into lengthy hysterics even when they have no evidence whatsoever (US elections in 2016, Skripal affair, etc).

2. The US was so eager to hide its surveillance capabilities that Kerry blabbered about it from the get go. Then presented zilch. Very believable.

3. If Malaysia was excluded to make the investigation impartial, than Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, and UK should have been excluded, as well. The investigation should have been conducted by a party who has no stake in the matter. Instead, it is conducted by one of the prime suspects and countries who lost citizens in that crash. For four years! With non-disclosure agreement, to boot. Inspires lots of confidence.

I am sure your responses to the rest would be just as "convincing".

expat47 , April 7, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT

Why on earth would Russia gain anything from shooting down the plane? Western sanctions assault on the Russian Federation had been ongoing for some time before this incident. The US is willing to kill its own people, ala 9/11. The deep state is malicious and dangerous and it is the alt internet that makes our use of same to glean information that we would never to see in the MSM. The US has been trying to provoke Russia into a war and Putin hasn't taken the bait. The senseless idiots in the west don't seem to realise that Russian nuclear weaponry is supperia to our own and life on earth would surely end; except for the wealthy elites who run our country who would be safe in our D.U.M.B's

[Apr 04, 2018] Russian aviation experts: Israeli-made Python air-to-air missile (fired from Israeli-upgraded Su-25 Scorpion) may have downed MH17

Apr 04, 2018 | russia-insider.com

AM Hants Bad boy!! Otto!! 15 hours ago ,

Have you seen this. Off topic, but, might interest you. How fast does a BUK fly? How fast does a python fly?

Missile Allegedly Used to Down MH17 Invisible Due to Speed – Dutch Prosecutors... https://sputniknews.com/eur...

Bad boy!! Otto!! AM Hants 14 hours ago ,

No clue how fast a BUK flies.....As for snakes, I can´t recall any that have developed the ability to fly, and I´m certain Pythons haven´t. I`m not saying they don´t, but I just never come across one that does....I´ll look into it.

Hmm an invisible BUK missile. Well it could be....There is yet anyone to come forward that has seen it taking off. Not a single person......No sound......No contrail......Nothing.....No surprises it wasn´t seen by radar. It wasn´t there.

AM Hants Bad boy!! Otto!! 13 hours ago ,

Here is a flying python.

Russian aviation experts: 'Israeli-made Python air-to-air missile (fired from Israeli-upgraded Su-25 Scorpion) may have downed MH17'... https://www.sott.net/articl...

Govert AM Hants 4 hours ago ,

Going off-topic, your hobby, isn't it, Anne-Marie? Anyway, as your quoted sputnik article writes:

"However, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey, which developed the Buk missile system, has rejected these findings, saying that three simulations showed that the missile was launched from the Zaroshchenske area, which was controlled by Ukraine's army at the time of the downing"

Clearly the (their, A-A's) discussion is not what type of missile system. They (or rather their bosses) only want the missile to have been launched from "Ukraine's army controlled" area. Why do you want to keep the fantasies and lies alive? Btw, here is the official news release: https://www.om.nl/actueel/n... Link to a more detailed report near the bottom.

Bad boy!! Otto!! Govert 3 hours ago ,

LMAO...How did I know I´d find you here trolling AM?

Anyway AA has always said IF it was a BUK missile, and as no Russian officials in any capacity has been allowed near the wreckage in the hands of the lying war criminal dutch government, It would be impossible for them to make a conclusive analysis.

Btw, We are familiar with your "reports"....Not worth the paper they are written on.

And finally banderite, as this case has yet to see the inside of a court of Law, it is all bullshit till it does.

Any dates for that court hearing yet?...And I do mean an open and transparent court hearing and not some kangaroo court favoured by the Brits when they "tried" the Litvenko case.

Govert Bad boy!! Otto!! an hour ago ,

"Banderite"? What or who is a "banderite"?

So A-A - that has co-operated with the DSB in their investigation into what downed the MH17- did an expensive research on their own, doing experiments, writing a report, giving presentations, came to their conclusions about the type of BUK and the launch location, and then would say "IF it was a BUK". Ha ha ha, now that is a ridiculous conditional statement! Only fools believe that. "If it was a BUK"... LMAO... It was a BUK, cockroach, and it came from Russia in the night before, with a Russian crew. They fired at what they thought to be a Ukrainian military aircraft and killed almost 300 innocent people, almost 200 from my country. IF the "case will not see the inside of a court of Law", it is due to the obstructions and the protection that these cowards get from your paradise that has already vetoed a UN tribunal and announced that it will not hand over any suspects, cockroach.

Bad boy!! Otto!! Govert an hour ago ,

That´s more like it banderite...I do like a bit of a spirited debate.

However...:-( it does seem to be the case you have spent more time concentrating on calling me a "cockroach" than concentrating on what this debate is about....I did tell you many times you aren´t terribly bright, and as such I would suggest you concentrate on giving more thought to the question in hand rather than thinking of childish insults in order to get some sort of angry response from me...ain´t gonna happen banderite...you are nowhere near clever enough.

Any how banderite poofter...the main thrust of my argument, was the fact, no Russian official in any capacity was allowed anywhere near the wreckage in the possession of the lying war criminal dutch government to make an accurate analysis of what may have brought the aeroplane down.

Can you confirm this is the case? And try not to obfuscate...You will not be able to throw me off the scent. Oh, btw....How is russie russie?...Poor sod got banned the other day. :-(
LMAO!!!!
Didn´t slavko get banned as well?
Holy crap...we´re running out of trolls.

Govert Bad boy!! Otto!! 7 minutes ago ,

I would suggest you concentrate on giving more thought to the question in hand rather than thinking of childish insults You took the words right out of my mouth.... thanks, cockroach.

Russian officials? LMAO. Wasn't the area where the plane crashed controlled by "separatists" and vacationers? To whom did these bell boys want to hand over the "black boxes" initially? What were these bell boys doing with - and near the pieces of wreckage in those first days?

Again, no idea what or who a "banderite" is, nor what or who a "russie russie" is, but looking at the definition of what is seen as a "cockroach" here, you are exactly that, a cowardly cockroach even. However... it does seem to be the case you have spent more time concentrating on discussing banned commenters than concentrating on what this debate is about. (What happened to "Otto310" by the way?) Thanks.

Bad boy!! Otto!! AM Hants 6 hours ago ,

ahhh, that sort of Python. I do so apologise, I must admit to feeling a little wary last night.It had been a long day. I thought you mean´t the wriggly hissing type of Python.
Well, it is now a new day, and feeling refreshed and ready for a this new day after a good nights sleep, I am now a little more compis mentis than last night.
I have seen that report.To me there is a flaw. It does not mention bullet holes, and there are definitely some holes in the aircraft that are perfectly round, depending from which angle the bullets were fired from, which could not have come from a BUK.
There are two reports that corroborate the other.
This one is probably the first to go against the official line, by Peter Haisenko.
https://www.anderweltonline...
and then there is this one.
https://cassad-eng.livejour...
Both are very good and seem to make a lot of sense.

Btw, normally I would be bidding you a good night.
But not now...So...Good morning AM!

[Apr 02, 2018] I think the Kiev side had been directing airliners across the war zone along the path of planned bombing runs to allow Ukraine military jets to fly the same course *below* the airliner and use the airliner's much bigger radar signature (huge compared to a military jet) as protection i.e. if a missile was fired and missed it might lock on to the airliner instead.

Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon Disclaimer , January 5, 2015 at 10:57 am GMT

The Ukraine military shot down another airliner some years before when a missile aimed at a training drone missed and locked on to the airliner.

I think the Kiev side had been directing airliners across the war zone along the path of planned bombing runs to allow Ukraine military jets to fly the same course *below* the airliner and use the airliner's much bigger radar signature (huge compared to a military jet) as protection i.e. if a missile was fired and missed it might lock on to the airliner instead.

I don't think the US side wants to admit their allies were using airliners as human shields and the Russians don't want to admit their surface to air missiles ignore civilian IFF (as they must in a war zone) hence why both side's stories feel unconvincing.

Apart from the politics it's important because if missiles treat civilian IFF as foe then it means airliners need to be kept a very long way from any mid-tech war zone.

Jonathan Revusky , December 6, 2014 at 7:42 am GMT
@AlMiller

The parallels are pretty clear. In the case of both 9/11 and this Malaysian airliner, the western mainstream media had their story ready to go as soon as it happened. And then when all the evidence starts accumulating that this story is untrue, cannot possibly be true, they simply ignore all of it. In fact anybody who brings it up is immediately tarred as a "conspiracy theorist".

That's what about it. (Shrug)

[Apr 02, 2018] The Kiev regime had no need to put anti-aircraft batteries in the area at all, but they did!

Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

MarkU , February 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Anonymous

Re: "The Ukraine would have no need to shoot AA missiles since so called Rebels had no air force at the time "

The Kiev regime had no need to put anti-aircraft batteries in the area at all, but they did!

Please everybody, get real.

Its been months since the shooting down of MH 17 and despite all the accusations made by the US government and the Kiev regime at the time, not one single piece of credible evidence has been produced. Obviously the information is being suppressed, and even more obviously it is not being withheld to protect the rebels or the Russians.

Captain John Charity Spring MA , February 8, 2015 at 10:56 pm GMT
Alternative theory.

MH17 was downed near Soledar and Artimovsk.

Under Artimovsk there is a gigantic weapons cache. Is it possible that the plane was downed so that Western investigators could look into an inventory of that site and assess what the Separatists removed from said weapons dump? Chemical, Nuclear, Biological weapons stocks?

The HQ for the crash site investigation was set up in Soledar which is a very close to the Salt Mine cave entrance.

The passengers were just collateral damage in the contest over weapons stocks.

[Apr 02, 2018] Malaysia has been cut out of the investigation, why? For refusing to prejudge the outcome?

Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ronald Thomas West , Website November 29, 2014 at 12:42 pm GMT

Malaysia has been cut out of the investigation, why? For refusing to prejudge the outcome?

http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/28/mh17-malaysia-s-barring-from-investigation-reeks-of-cover-up/

[Apr 02, 2018] Yet another theory of SU-25 role in shooing

Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sure Thing , March 7, 2015 at 3:48 am GMT

And here is an assessment of the non-surface-to-air-BUK (or 'red herring') theory, going with the pics and reports of two fighter jets -Ukrainian – seen on each side of MH-17 :

Ray B. March 07, 2015
Here is my analysis, from an ex-Boeing aero engineer standpoint:
The Boeing 777 was initially at 33,000 feet. The aircraft, therefore, was above the Su-25's ceiling, as listed at wikipedia. (Service ceiling: 7,000 m (22,965 ft) clean,
5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons) I am aware of the Comments both that this is an artificial, CIA-changed figure and that Su-25 pilots have reached at least 30,000 feet with supplemental oxygen. For the purpose here, it does not matter. I am presuming the Su-25 was carrying only two R-60 air-to-air missiles, which are low drag. So, the service ceiling in this case would have been around 21-22,000 feet. (The upgrades to the Su-25 did not include engine or aerodynamic changes, so are unlikely to have increased the ceiling.) The 777 was well within reach of the R-60s, though (66,000 ft, Mach 2.7). As a non-maneuvering, transport aircraft, it would have been laughably easy to hit. I would have salvoed both missiles, both for increased hit-chance and to avoid coming back with only one missile (very noticeable, as opposed to just empty pylons). The above would tie-in with ret. Col Zhilin's testimony. Most reports indicate the accompanying-fighter was closing from the rear, which is the most advantageous for infrared guidance. With infrared guidance, the missile would home-in directly on the hottest area – the engine exhaust. The warhead would probably detonate in the exhaust cone or adjacent to it. In the Boeing 777, the engine is slung well out in front of the wing. The expanding-rod warhead would rip up the engine but probably not take out the wing or flight control cabling. The 'hit' (or hits) might indeed be survivable. Today's jet engines are built with FAA-mandated 'containment shields'.

They are meant to contain high-velocity fan/compressor/turbine blades if something causes them to shear off. They are basically armored 'cans' surrounding the rotating

parts. A missile detonating inside this 'can' might have the expanding-rods contained, rather than punching through the nacelle and into the fuselage. If detonating on the far side of the 'can' from the fuselage, much the same result Also, Zhilin says, " the Boeing turned 180 degrees to the left." This would be the direct result of losing thrust on the left engine. The pilots were probably more concerned with staying in the air (under control) than their heading http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/
commercial/startup/pdf/777_perf.pdf "Engine-out altitude capability (MTOW, ISA + 10°C) Basic: 16,200 ft Maximum Weight: 15,600 ft" After the 777's engine was hit and disabled by the R-60, the 777 would have descended to around 15-16,000 feet. That is the standard one-engine-out 'cruise' altitude as above. It may have been lower with the damage.

If I were the pilot, I would have been on a circling descent through and below that altitude, looking for a nearby airport or good field. Since the R-60 has
such a small warhead, the pilots may not even have known they were hit by a missile and assumed a simple engine-out problem. That could account for the lack of initial reporting.

This descent would have put the 777 well within the Su-25's (wikipedia) altitude capability. So, it would have been possible at that point to conduct a 'strafing' run with the 30mm cannon. With the 777 turning, that may have presented the opportunity for whatever angle shot the fighter pilot wanted. As various Commenters have noted, there seems to have been a concentration on the cockpit and avionics bay. (Grrr.)

Unfortunately, with the 'secrecy agreement' in place, I see no way that any important evidence will be revealed, barring a Snowden-like mass-release by someone with a Conscience
Reply

Am off to Asia Times with this too.

[Apr 02, 2018] BUK missle smooketrail is demonstratively absent

Notable quotes:
"... One of the most salient points I find, is the fact that no vapour trail had been observed or photographed from the ground. A vapour condensation trail remains visible for quite some time and is visible for I would think at least 15 minutes. ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Contraviews , Website October 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm GMT

@Contraviews
Someone may already have commented on it, but it's impossible to read all the comments.

One of the most salient points I find, is the fact that no vapour trail had been observed or photographed from the ground. A vapour condensation trail remains visible for quite some time and is visible for I would think at least 15 minutes.

Surely in this day and age when virtually everyone carries a cell phone capable of making pictures, such evidence should be available. But apparently there is not.

As a test it would be interesting if Russia would in front of the international press test fire a BUK missile.

I would very much appreciate comments on this particular aspect of the catastrophe. Thank you in anticipation.

The JIT in its 29/9 report showed a picture of a smoke trail. If that had been the smoke trail of the BUK that alledgedly shot down MH 17 than that picture would without a shadow of doubt been splashed over al the western media within hours. Hundreds may by thousands would have seen it and scores of pictures and videos would have been taken. The very fact that JIT now comes up with a smoke trail (which could have been taken any where) proves that it is a fake. If that is a fake all the other pictures are most likely fakes. Mr Eliot Higgins should have done better.

Ronald Thomas West , Website June 3, 2015 at 11:13 am GMT
Russia states they have a Ukrainian witness backing the SU 25 combat jet shoot-down of MH 17

http://rt.com/news/264545-mh17-investigators-key-witness/

Sure Thing , March 12, 2015 at 11:29 pm GMT
Still think it was a BUK? Think again.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-malaysian-airlines-mh17-boeing-was-shot-down-examination-of-the-wreckage/5435094

[Apr 02, 2018] The manipulation and exploitation of the MH17 incident by the Dutch seems to rival that of Skripal incident by the UK

Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ronald Thomas West , Website November 27, 2016 at 1:24 pm GMT

Despite the Dutch whitewash (report) which could only be called the 'likely' & 'probably' 'we love to point any finger at Putin report', material at odds with the western line continues to come out:

https://southfront.org/mh17-ukraine-plane-crash-additional-details-revealed-exclusive-photos-from-the-scene/

Ronald Thomas West , Website January 30, 2017 at 10:10 am GMT
The Dutch investigators "can't decipher" the radar data provided by the Russians. As well, Dutch police have confiscated from journalists raw footage of new witness interviews that will no doubt be shared with Ukraine as a party to the investigation, endangering those persons who provided the information on condition of confidentiality:

https://www.rt.com/news/375556-mh17-radar-investigation-decipher/

Ronald Thomas West , Website December 28, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT
Leaked documents from the government at Kiev on the MH 17 shoot down by Ukrainian jet fighter:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/leaked-documents-ukrainian-air-forces-shot-down-mh17-confirms-conspiracy-and-guilt.497767/

Ronald Thomas West , Website March 19, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
Man identified as pilot who shot down MH 17 'commits suicide'

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803191062694528-voloshin-mh17-suspected-suicide/

^

JR , March 26, 2018 at 7:18 am GMT
The lengths Dutch Prime Minister publicly went (serving quote 'geopolitical interests') to get the EU-Ukraine association agreement ratified the clear rejection by advisory referendum notwithstanding, ought to make any well informed reader suspicious of how far Rutte went out of public sight to serve those same 'geopolitical interests' by manipulating both the investigation and public opinion in relation to MH17.

Rutte recently demonstrated his fealty to those 'geopolitical interests' again. When asked if new evidence was presented in the Skripal case to justify the Netherlands support for the UK, Rutte answered that 'such evidence wasn't necessary because May had stated that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible'.

The Dutch Government got a UN mandate to perform the investigation and as such that part of the investigation had to be transparent.

Clearly to serve those 'geopolitical interests' the Dutch separated the technical investigation from the legal liability investigation. The technical investigation was performed under the UN mandate and the second legal liability investigation was organized separate from any UN mandate.

The Dutch, Australian, Belgium government colluded with the Ukrainians to organize a 'Joint Investigation Team' which under the cover of performing a legal investigation refuses any transparency and at regular intervals hints that indictments are close but not there yet.

Also the Dutch Transport Safety Board technical investigation has concluded that the UkSATSE should have closed the Air Control area above Eastern Ukraine, but the Dutch government has thus far never taken any action to hold the Ukrainians responsible for that failure even when 3 days before MNH17 a AN-24 was downed from 6500m and UkSATSE (joint civil-military ATC) continued to control some 100 civil air liners a day over that area. The Dutch simply accepted that the Ukraine lost all relevant radar data.

JR , March 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
@anon

http://uksatse.ua/index.php?s=94a63ae71adf1e881cd1901e2276a734&act=Part&CODE=247&id=272&lang=en

News
4th June 2014
UkSATSE ensures safety in Ukrainian sky under any conditions
Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise (UkSATSE) informs that the enterprise keeps on providing the whole range of air navigation services. It ensures flight safety in the airspace of Ukraine, airdromes of Ukraine and in the international airspace over the high seas at the relevant level. Moreover, UkSATSE ensures trouble-free operation of branches of Joint Civil-Military System of Air Traffic Management of Ukraine irrespective of foreign interference in work of air traffic services bodies in Crimea and at the East of Ukraine.

JR , March 27, 2018 at 6:40 am GMT
Actually this "Who shot down MH17?" is the wrong question.

The question is "Who is liable?".

Shooting down aircraft above a war zone is SOP. If a civilian air liner is guided and controlled over such war area where 3 days earlier an AN-24 has been downed from 6500m one really ought to question the competence and liability of the ATC involved. That ATC authority UkSATSE as a joint civil-military ATC was fully informed about the situation and still continued to guide some 100 civil air liners ad day for three days over that war zone.

Shooting down a civil air liner over a war zone is tragic but not necessarily always a crime. There was no motive for the East Ukrainians, but as shown by the relentless exploitation by the Kiev puppet regime this Kiev regime most definitely had a motive.

Any liability investigation with the Ukrainian secret service as an investigator like in the Dutch/Australian/Ukraine Joint investigation Team simply can't be trusted to even look for the truth. The JIT was set up with the intention of evading the transparency requirements associated with the UN mandated investigation.

CanSpeccy , Website March 29, 2018 at 2:42 am GMT
@JR

Actually this "Who shot down MH17?" is the wrong question.

The question is "Who is liable?".

In which connection, as may already have been noted:

Malaysia Airlines filed a flight plan requesting 35,000 feet through airspace but was told [by Ukrainian air traffic control] to fly at 33,000

AnonFromTN , March 30, 2018 at 6:54 pm GMT
Thinking people smelled a rat in the case of MH17 straight off. No sensible person can fail to smell it now. Just a few considerations:
1. Donbass freedom fighters (and, by extension, Russia) were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation.
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. The only logical conclusion is that the perpetrators were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid that it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it.
4. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and one of the suspects, Ukraine, signed a non-disclosure agreement. It makes no sense unless one or more of the signatories is guilty.
5. The "investigation" is going on for four years, longer than any investigation in the history of civil aviation. The experience shows that a lot less time is needed to uncover the truth. Thus, the length of this "investigation" shows that the real purpose is cover-up.
6. Ukraine never provided the records of pilots' communications with air traffic controllers, or any other air traffic control records. Thus, it must have had something to hide.
One can continue in this vein, but what's the point? Suffice it to say that all international airlines drew their conclusions: they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like they avoid Iranian and North Korean airspace. Sapienti sat.
Tom Van Meurs , Website March 31, 2018 at 3:36 am GMT
In my blog 'contraviews' http://www.contraviewing.blogspot.com post 148 you will find a recording of the conversation (mentioned in this article) between the Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet and EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton. Go to the year 2014 in the margin and scroll down to post 148. One may find more interesting articles on MH17.
JR , March 31, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

See my comment nr 230: There is not one investigation. The Dutch manipulated this into two separate investigations. There was a technical UN mandated transparent Dutch Safety Board investigation. The Dutch organized a second criminal investigation together with Australia, Belgium and the Ukraine and instigated A Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2017/07/05/jit-countries-choose-the-netherlands-for-mh17-crash-prosecution

The manipulation and exploitation of the MH17 incident by the Dutch seems to rival that of Skripal incident by the UK.

https://www.government.nl/search?keyword=mh17

AnonFromTN , March 31, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@JR

Yes. I can understand the Dutch government: they serve the US overlords first and foremost. They don't give a hoot about the lives of ordinary Dutch people. What I do not understand is the behavior of the people who lost loved ones in MH17 crash. Don't they want to know who killed them? Don't they object to being grist for the mill of amoral and cynical politicians?

[Apr 02, 2018] Who Shot Down Flight MH17 in Ukraine by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Huffington Post ..."
Aug 14, 2014 | www.unz.com

Ukraine?

237 Comments Reply

Last year I published Our American Pravda , making the case for the utter corruption and unreliability of the mainstream American media, both in the past and especially in recent years. The enormous lacunae I daily noticed in the pages of The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and other leading media outlets were a major motivation behind my creation of The Review , whose readership has grown enormously in recent weeks.

A perfect example of this dangerous MSM "conspiracy of silence" may be found in the growing confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, greatly accelerated by the death of almost 300 passengers aboard Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, shot down last month over Eastern Ukraine. The American media and its Western counterparts have almost unanimously placed the blame on anti-government rebels backed by Russia, and darkly insinuate that Russian President Vladimir Putin has the blood of those hundreds of innocent lives on his hands. London's once-respected Economist magazine has repeatedly run shrill covers promoting the great threat of Putin and Russia to world peace, even featuring a photo of the former under the stark title "A Web of Lies." There is the serious likelihood of a renewed Cold War against Russia and with the neoconized Republicans in Congress proposing legislation to incorporate Ukraine as an American military ally and deploy American forces there, the actual possibility of a military clash near the Russian border.

As readers know, I have been overwhelmingly consumed with my own software work in recent months and aside from closely reading the NYT and WSJ every morning, have devoted little time or effort to following the disastrous Ukraine situation. But just carefully reading between the lines of our elite MSM outlets and glancing at a few contrary perspectives presented on alternative websites have left me highly suspicious of our media narrative, leading me to wonder where the finger of guilt actually points.

For example, according to the official American story, MH17 was downed by rebels armed with a BUK anti-aircraft missile battery. As it happens, the pro-American Ukraine government possesses a large inventory of exactly those weapons, while it is far from clear that the rebels have a single unit, let alone the expertise to operate such sophisticated devices. Furthermore, there apparently exists radar evidence demonstrating that Ukraine fighter planes were in the immediate vicinity of MH17 just before it was shot down and there are firsthand reports from investigators on the ground that portions of the crashed fuselage showed strong evidence of having been hit the sort of heavy machine-gun fire employed in air combat. I find it extremely suspicious that the American government has repeatedly refused to release the evidence supporting its narrative, while the Russian government has released copious evidence supporting its contrary perspective.

We must bear in mind that the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the hundreds of mostly European passengers came as a fortuitous stroke of fortune for the embattled Kiev government and its neoconservative American backers, given that Germany and most of the other major European governments had just balked at approving the harsh anti-Russian economic sanctions being proposed by the White House. Cui bono ?

Furthermore, this terrible suspicion that 300 innocent lives may have been sacrificed in a ghastly false-flag operation by an American-supported government is somewhat buttressed by earlier events. Consider that the overthrow of the democratically-elected and neutralist Ukrainian government was sparked by the massive bloodshed that erupted between riot police and pro-American demonstrators in the Kievan capital, as many hundreds on both sides were suddenly killed or wounded by an outbreak of heavy gunfire over a couple of nights. I found it very intriguing that soon afterward an intercepted telephone call between the pro-Western foreign minister of Estonia and European High Commissioner Catherine Ashton, later confirmed to be genuine, revealed that the bullets found in the bodies of both government police and anti-government demonstrators had apparently come from the same guns. The most plausible explanation of this strange detail is that the snipers responsible were professionals brought in to cause the massive bloodshed necessary to overthrow the government, which is exactly what soon followed. Again cui bono ?

Am I certain about these facts, let alone the analysis built upon them? Absolutely not! As emphasized, I've been entirely preoccupied with other matters over the last few months. But if such obvious suspicions are apparent to someone who occasionally glances at the news reports out of the corner of his mind's eye, the total silence of the American media and its huge corps of full-time professional journalists constitutes a very telling indictment. Personally, I think there's a high likelihood that forces aligned with current pro-Western regime were responsible for the massacre in Kiev's Maidan Square and a better than fifty-fifty chance they more recently shot down MH17, but I really can't be sure about either of these things. However, I am absolutely 100% certain that the American MSM has been revealed as a totally worthless source of information on these crucial world events, although it can be relied upon to provide every last detail of Robin Williams' troubled life or the endless foibles of the Kardashians.

In the interests of providing our readers at least some access to alternate accounts of why we may now be heading into a new Cold War against Russia -- or even a hot one -- I've recently republished a couple of Mike Whitney's fine Counterpunch columns on the mysteries of Flight MH17 , which cautiously raised questions rather than claimed to answer them, as well as those of the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts.

Aside from attracting considerable debate from our website's often "excitable" commenters, whose views range from the sensible to the deranged, our Whitney columns regarding MH17 had a far more important consequence. One of our left-liberal readers was shocked to read facts totally absent from the pages of The Nation , the Huffington Post , or any of the other left-liberal sites she visits. Out of curiosity, she contacted a very prominent left-liberal American academic, someone with special expertise in exactly that area of Europe. To her considerable surprise, he largely confirmed the outlandish "conspiracy theory," saying that the evidence increasingly indicated that the American-backed Kiev government had shot down Flight MH17, either accidentally or otherwise.

Based on his remarks, it sounded like he and his friends had devoted 100x the time and effort that I had to investigating the incident, thereby reassuring me that my casual conclusions were at least not wholly ridiculous. Yet it also appeared that neither he or any of the other American experts in his circle who apparently share his views had seen fit to publish their opinions in any of the numerous media outlets to which they have easy access, presumably for fear of being denounced and stigmatized as "conspiracy nuts." They may regard the possibility of an American military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia as a terrible danger, but it pales compared to the horrifying risk that the 22-year-old bookers at MSNBC chat shows might decide to put a black mark down next to their names.

The following day I lamented this cowardice of our intelligentsia to another prominent liberal academic with whom I'm friendly, and he immediately sent me the draft by a friend of his on that very topic that I am now greatly honored to publish. Most of the dead on MH17 were Dutch citizens and Karel van Wolferen ranks as one of the world's most prominent Dutch journalists, winner of major awards and someone whose numerous books that have sold well over a million copies worldwide. His article describes the evidence regarding MH17, but more importantly focuses on the totally corrupted worlds of journalism and politics that have enabled this dangerous situation to develop.

I urge everyone to read van Wolferen's long and thoughtful piece and ask themselves why such basic facts and simple analysis appear nowhere within the mainstream American media. Given his standing and his credibility, the New York Times should have long since featured his byline on a major opinion piece, and the absence constitutes powerful evidence. During our disastrous Iraq War the American media applied exactly the same boycott to the views of my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for President Ronald Reagan and ranked as one of Washington's leading experts on national security issues. Our totally incompetent ruling elites refuse to let discordant voices puncture their bubble of unreality.

For those readers who refuse to admit the possibility that our vaunted MSM might conceal such vital facts, consider the important point I made at the beginning of my 2013 article . In recent years, leading scholars have conclusively established that for a decade or two during the 1930s and 1940s, a small network of Communist spies quietly gained substantial control of our national government in Washington, DC, successfully diverting the actions of the United States to their own nefarious ends. If our mainstream media had failed to notice or report that situation at the time and then spent the next half century ridiculing anyone who suggested this possibility, why should anyone believe that the media can be trusted on the question of who actually shot down Flight MH17 in Ukraine? Our American Pravda indeed.

The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith By

UPDATE: Our long, detailed article by distinguished Dutch journalist Karel van Wolferen has had enormous traffic, and is now on the verge of becoming the most heavily read piece in the history of our young webzine, while the nearly 600 Tweets it has so far received indicatie distribution comparable to that of a major New York Times article. All this has happened in just the last couple of days.

Furthermore, just as I had hoped, the very lengthy comment threads of the two articles have provided a wealth of additional information, far beyond anything I had previously encountered, given my slight familiarity with this issue.

First, I learned that a group of highly-experienced former intelligence officers from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other government agencies has issued a public statement sharply criticizing the lack of evidence substantiating the claims made by American government officials.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/77302/77302/#more-77302

Also, the blogsite of Col. Patrick Lang, a very highly regarded former Defense Intelligence official, has published a lengthy and detailed analysis of the MH17 Incident, raising many of the same issues:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2014/08/on-truth-and-honor-the-mh17-shootdown-and-the-centenary-of-world-war-i-.html#more

Furthermore, one of the commenters on our website, who purportedly has a military intelligence background, pointed us to the very detailed analysis he had published on his own blogsite regarding MH17:

http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/07/19/black-boxes-dark-arts-geopolitics/

And I also discovered that a prominent leftist journalist had also published a lengthy reconstruction of the shoot-down:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/systematically-reconstructing-shoot-malaysian-airliner-guilt-clear-damning.html

Although I claim no great expertise in military affairs, these analyses certainly seem to strengthen my suspicions that the Official Story almost universally accepted by the Western MSM is far from solid and may indeed be a ridiculous fabrication. I urge others to follow the links I have provided, and draw their own conclusions, perhaps different from my own. But they should ask themselves why so many highly-regarded former U.S. intelligence professionals would be raising these serious doubts and why our mainstream media has totally failed to report them.

As for me, I've noticed a curious fact. It appears that the people and organizations promoting the current Official Line on Ukraine have a huge overlap with the people and organizations that promoted the disastrous Iraq War, based on the notorious WMD Hoax. Meanwhile, the people providing serious skepticism about government accusations regarding MH17 are exactly the same people who raised doubts and skepticism about Iraq's alleged WMD and the wisdom of attacking Iraq, while being just as totally ignored by the MSM then as now.

Since none of the Iraq War or WMD Hoax culprits ever received proper punishment for their crimes, they've mostly remained alive and free and able to promote equally disastrous foreign policy adventures in the media they continue to control. But that doesn't mean we must be so gullible as to believe what they say.

Going forward, the crucial unknown is whether our timorous media or even its ideological fringes, will begin to seriously report these issues, or whether they'll all get into line just as they did during the WMD Hoax.

UPDATE 2:

Scott Horton has a podcast interview of Karel van Wolferen

http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2014/08/15/081514-karel-van-wolferen/

[Mar 30, 2018] MH17 was an anglo/US hit job

Notable quotes:
"... MH17 was an anglo/US hit job. I start to see now why no Australian rep went with the Malaysians to collect the victims and the planes black boxes. The Dutch at least had the decency to go with the Malaysian's and pick up their own people. ..."
"... With Novichok, it only took a couple of days to get the EU on board so I think plenty of planning by UK and fellow travelers in the US before the Skripal's were poisoned. ..."
Mar 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Mar 29, 2018 6:04:40 PM | 50

MH17 was an anglo/US hit job. I start to see now why no Australian rep went with the Malaysians to collect the victims and the planes black boxes. The Dutch at least had the decency to go with the Malaysian's and pick up their own people.

With MH17 it took two weeks to push the EU into sanctioning Russia which and only then so called international team and Australian reps went to the site.

With Novichok, it only took a couple of days to get the EU on board so I think plenty of planning by UK and fellow travelers in the US before the Skripal's were poisoned.

[Mar 27, 2018] Our mutual friend Elliott Higgins" works for the Atlantic council

Mar 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

col from OZ , Mar 21, 2018 9:38:04 PM | 87

Don 60 re Huntsman

"our mutual friend Elliott Higgins" works for the Atlantic council, that's when he not ginning up (original) false Ghouta chemical attack and falsifying and photo shopping evidence on the MH17 (which was carried out by Ukraine.)

[Mar 25, 2018] The Ukrainian pilot that, according to Russia, by accident shot down MH17, just committed suicide. I wonder if he was suicided

Notable quotes:
"... The Ukrainian pilot that, according to Russia, by accident shot down MH17, just committed suicide. I wonder if he was suicided. Sensational murders, or attempted murders, have quite different purposes. Blaming someone. ..."
"... Who believes that Arafat was not murdered, does anyone believe that the Diana accident was an accident, who believes the Hess and Kelly suicides ? Why was Palme murdered, who indeed thinks that Anna Lyndh was killed accidentally, that Barschel committed suicide, that Mölleman died accidentally ? And so on, and so forth. ..."
Mar 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , March 19, 2018 at 12:56 pm GMT

@Randal

There is one 'track record', Litvinov, killed by polonium. What secret service would be so dumb as to use this, pointing immediately to state murder ? Accidents, and suicides are quiet methods for keeping people silent for all times.

The Ukrainian pilot that, according to Russia, by accident shot down MH17, just committed suicide. I wonder if he was suicided. Sensational murders, or attempted murders, have quite different purposes. Blaming someone.

Who believes that Arafat was not murdered, does anyone believe that the Diana accident was an accident, who believes the Hess and Kelly suicides ? Why was Palme murdered, who indeed thinks that Anna Lyndh was killed accidentally, that Barschel committed suicide, that Mölleman died accidentally ? And so on, and so forth.

[Mar 25, 2018] Breaking: 'Silenced' Ukrainian Military Pilot Accused of Attack on Boeing MH17 Found Dead by Gordon Duff

"... VT has long asserted that two Ukrainian SU 25s or SU27s "radar spoofed" shot down MH 17. We did so on live Russia Today backed by experienced combat pilots and we presented evidence that an Israeli F15E AWAC aided, taking off from Azerbaijan, to vector in the shootdown. ..."
"... Now, years later, Russia speaks up after we believe media there was silenced by pro-Israeli traitors ..."
"... Voloshin's name came to be associated with independent investigations into the destruction of Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. In late 2014, a Ukrainian army aircraft mechanic told Russian media that the passenger airliner may have been downed by a Su-25 close air support aircraft flown by Voloshin. ..."
"... The Ukrainian side confirmed that the pilot was in the military at the time, but denied that he flew on the day the Malaysian airliner was brought down. ..."
"... Speaking to Sputnik about Voloshin's suspected suicide, Ukrainian politics expert Bogdan Bezpalko said that Kiev's version aside, "one cannot help but think that the other side may have eliminated him as a dangerous witness who could have lifted the veil of secrecy over the downing of MH17, which would subsequently strengthen Russia's position." ..."
"... In Bezpalko's view, Kiev and its Western power will continue to do everything they can to see that the truth about the tragedy of flight MH17 does not surface anytime soon. "It's possible that others who could shed light on this matter will be 'silenced' in one way or another. So I don't think we will learn the truth any time soon. ..."
"... I would like to recall, for example, that all matters related to the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain [in 1941] remain classified to the British people for 100 years. And I think that the circumstances of the airliner will be made known only when the urgency of the matter disappears," the observer said. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... VT has long asserted that two Ukrainian SU 25s or SU27s "radar spoofed" shot down MH 17. We did so on live Russia Today backed by experienced combat pilots and we presented evidence that an Israeli F15E AWAC aided, taking off from Azerbaijan, to vector in the shootdown. ..."
"... Now, years later, Russia speaks up after we believe media there was silenced by pro-Israeli traitors ..."
"... Voloshin's name came to be associated with independent investigations into the destruction of Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. In late 2014, a Ukrainian army aircraft mechanic told Russian media that the passenger airliner may have been downed by a Su-25 close air support aircraft flown by Voloshin. ..."
"... The Ukrainian side confirmed that the pilot was in the military at the time, but denied that he flew on the day the Malaysian airliner was brought down. ..."
"... Speaking to Sputnik about Voloshin's suspected suicide, Ukrainian politics expert Bogdan Bezpalko said that Kiev's version aside, "one cannot help but think that the other side may have eliminated him as a dangerous witness who could have lifted the veil of secrecy over the downing of MH17, which would subsequently strengthen Russia's position." ..."
"... In Bezpalko's view, Kiev and its Western power will continue to do everything they can to see that the truth about the tragedy of flight MH17 does not surface anytime soon. "It's possible that others who could shed light on this matter will be 'silenced' in one way or another. So I don't think we will learn the truth any time soon. ..."
"... I would like to recall, for example, that all matters related to the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain [in 1941] remain classified to the British people for 100 years. And I think that the circumstances of the airliner will be made known only when the urgency of the matter disappears," the observer said. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com

[ Editor's note : VT has long asserted that two Ukrainian SU 25s or SU27s "radar spoofed" shot down MH 17. We did so on live Russia Today backed by experienced combat pilots and we presented evidence that an Israeli F15E AWAC aided, taking off from Azerbaijan, to vector in the shootdown.

Now, years later, Russia speaks up after we believe media there was silenced by pro-Israeli traitors Gordon Duff ]

*

The pilot's death, preliminarily ruled a suicide, has reopened claims about his possible role in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in the summer of 2014.

Vladislav Voloshin, the Ukrainian combat pilot which some Russian investigative journalists have accused of responsibility for the MH17 disaster, allegedly shot himself Sunday at his home.

According to a press release by police in the southern Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv, the 29-year-old pilot's wife heard the gunshot and called the emergency services. Voloshin succumbed to his wounds on route to hospital.

According to the police, the pilot was shot by a Makarov pistol, a standard issue military and police side arm in Ukraine. The weapon has been sent for examination. Police have opened a criminal investigation.

Inconvenient Facts: JIT Likely to Ignore New Russian MH17 Evidence

Relatives told police that Voloshin had been in a depressed state, and had voiced suicidal thoughts. Friends and family told local media that he was suffering from problems associated with the reconstruction of Mykolaiv's airport, where he was acting director.

Voloshin's name came to be associated with independent investigations into the destruction of Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. In late 2014, a Ukrainian army aircraft mechanic told Russian media that the passenger airliner may have been downed by a Su-25 close air support aircraft flown by Voloshin.

The Ukrainian side confirmed that the pilot was in the military at the time, but denied that he flew on the day the Malaysian airliner was brought down.

Speaking to Sputnik about Voloshin's suspected suicide, Ukrainian politics expert Bogdan Bezpalko said that Kiev's version aside, "one cannot help but think that the other side may have eliminated him as a dangerous witness who could have lifted the veil of secrecy over the downing of MH17, which would subsequently strengthen Russia's position."

According to the political scientist, "it's quite obvious that it was not in Russia's interest to shoot down this plane, and that all this was a provocation directed against our country."

In Bezpalko's view, Kiev and its Western power will continue to do everything they can to see that the truth about the tragedy of flight MH17 does not surface anytime soon. "It's possible that others who could shed light on this matter will be 'silenced' in one way or another. So I don't think we will learn the truth any time soon.

I would like to recall, for example, that all matters related to the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain [in 1941] remain classified to the British people for 100 years. And I think that the circumstances of the airliner will be made known only when the urgency of the matter disappears," the observer said.

EXCLUSIVE: Kiev 'Turned Blind Eye to Lives of 298 People Aboard MH17'

On July 17, 2014, a Malasyia Airlines Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed outside the city of Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 people onboard.Kiev blamed the crash on the Donbass independence fighters, who countered by saying they did not have the means to bring down an aircraft flying at such a high altitude.

An inquiry by Dutch investigators concluded that the Boeing was shot down by a Buk missile system, which it alleged was delivered to the militia from Russia and then sent back. Moscow slammed the inquiry's bias, saying that the investigators' conclusions were based exclusively on information received from the Ukrainian side.

A separate investigation by Almaz-Antei, maker of the Buk system, concluded that the Boeing was shot down from territory controlled by the Ukrainian military.

[Mar 25, 2018] The former Ukrainian pilot Vladislav Voloshin, suspected of attacking Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines, committed suicide

He was 29...
Mar 19, 2018 | news.yandex.ru

The former Ukrainian pilot Vladislav Voloshin, suspected of attacking Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines, committed suicide. This was reported by the police of the Mykolayiv region. A retired military pilot killed himself at his home.

https://russian.rt.com/ussr/news/493702-ukraina-samoubiistvo-podozrevaemyi-mh17

https://www.vesti.ru/m/doc.html?id=2996849

[Mar 25, 2018] It Wasn't Russia (2) Veterans Today

Notable quotes:
"... I was amazed to learn this week that some websites are still pushing the discredited claim the Sukhoi-25 cannot reach FL330 (33'000 ft), the altitude MH17 was flying at when it was shot down. The issue is not whether a -25 can reach FL330 -- clearly it can, on combat power. The issue is why has the desperate lie that it could not been persisted in for so long? ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

MH17

Western governments and media continue to lie about MH17. I have not yet seen a government report which attempts to grapple with the fact that the pro-Russian rebels blamed for the disaster lacked access to the arming codes for the Buk missile system in their possession, for example.

I was amazed to learn this week that some websites are still pushing the discredited claim the Sukhoi-25 cannot reach FL330 (33'000 ft), the altitude MH17 was flying at when it was shot down. The issue is not whether a -25 can reach FL330 -- clearly it can, on combat power. The issue is why has the desperate lie that it could not been persisted in for so long?

Service ceiling for the Su-25M, of which the Ukrainian Air Force has at least two examples, is 33,000 ft and higher with combat power. In any event the Ukrainians didn't need armor-plate to fire at an unarmed 777. As I have pointed out on these pages before the -25 has a heavy, titanium armor 'bath' designed to protect the pilot from ground fire. Remove that and you immediately buy yourself extra performance.

You won't find any of these points acknowledged on Wikipedia. The intellectual dishonesty of those pushing the 'Russian rebel' conspiracy theory is breath-taking.

[Mar 22, 2018] The first accusations were launched way too quickly after MH17 was hit

Mar 22, 2018 | thesaker.is

Peter from Oz on March 22, 2018 , · at 6:24 am UTC

The anger and righteous disgust by the chief RF MFA spokesman at around 1:45 from recall (I did just skip to snippets -- but got stopped there) is worth seeing. He talks of the Malaysian Boeing downed in Ukraine to the US rep in audience, pointing out US knows exactly what happened because of its satellites directly overhead, and says something I'd never heard -- repeated it a couple of times at least -- again in accusatory disgust -- that the first accusations Russia shot down the plane came BEFORE the plane was hit!
Auslander on March 22, 2018 , · at 7:29 am UTC
This is true, the plane was still flying when the first accusations were made. The fact that it hit the ground moments later belies the lies that Opolchensya and/or Russia did it. The plane was not hit by a missile, there are entry and exit aircraft cannon holes in the left cockpit outer skin. I have no doubts that the photos of that damning piece of evidence are long gone but not to worry, I'm sure someone has them.
Auslander

[Mar 22, 2018] Don't worry, folks. We don't have to take nobody's word for nuthin'. YouTube and Google Earth and "online investigations" from Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat (and you can "verify" too) have that all covered

Mar 22, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , March 20, 2018 at 12:07 am

It's truly amazing what that plucky [CIA-based] Russian (and Ukrainian)-speaking "community" can provide:
-- chemical agents and nuclear materials (deliverable by aerial drone or up close and personal, of course),
-- rusty weapons parts and busted "barrel bombs" (I understand their "community" pioneered the IED concept),
-- even the occasional Russian missile or aircraft.

Sadly, they aren't able to provide the one thing that the U.S. "intelligence community" can never quite seem to find: satellite photos.

But don't worry, folks. We don't have to take nobody's word for nuthin'. YouTube and Google Earth and "online investigations" from Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat (and you can "verify" too) have that all covered.

Rest assured, that plucky Russian (and Ukrainian)-speaking "community" has something really, really "good". They've already used it a few times. That worked so well that their gonna use it again. Like real soon.

Abe , March 20, 2018 at 12:12 am

It's truly amazing what that plucky Russian (and Ukrainian)-speaking "community" can provide:
-- chemical agents and nuclear materials (deliverable by aerial drone or up close and personal, of course),
-- rusty weapons parts and busted "barrel bombs" (I understand their "community" pioneered the IED concept),
-- even the occasional Russian missile or aircraft.

Sadly, they aren't able to provide the one thing that the U.S. "intelligence community" can never quite seem to find: satellite photos.

But don't worry, folks. We don't have to take nobody's word for nuthin'. YouTube and Google Earth and "online investigations" from Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat (and you can "verify" too) have that all covered.

Rest assured, that plucky Russian (and Ukrainian)-speaking "community" has plenty of something. They're using it now and they're gonna keep on using it. Unless somebody finds some satellite photos.

[Mar 19, 2018] Remember the MH17 tragedy. The whole western world was screaming Russia/Putin without any conclusive evidence

Notable quotes:
"... for a prime minister to gamble so much on 'highly likely' intelligence, is an insult to our intelligence. ..."
"... Another FALSE FLAG created by the western neocons to discredit Russia. This is so obvious. The sheeple need to wake up. ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Crypto • 2 days ago ,

Nothing I have ever seen in my life is more ludicrous, more absurd and more unjust than this display in parliament.

1691 Crypto 2 days ago ,

Remember the MH17 tragedy. It was worst. The whole western world was screaming Russia/Putin.

Peter Jennings Crypto a day ago ,

I agree, and for a prime minister to gamble so much on 'highly likely' intelligence, is an insult to our intelligence.

The whole sorry lot in parliament are stuck in an 18th century mindset. The place has never so needed a new broom as it does right now.

tom , 2 days ago
"An editor at the Guardian says the poisoning was a 'brazen attack on a sovereign country' and 'cannot go unpunished'".

So presumably The Guardian will now be agitating for the trial and severe punishment of all those responsible for brazen and unprovoked attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan. Iraq, Libya and Syria?

All of which did rather more than poisoning two or three people (so far, non-fatally). In Iraq alone the "coalition" is responsible for over 3 million civilian deaths. In Iraq and Libya the civil infrastructure was demolished and the head of state murdered.

And what does The Guardian have to say about that?

Mizan Thrope • 2 days ago

Another FALSE FLAG created by the western neocons to discredit Russia. This is so obvious. The sheeple need to wake up.

[Mar 18, 2018] Skripal case is very reminiscent of the MH17 campaign

Mar 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: the pessimist | Mar 16, 2018 2:03:28 PM | 21

Very reminiscent of the MH17 campaign that was used to bully the reluctant Europeans into imposing sanctions on Russia. Accusations were made and a narrative put forward immediately without presenting clear evidence or waiting for an investigation. Through repetition this narrative has become dogma in the West despite the fact that supporting evidence has still not been forthcoming. It seems that after 9-11 it became clear that quickly putting out a narrative, with the support of the press, and demonizing anyone with any public stature who questions the basic story could be successful, even when there were thousands of eye witnesses and many flaws in the official explanation. The facts, or what really happened no longer matter once the narrative has taken root.

My question is what kinds of threats are being used to keep potential dissenters in line now. French banks were punished over the mistrial deal and it was abandoned. Now the stakes seem to be higher and the risk of defections has increased, so what is the stick?

[Mar 17, 2018] Cue bono question and possible players

Mar 17, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

Stonky , March 16, 2018 at 02:53

Clyde Davis: " until I hear a more convincing explanation I'm sticking to my guns."

1. Russian dissident oligarchs: loads of money; baleful influence and financial tentacles extend into the very heart of the UK establishment; all sorts of dodgy connections in the former Soviet Union; zero scruples; hate Putin.
2. Ukraine: fascist regime; involved in a war with Russia already; just as likely to have access to old Soviet Novichok (if it exists) as Russia; just as capable of manufacturing it as Russia if it doesn't; zero scruples; hate Putin.
3. Turkey: angry because they're losing a proxy war with Russia in Syria; already have their own chemical weapons programme; perfectly capable of manufacturing this stuff; previous in targeted assassinations; zero scruples; hate Putin.
4. Saudi Arabia: angry because they're losing a proxy war with Russia in Syria; loads of money; baleful influence and financial tentacles extend into the very heart of the UK establishment; happy to export or facilitate terrorism anywhere in the world including their supposed 'allies'; zero scruples; hate Putin.
5. Anti-Trump forces in the US: Demented in their obsession with 'Trump-Russia' collusion; angry because they're losing a proxy war with Russia in Syria; already have access to Soviet Novichok (if it exists); perfectly capable of manufacturing it if it doesn't; previous in targeted assassinations; zero scruples; hate Putin.
6. Israel: angry because they're losing a proxy war with Russia in Syria; probably the best military/scientific capability in the world; certainly capable of manufacturing this stuff; previous in targeted assassinations; zero scruples when pursuing what they believe to be their own best interests; hate Putin.

Kiza , March 16, 2018 at 02:55

To me this is a repeat of the MH17 case study with its:

  1. Propaganda preparation – media full of shot down Uki military planes vs. media full of CW victims in Syria for which Russia is to blame,
  2. "Rush" to judgement whodunit – former Australian Prime Minister Abbot publicly pointed finger at the Russian rebels in Ukraine 7 hours after the shootdown vs. the UK Prime Minister blames Russia a day after her event,
  3. Soviet Union = Russia when convenient – the Soviet designed and made BUK becomes the exclusively Russian made BUK vs. the Soviet Designed CW becomes the exclusively Russian produced CW (with a touch of the good old British propaganda – maybe Russia lost control over it! => well, maybe US "lost control" over it when it was helping it's client Uzbekistan destroy it)
  4. Logic matters not – let us find a BUK coming all the way from Russia instead of looking at tens of such systems operated by the Uki troops, apparently four near the area where the shoot down happened vs. let us look at poison or a trained chemist coming all the way from Russia (how when one cannot get even a small bottle of drink on a plane?) whilst there is a British own source 12 km away,
  5. When questions arise and contrary items of evidence come out, just ignore and keep drumming "the proven facts" (the science is settled) from the blame package prepared in advance – an alternative, facts-supported explanation will never be accepted no matter what.

The post-modern West operates on evidence-free pure emotion-eliciting narratives ("Putin killed my baby") on the shoulders of MSM and troll farms. Any unauthorised explanation, such as Mr Murray's, is declared a conspiracy theory to be ridiculed.

Sergey , March 17, 2018 at 08:11

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/9/90/Report-mh17-crash-en.pdf Page 232

Above mean that Ukraine, Malaysia and Malaysia Airlines bore certain responsibilities with regards to the operations of flight MH17 based on national an international law.

Russia has very bad lawyers. The investigation is completed.

[Mar 04, 2018] Minister of Security and Justice signs MH17 treaty with Ukraine

Jul 07, 2018 | www.government.nl

Minister of Security and Justice Stef Blok and his Ukrainian counterpart Pavlo Petrenko today signed a bilateral treaty on international legal cooperation in relation to the downing of flight MH17. The treaty provides that those suspected of downing flight MH17 can be prosecuted in the Netherlands in respect of all 298 victims. This means that all next of kin will have the same rights in the Dutch criminal proceedings.

Minister of Security and Justice Stef Blok and his Ukrainian counterpart Pavlo Petrenko sign the treaty.

The countries whose prosecution authorities are cooperating in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) – Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, Ukraine and the Netherlands – this week jointly decided that the prosecution and trial of the suspects would take place in the Netherlands, in a process rooted in close and ongoing international cooperation and support. The JIT's criminal investigation is still underway. A decision on prosecution will be taken by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service in due course.

The bilateral treaty with Ukraine eliminates any doubts that the prosecution could take place in the Netherlands in respect of all the victims, not only those who were Dutch nationals. The victims of the MH17 disaster included people from 17 different countries.

The treaty also makes it possible for any Ukrainian defendants to be examined by video link. Provision has also been made for the transfer of enforcement of any prison sentences that may be imposed. This is important since the Ukrainian constitution prohibits the country from extraditing its own nationals.

'The signing of this treaty is an important step towards establishing the truth, trying those responsible and achieving justice for the next of kin,' Mr Blok said. 'We are grateful to Ukraine for cooperating effectively with us, including in the agreement of this treaty.'

The MH17 treaty and its implementing legislation will be submitted to the House of Representatives for consideration as soon as possible.

[Mar 04, 2018] Propaganda war still continues on who shot MT17 question. Now it is clear that goverment and intelligence serveses are subservert to the USA and we probably will never know the truth, like was the case with the JFK assasination

Notable quotes:
"... Of course Kiev junta shot down MH17, otherwise US would provide satellite images and other details obtained by high tech devices. But so far nothing has been published. Speaks volumes, no? ..."
"... Well, nobody really knows, what we do know is that Ukraine was the one directing where the MH17 should fly, and Ukraine had just one day earlier been bombing the rebels from airplanes in just that area, and Ukraine was responsibly for what happens inside its airspace, and that Ukraine benefited hugely from the destruction of the MH17. ..."
Mar 04, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Agarbeau a day ago ,

Russia has a nasty habit of downing aircraft even commercial airliners.

Vic -> Agarbeau a day ago ,

Hrm? Seems Russia is one of the few countries that does not have a habit of shooting down civilian airliners.

"Siberia Airlines Flight 1812[1] was a commercial flight shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001, en route from Tel Aviv, Israel to Novosibirsk," https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

"Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III, killing all 290 people on "board.https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_...

focusser -> Vic a day ago ,

MH17, and Korean Airlines 007. Just two planes Russia shot down.

Vic -> focusser a day ago ,

MH17 was likely shot down by Ukraine in an successfully attempt to internationalize the conflict. Airliner 007 was shot down by Soviets.

Melotte 22 -> Vic 20 hours ago ,

Of course Kiev junta shot down MH17, otherwise US would provide satellite images and other details obtained by high tech devices. But so far nothing has been published. Speaks volumes, no?

Vic -> Melotte 22 11 hours ago ,

Yes, that is a good point, USA had satellites passing over Ukraine when it happened, USA saw and recorded everything, Russia said this and demand that USA release the images, and USA itself admitted they had satellites over Ukraine during the event . However USA refused to reveal the satellite images. Which would have proven or disproven everything.

disqus_t8zg0f4HzM Vic a day ago ,

That is lie

Vic disqus_t8zg0f4HzM a day ago ,

Well, nobody really knows, what we do know is that Ukraine was the one directing where the MH17 should fly, and Ukraine had just one day earlier been bombing the rebels from airplanes in just that area, and Ukraine was responsibly for what happens inside its airspace, and that Ukraine benefited hugely from the destruction of the MH17.

olu -> Vic a day ago ,

So Soviet doesn't mean Russian?

Vic -> olu a day ago ,

Of course not. Different country, different government, different ideology. However anti-Russians often mix up Russia with Soviet when they want to say something negative, and pro-Russian often mix up Russia with Soviet when they want to say something positive.

An Anti-Russian would say "Russia exterminate millions in GULAG" and a pro-Russian would say "Russia won world war 2" neither is true of course. Most of the people exterminated in GULAG were Russians and while Russia was the largest country in the USSR and did the most to fight Nazism, USSR also consisted of many other ethnic groups that was critical to the success of USSR.

[Feb 15, 2018] Dutch FM Admits Lying About Putin - Russia

Feb 15, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

February 14, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - Every empire needs a scary external threat, led by a singular menacing villain, to justify its massive military expenditures, consolidation of authoritarian powers, and endless wars. For the five decades after the end of World War II, Moscow played this role perfectly. But the fall of Soviet Union meant, at least for a while, that the Kremlin could no longer sustain sufficient fear levels. After some brief, largely unsuccessful auditions for possible replacements -- Asian actors like China and a splurging Japan were considered -- the post-9/11 era elevated a cast of Muslim understudies to the starring role: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and "jihadism" generally kept fear alive.

The lack of any 9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S. (or any Western) soil for the past 17 years, along with the killing of a pitifully aged, ailing bin Laden and the erosion of ISIS, has severely compromised their ongoing viability as major bad guys. So now -- just as a film studio revitalizes a once-successful super-villain franchise for a new generation of moviegoers -- we're back to the Russians occupying center stage.

That Barack Obama spent eight years (including up through his final year-end news conference) mocking the notion that Russia posed a serious threat to the U.S. given their size and capabilities, and that he even tried repeatedly to accommodate and partner with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is of no concern: In the internet age, "2016" is regarded as ancient history, drowned out by an endless array of new threats pinned by a united media on the Russkie Plague. Moreover, human nature craves a belief in an existential foreign threat because it confers a sense of purpose and cause, strengthens tribal unity and identity, permits scapegoating, shifts blame for maladies from internal to external causes, and (like religion) offers a simplifying theory for understanding a complex world.

One of the prime accusations sustaining this script is that the Kremlin is drowning the West in "fake news" and other forms of propaganda. One can debate its impact and magnitude, but disinformation campaigns are something the U.S., Russia, and countless other nations have done to one another for centuries, and there is convincing evidence that Russia does this sort of thing now. But evidence of one threat does not mean that all claimed threats are real, nor does it mean that that tactic is exclusively wielded by one side.

Over the past year, there have been numerous claims made by Western intelligence agencies, mindlessly accepted as true in the Western press, that have turned out to be baseless, if not deliberate scams. Just today, it was revealed that Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra lied when he claimed he was at a meeting with Putin, in which the Russian president "said he considered Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states as part of a 'Greater Russia.'"

"Fake news" is certainly something to worry about when it emanates from foreign adversaries, but it is at least as concerning and threatening, if not more so, when emanating from one's own governments and media. And there are countless, highly significant examples beyond today's of such propaganda that emanates from within.

... ... ...

If there's any lesson that should unite everyone in the West, it's that the greatest skepticism is required when it comes to government and media claims about the nature of foreign threats. If we're going to rejuvenate a Cold War, or submit to greater military spending and government powers in the name of stopping alleged Russian aggression, we should at least ensure that the information on which those campaigns succeed are grounded in fact. Even a casual review of the propaganda spewing forth from Western power centers over the last year leaves little doubt that the exact opposite is happening.

This article was originally published by " The Intercept "


Zeesso 101p · 4 hours ago

Russia accusations are a false flag!!-No evidence-Zero NADA!!
Rather than Russia how about Mossad false flags??!
More likely .............and the silence is deafening.......... at theZionist owned MSMs in the USA!!!!
Dollars to Doughnuts-Israel is the perpetrator
Invictus · 2 hours ago
I suppose I am too naive to understand the
hysteria and indignation that claims of Russia
Interference in the 2016 american electoral process garners.
The US openly calls for regime change in Syria. Hung Saddam
Hussein after a show trial. Arranged Muammar Gaddafi's sodomization
and assassination.
Do americans not realize that in levelling the accusation that Putin-Russia
successfully subverted the US electoral process that you are conceding that Russia has the power to subjugate (bring under domination or control, especially by conquest.) the US electoral process, its government, institutions and public perception.
If americans are going to continue to make this outlandish claim for which no evidence has yet to be produced then Putin's Russia must be recognized as the world hegemon and the indispensable- Exceptional nation. What does that do to the narrative of the "shining city set upon a hill".
The US is blinded by its own conceit.
fudmier · 1 hour ago
Frankly, what I have seen in the past 20 years, the people in San Francisco might be better off under Russian federation management than it has been under the selected, elected, salaried, privileged 527 USA neo clowns who manage Americans in America. At least the Russians might not give USA money to foreigners, prevent Americans from drilling their own gas and oil, tax Americans so the USA can give the tax revenues to the corporations, and send American jobs and educational knowledge to far away places; as the NEO CLOWN management has done.

My personal experience with Russia people with whom I have worked is they are just exactly like Americans, quite a bit better educated, may be a little more honest.. so the question becomes under which managing government would 340,000,000 Americans be better off: the Russian Federation or the 527 neocon-selected, media-elected, salaried, privileged USA neo clowns? Actually, i think both governments are in need of being better arranged to respond to the needs and intentions of their people instead of using those they govern to satisfy the Oligarchs.

beanhead001 102p · 1 hour ago
"9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S." a self-inflicted "catastrophic attack". Perhaps the USI should quit murdering people at home and abroad... maybe that way some semblence of symathy could be mustered up.
Oh and the "shooter" in Florida.. notuce it's not a "terrorist"? So this kid was a "shooter". Pfft. Call it what it is. He was and is a terrorist. Treat him as one would treat the invented funded and propped up "terrorists" abroad. Send the kid to 'Gitmo' (how i loathe that americanized word)

[Feb 14, 2018] MH17 now also comes into a different light, why Russia must be blamed for the catastrophe, and why we still dot not know who did it

Notable quotes:
"... MH17 still has not been solved, in my opinion it never will. The strategy seems to be to continue vague accusations against Russia, though nobody ever explained Russia's interest in destroying a western passenger plane. ..."
"... As Jimmy Carter once said, 'it is unimportant who fires the first shot in a war, the origins of war always go years back'. In the case of Russia, we now know, at least to 2006. ..."
Feb 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , February 14, 2018 at 8:02 am GMT

Our Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs, Halbe Zijlstra, just a few months in office, had to admit that he in 2006 lied about being in Putin's country house, where he heard Putin say that White Russia, the Baltic States and Khazakstan 'would be nice to have'. Zijlstra yesterday resigned.

43 out of 150 gave a vote of non confidence against prime minister Rutte, whoa had to admit that he knew about the lie since several weeks.

Zijlstra's excuse as that he wanted to protect someone else, who was there, and heard Putin say these things. This someone else, it was revealed, had been Van der Veer, now former Shell CEO, and now member of the NATO strategic commission.

Alas Van der Veer denied have heard the words, and having told Zijlstra, though 'Putin had made a statement more or less like what Zijlstra lied about'.
Dutch comments are that Shell has considerable interests in Russia.

We now wonder how Zijlstra's lie surfaced after twelve years. He was scheduled to meet Lavrov a few days from now.

My, and many in my country, conclude that there is deliberate Russia, or Putin, bashing. Many already knew this, but never before was it so clear that an important politician with us had to resign.

MH17 still has not been solved, in my opinion it never will. The strategy seems to be to continue vague accusations against Russia, though nobody ever explained Russia's interest in destroying a western passenger plane.

As Jimmy Carter once said, 'it is unimportant who fires the first shot in a war, the origins of war always go years back'. In the case of Russia, we now know, at least to 2006.

jilles dykstra , February 14, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT

https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2018/02/the-lies-and-the-narrative/

Wrong is that Zijlstra in 2006 worked for Shell, he just was a member of the representatives for the town of Utrecht.Pandora's box went open in yesterday evening Jinek talkshow, Rutte concluded gas deals for E Ukraine for Shell.

MH17 now also comes into a different light, why Russia must be blamed for the catastrophe, and why we still dot not know who did it.

http://oilmarket-magazine.com/eng/shownews.phtml?id=221

[Jan 31, 2018] Are the Dutch part of the 'Deep State'?

Notable quotes:
"... I would say most definitely, as is the case in Germany, and many western European countries. Just look at how they mis-handled the MH-17 investigation. The CIA is deeply embedded in the MSM in the USA and Europe, and has been since after WWII. Look into "Operation Mockingbird" if you are curious. ..."
"... The US deep state certainly has close allies within the secret services of European NATO countries. They probably have the tightest connections with secret services of Anglosaxon countries like Britain and Australia and with Germany, where US secret services have their many bases in Europe, but there are certainly also close connections with the deep state in the Netherlands. ..."
Jan 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Lala Blood , January 30, 2018 at 12:29 pm

Are the Dutch part of the 'Deep State'? https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/

Skip Scott , January 30, 2018 at 2:44 pm

I would say most definitely, as is the case in Germany, and many western European countries. Just look at how they mis-handled the MH-17 investigation. The CIA is deeply embedded in the MSM in the USA and Europe, and has been since after WWII. Look into "Operation Mockingbird" if you are curious.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956

Adrian E. , January 31, 2018 at 5:01 am

Hardly "the Dutch" as a whole. Not even necessarily the Durch secret services as a whole. But, after all, that report was not even about an official statement from the Dutch secret services, it was just a leak from unnamed sources within the Dutch secret services (if even that attribution is correct). The US deep state certainly has close allies within the secret services of European NATO countries. They probably have the tightest connections with secret services of Anglosaxon countries like Britain and Australia and with Germany, where US secret services have their many bases in Europe, but there are certainly also close connections with the deep state in the Netherlands.

Skip Scott , January 31, 2018 at 8:53 am

Yes. Of course I wasn't referring to the Dutch people. Their government, and their MSM, however do carry water for the US Deep State. Also like you say, the secret services are not monolithic. They are highly compartmentalized. Ray McGovern is a former analyst for the CIA, and he is obviously a highly moral person. VIPS was founded by people who have witnessed the corruption of the intelligence agencies firsthand, and have organized to expose and fight that corruption.

[Jan 16, 2018] Victims of MH17 crash 'died a second time' from lack of proper investigation by Willy Wimmer

So there were AWACS planes flying nearby...
Notable quotes:
"... It's been three years on since the MH17 tragedy. How hopeful are you that all questions into the terrible event will be answered? ..."
"... Your thoughts on the way the investigation is being carried out, considering how controversial this incident is? ..."
"... The Dutch are in these NATO surveillance planes, AWACS, and two of these planes, if I remember correctly, have been in the area where the accident happened in this part of Ukraine. Until now we're not familiar with the experience of these two NATO planes, which made surveillance in this part of Ukraine. They must be familiar with all the events in this area, and the Dutch had been on these planes as well if I am correct. Nothing of these things have been explained to the public. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The tragedy led to an international inquiry carried out by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising aviation experts and investigators from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia, and Ukraine.

The investigation paid little attention to data provided by Russian authorities, which provided the information to understand how the crash happened.

Today, many questions remain unanswered regarding the crash, including the process of the investigation.

RT: It's been three years on since the MH17 tragedy. How hopeful are you that all questions into the terrible event will be answered?

Willy Wimmer: I think there is almost no hope to get answers to the bag of questions we have because of this tragic accident. We shouldn't forget that within a few weeks a second Malaysian plane came down. The fate of those two planes is unsolved even today. This doesn't fit into the experience of air accidents we have in Europe. I won't mention other parts of the world. Remember, a few years ago we had this tragic accident with a German plane in the mountainous region in the southern part of France. Within days we knew what happened. When you look at the tragic events with these two Malaysian airplanes, nobody knows what happened. This is an uncertainty which makes it possible that those who died in the airspace of Ukraine died for a second time because there is no answer to the question why it happened; and they died for the second time because there is no proper investigation. That is a reality we face today.

RT: Your thoughts on the way the investigation is being carried out, considering how controversial this incident is?

WW: I think the standards of the investigations we have in Europe, and I won't speak about others part of the world, is different. We know within hours, or within days, what happened and who was responsible. From the very beginning of this investigation, which is called investigation, we all have seen from our experience that it has been politicized from the very beginning.

The interesting thing, I live in the neighborhood of the Dutch border, and we like to go to the Netherlands. The Dutch are in these NATO surveillance planes, AWACS, and two of these planes, if I remember correctly, have been in the area where the accident happened in this part of Ukraine. Until now we're not familiar with the experience of these two NATO planes, which made surveillance in this part of Ukraine. They must be familiar with all the events in this area, and the Dutch had been on these planes as well if I am correct. Nothing of these things have been explained to the public.

[Jan 16, 2018] Will MH17 be our 9-11 (28) Why the one tenacious critic of the Dutch government was silenced Defend Democracy Press

Notable quotes:
"... Mid November the Dutch parliamentarian, Pieter Omtzigt (Christian Democrat), came under fire for allegedly having stage-managed, at a meeting at the Free University in Amsterdam, the statement of a witness contradicting the official explanation of the downing of Flight MH17. A text message in which Omtzigt made a helpful suggestion to the witness how to summarise his story given that he would get one minute at best, was passed on to the Dutch daily, NRC Handelsblad, which raised the issue of the MP's credibility and called for his resignation. ..."
"... This was not only a way of getting rid of the one parliamentarian who has consistently demanded of the Dutch government that it live up to the Prime Minister's vow to get to the bottom of the MH17 affair. ..."
"... This is why after half a year, his courtesy towards an Ukrainian man was suddenly turned into something close to treason. ..."
"... When the MH17 meeting at the Free University happened in May last, the Dutch general election results were only two months old and no new government had yet been formed. The video of the witness making his statement (he was primarily interested in obtaining asylum in the Netherlands, or so it seemed) was circulated without causing any concern. The claim that one or more jet fighters had been spotted near MH17 had been made many times before and by far more reliable witnesses; in this case it was not even the man himself but has wife who had seen the planes. ..."
"... However, as Marx famously put it in the Communist Manifesto, the government is only a committee for handling the day-to-day affairs of the capitalist class; and in their plans, scrapping the dividend tax had long been on the agenda. ..."
"... By unearthing a half-year-old issue of no consequence they also got rid of an MH17 critic who had been stubbornly following the government in its obvious attempt to kick the issue into the long grass. ..."
"... Kees van der Pijl (with thanks to Babette U.) ..."
"... Published at http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.gr/p/blog-page_0.html ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

This article is a translation of " Wordt MH17 ons 9/11? (28) Waarom de enige criticus van de Nederlandse regering tot zwijgen werd gebracht "

Mid November the Dutch parliamentarian, Pieter Omtzigt (Christian Democrat), came under fire for allegedly having stage-managed, at a meeting at the Free University in Amsterdam, the statement of a witness contradicting the official explanation of the downing of Flight MH17. A text message in which Omtzigt made a helpful suggestion to the witness how to summarise his story given that he would get one minute at best, was passed on to the Dutch daily, NRC Handelsblad, which raised the issue of the MP's credibility and called for his resignation.

This was not only a way of getting rid of the one parliamentarian who has consistently demanded of the Dutch government that it live up to the Prime Minister's vow to get to the bottom of the MH17 affair. Omtzigt was also his party's spokesman on tax matters, pensions, and the euro and there he was an even greater liability to the powers that be. This is why after half a year, his courtesy towards an Ukrainian man was suddenly turned into something close to treason.

When the MH17 meeting at the Free University happened in May last, the Dutch general election results were only two months old and no new government had yet been formed. The video of the witness making his statement (he was primarily interested in obtaining asylum in the Netherlands, or so it seemed) was circulated without causing any concern. The claim that one or more jet fighters had been spotted near MH17 had been made many times before and by far more reliable witnesses; in this case it was not even the man himself but has wife who had seen the planes.

Now fast-forward to November, when NRC Handelsblad came with its 'scoop', six months after the fact. After a tortuous cabinet formation taking all summer and comfortably interrupted by full holidays taken, there now was a government of mainstream Liberals, neoliberals, Christian Democrats and Christian fundamentalists (who actually held up the negotiations for another week because their leader had to attend a rock concert in Germany). This coalition only had 76 seats, a majority of one. It also surprised the nation with an announcement that it would scrap the dividend tax, a gift to business of 1.4 billion euros per year -- although none of the coalition partners had proposed this in their election manifestoes.

However, as Marx famously put it in the Communist Manifesto, the government is only a committee for handling the day-to-day affairs of the capitalist class; and in their plans, scrapping the dividend tax had long been on the agenda.

... ... ...

Was this was the drop that made the bucket overflow? For within days, NRC Handelsblad, the mouthpiece of the Liberal party, began what can only be considered a character assassination of this, one of our finest parliamentarians. By unearthing a half-year-old issue of no consequence they also got rid of an MH17 critic who had been stubbornly following the government in its obvious attempt to kick the issue into the long grass.

Meanwhile his own Christian Democratic fraction leader, instead of defending Omtzigt, chose to stoke the flames of paranoia about 'Russian meddling' in Dutch affairs, thus heightening the climate of suspicion in which the campaign against Omtzigt had been made possible in the first place. The victim could do little else but officially declare he would no longer be the spokesman on the MH17 portfolio.

But let one think this means the case is closed. More will follow.

Kees van der Pijl (with thanks to Babette U.)

Published at http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.gr/p/blog-page_0.html

[Dec 08, 2017] Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.

Dec 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , December 8, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

What is the problem of having contacts with Russia ? As to the Ukraine, USA, EU and NATO should leave there. We in Europe do not want the war NATO, USA and EU are seeking. We want normal relations with the country we had a lot of trade with, much of which has disappeared because of sanctions, made possible by the deaths of over 300 passengers aboard MH17.

My country, the Netherlands, objected most to sanctions, we exported a lot to Russia, on the day after the disaster objections had vanished. So it was very lucky for those who wanted to impose sanctions that a plane from Schiphol Amsterdam was hit. Despite that Russia just has disadvantages of the disaster, and the west advantages, the continuing investigation, that will never end, Peyton Place, does anything possible to continue stating vague accusations against Putin.

Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.

[Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
"... are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians. ..."
Oct 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.

[Nov 12, 2017] People are the same all over, they fall for propaganda if the lie is repeated constantly. In the US, this has produced a general culture of arrogance and exceptionalism that has killed many millions around the world and therein lies the difference.

Nov 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

/div

/div
Peter AU 1 | Nov 12, 2017 1:24:16 AM | 43
Don Bacon @40

"I've lived in many countries and have found the people in all of them to be wonderful, just as the American people are."

Edward Abbey: "The tragedy of modern war is not so much that the young men die but that they die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals."

I would totaly agree with most of this. Away from anything political, many Americans are just ordinary down to earth people. Even in geo-politics, a percentage, perhaps 10% fully understand the dirty shit that is going on, and that in the name of the state of USA, what their state is doing. But Americans as a general population goes, are different from the other five eyes. Much bragado and exceptionalism and theater. This is general population, as compared to the other five eyes. Not individuals.

The general attitude/culture whatever it can be called seems to go back a long way Don.

My father in law who as an 18/19 year old was part of defence of US airstrips as the US island hopped to Japan had no enminty for the Japanes but dissliked Americans from that time.
Same for two relatives who were in Vietnam, one a conscript, the other a carrer military officer. I never really understood that, and it was only in the months after MH17 I began to feel the same.
But the question is this. Why do they not feel this way towards other five eye forces they have fought alongside?

I watch a lot of youtube videos, when I can't do much else, on things that interest me. When dealing with another culture, some of the US videos are very good, but in others, the exceptionalism or perhaps condescension towards the 'lower' culture just oozes out and I find these unwatchable even though I am interested in what they are filming.

There is a huge amount of inovation come from the US, and this I like reading about or watching, but there is also something else about the US, this is just speaking of population in general rather than idividuals, is a general feeling of arrogance, or exceptionalism, that has come perhaps from the huge inovations the US has made, and also generations of indoctrination.

This would be unnoticable to Americans who have grown up and lived their lives thinking this is the norm.

Peter AU 1 | Nov 12, 2017 1:45:50 AM | 44
@ Don Bacon

As far as swallowing propaganda goes, all people in all countries are the same.

In Australia, not one fucking polition made waves that reached the media about MH17. Although very few people I know, make that no one trusts MSM or their politicians, because it was all around them, thought MH17 had been shot down by the 'rebel' side and Russia may or may not have had involvement. People are the same all over, they fall for propaganda if the lie is repeated constantly. In the US, this has produced a general culture of arrogance and exceptionalism that has killed many millions around the world and therein lies the difference. I have thought for the last few years now, that the only way to break this culture, is for the US to go through what Russia went through in the nineties.

George Smiley | Nov 12, 2017 1:59:11 AM | 45
@43

Yes I agree wholeheartedly. We can pretend that every culture is smart and just a-okay or we can seriously look at some glaring problems that exist in the USA collectively. Its not unique to them either, a lot of the west holds quite similar attitudes, but in America its just taken to it's extreme.

One only has to look towards the end of the Roman, Athenian or Ottoman states to get a sense of this too. Culture at the end of most empires is usually often very "flawed" (for lack of a better word) and filled with its own hubris. You can blame it on the state, or media, or anything really, but it doesn't change much besides the explanation of why.

No one is calling Americans "sheeple" here

[Oct 31, 2017] Sorting Out the Russia Mess

Notable quotes:
"... The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and "alternative facts". ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , October 31, 2017 at 4:28 pm

The fake "citizen investigative journalists" team at Bellingcat are busy on the case with more of their signature "creative Googling".

This time it's a photograph of Papadopoulos in London
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2017/10/31/new-george-papadopoulos-photograph-actually-years-old/

The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and "alternative facts".

[Oct 30, 2017] The incompetence of the Western investigators was demostrated by the a lack of proper metallurgical analysis of the impact holes. You will also recall that I proposed some advanced analytical methods that apparently are not available to the investigators

Notable quotes:
"... Oh, our pet Martian, the Wizard wants proof that MH17 was a false-flag organised by Western intelligence and paid for by Kolomoiskii? Because you are also my pet Martian, I will ask you a question – do not you think that the whole chain of command of the Russian air-defence which (supposedly) shot-down MH17 would have been identified three years after the event? ..."
"... So far the best the CIA could do is – we know that the Russians did it, but if we showed you the proof we would have to kill you (because our satellite images are so secret). But the satellite images of blowing up the Russian Metrojet over Egypt that our terrorists did were not so secret because they were proving our (rare) success. ..."
"... Yes, they were clearly corrupt. NATO and NATO flunkies. Up to you, Wiz, to do a little more reading on it. Resistance were never capturng a Buk unit. You really think, with all of the caution Russia has been showing in all of this, they will be driving one across the border and say, 'Here you are. Have fun!' Ukraine is also equipped with Buk. Flight was shadowed by two Ukraine jets. Russia was releasing all of their information on it. Ukraine even was sealing air-traffic control records. ..."
"... USA was releasing almost nothing, one satellite photo that is displaying nothing of meaning. ..."
"... We have had this conversation before. I tried to explain to you the incompetence of the Western investigators based on a lack of proper metallurgical analysis of the impact holes. You will also recall that I proposed some advanced analytical methods that apparently are not available to the investigators. Added to this, I doubt that the "so called" experts could even operate the instrumentation. And yes, I have given technical presentation methods of analysis in international symposiums to try to correct improper/wrong approaches – seems I could not fix stupid (e.g. Be analysis). ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon , Disclaimer October 29, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

"The alternatives are all too complicated."

Not at all. Mr. John Kerry has told to the whole world that the US has satellite pics of the downing. We are still waiting to see the precious evidence. Are you aware of Mr. Kerry claim? Some problems with the memory? More about Kolomoysky, the Jewish oligarch implicated in the downing of MH17: http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html

Kiza , October 29, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Oh, our pet Martian, the Wizard wants proof that MH17 was a false-flag organised by Western intelligence and paid for by Kolomoiskii? Because you are also my pet Martian, I will ask you a question – do not you think that the whole chain of command of the Russian air-defence which (supposedly) shot-down MH17 would have been identified three years after the event?

Instead, there is an attempt at this by the plausibly deniable "citizen-journalists" Bellingcat. The fact that Bellingcat are insinuating this is a mighty proof that there is no evidence that the Russians did it, because the citizen-journalism does not need the same degree of proof as an official intelligence agency assessment.

So far the best the CIA could do is – we know that the Russians did it, but if we showed you the proof we would have to kill you (because our satellite images are so secret). But the satellite images of blowing up the Russian Metrojet over Egypt that our terrorists did were not so secret because they were proving our (rare) success.

Wizard of Oz , October 29, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
@Kiza

Your somewhat excitable ramble round your mind has not produced anything relevant to my Comment. I said nothing about all the Russian activity you hypothesised. You have given me no reason to follow you in interest in Bellingcat.

Why anyone should think a highly risky false flag operation with seriously bad consequences if exposed is a priori more likely than a stuff up resulting from a missile launcher crew mistakenly thinking they were firing at a Ukrainian military aircraft escapes me. And that deems to be consistent with the conclusion of the five nation inquiry. Feel free to prove that was incompetent or corrupt.

Che Guava , October 29, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Yes, they were clearly corrupt. NATO and NATO flunkies. Up to you, Wiz, to do a little more reading on it. Resistance were never capturng a Buk unit. You really think, with all of the caution Russia has been showing in all of this, they will be driving one across the border and say, 'Here you are. Have fun!' Ukraine is also equipped with Buk. Flight was shadowed by two Ukraine jets. Russia was releasing all of their information on it. Ukraine even was sealing air-traffic control records.

USA was releasing almost nothing, one satellite photo that is displaying nothing of meaning.

Not, of course, to saying that I know, but I know which side is looking suspicious.

Beefcake the Mighty , October 29, 2017 at 4:54 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

The Russians are holding the contents of the black box as an ace card, in the event the US does more than merely insinuate Russian culpability. As in Syria the Russians are being overly cautious but they know time is on their side, given the reckless stupidity of the American Imperium.

krollchem , October 29, 2017 at 7:14 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

We have had this conversation before. I tried to explain to you the incompetence of the Western investigators based on a lack of proper metallurgical analysis of the impact holes. You will also recall that I proposed some advanced analytical methods that apparently are not available to the investigators. Added to this, I doubt that the "so called" experts could even operate the instrumentation. And yes, I have given technical presentation methods of analysis in international symposiums to try to correct improper/wrong approaches – seems I could not fix stupid (e.g. Be analysis).

[Oct 24, 2017] Max van der Werff has posted another article on MH17 that gives his opinion on the current state of play

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

davidt , October 22, 2017 at 9:01 pm

Max van der Werff has posted another article on MH17 that gives his opinion on the current state of play. The article is in Dutch so most will need the machine translator. There is little new in the public view but Max is always worth reading.
http://www.kremlintroll.nl/?p=1394#more-1394
saskydisc , October 23, 2017 at 4:56 pm
I am responding to give an overview, as some of his comments might not be clear in machine translation, which is the only access others would have.

He compares the operation of the JIT ("The investigation is going well" ahem) to the "investigative" efforts of the Dutch government into its own war crimes in Indonesia, including such tactics as giving only one investigator access to the archives, for four months total (that which was not found in that period does not exist, by definition), and avoiding allowing Dutch and Indonesian witnesses to come forward with testimony. Van der Werff mentions that the Indonesian matter was something into which he had put much effort when he was younger.

He then discusses the "economization with truth" for which the secret services are notorious, and scoffs rightly at the JIT's newfound eyewitnesses, as reliability of such eyewitnesses decline with time, and material (circumstantial) evidence generally is far more reliable in reconstructing events.

He mentions the stress laid on the Ukrainian story of the absence of flights on the day of the shooting, which serves the purpose of justifying the lack of Ukrainian radar data.

He quotes the lead investigator to the effect that the JIT cannot state whether Almaz Antey's results are valid or not, yet the JIT rejects those results.

He closes by pointing out that if the JIT's claims are valid (the Higgins claim of the "rent-a-Buk), the Netherlands should take Russia to court. He asks rhetorically why this has not happened, and suggests sarcastically that the answer likely lies in the archives, tying back to the matter of state dishonesty about war crimes in Indonesia.

[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] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "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 . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Jenny G · 3 days ago

Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.

Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.

I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished" party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment to the country.

Felix · 4 days ago
The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint.
follyofwar · 3 days ago
Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats.
olde reb · 3 days ago
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.

Detailed in --. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.

Guysth · 3 days ago
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.

Peace is not in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis, and this could not be allowed to happen .

Same $hit different pile.

doray · 3 days ago
Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge.
astraeaisabella · 3 days ago
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/25... This may seem relevant, but considering Trump's visit to SAudi Arabia and then immediately "Israel", you might find it interesting.
follyofwar · 3 days ago

David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.

But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.

RedRubies · 3 days ago
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.

When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.

The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.

Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on (http://headlinebits.com/2017-06-21/deep-state-hillary-clinton-staffers-still-have-security-clearances-access-to-sensitive-governmen.AlsHBgBSVVwAV1FWVwdSAwBWAg8HXQYE.html) .

You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!

The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.

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 .

Schlüter 91p · 3 days ago
Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe...
Dick · 3 days ago
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.

Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.

[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.

  • Absurdly poor quality photos (maybe they were combine harvesters!).

  • Including a photo of damage to the port engine intake which contradicts the conclusion of the MH-17 report.

  • DHS "does not provide any warranties".

  • The one agency that would know has only "moderate confidence".

  • Irrelevant rants about RT or assumed nefarious Russian intentions.

  • "Pro-opposition social media reports".

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, t