Sweden, Finland, and Ukraine joining NATO?

[tupac chopra]

Funny, was there been a lot of focus in the USA on the fighter jets at that time? Or didn't they get a mention?
Why weren't the US media focusing on that part of the story?

Probably because there is no evidence for it, other than the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists?
.

No we have video of eyewitnesses who saw military jets at that time in the area.
I know you somehow think eyewitness reports aren't evidence, but that is your problem.

 

[bilby]

Probably because there is no evidence for it, other than the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists?
.

No we have video of eyewitnesses who saw military jets at that time in the area.
I know you somehow think eyewitness reports aren't evidence, but that is your problem.

Eyewitness reports are the lowest quality evidence possible. They are trumped by absolutely every other form of evidence.

That's not 'my problem', that's a simple fact.

And one reason that eyewitness reports are considered so unreliable is that they are difficult - to the point of being impossible - to distinguish from the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists.

 

[Davka]

Maybe, or maybe they were just exercising journalistic integrity by subjecting the report to the same review process as everything else before reposting it. Either way, your claim that these reports are being covered up is false.

Funny, was there been a lot of focus in the USA on the fighter jets at that time? Or didn't they get a mention?
Why weren't the US media focusing on that part of the story?

yes, there was focus. There was a whole lot of speculation. There was no cover-up. Outside of Russia, that is.

- - - Updated - - -

I was listening to the radio soon after this incident occurred, and the BBC had a reporter on the ground (probably an independent stringer) who was talking to the locals about what they saw. According to this reporter, all the locals said they saw a Ukrainian fighter jet flying overhead, then a rocket trail from the ground, followed by the crash of the airliner. The implication was pretty clear: rebels/russians fired a heat-seeking missile at the fighter jet and missed, instead taking down the much higher commercial jet.

Oddly, I have heard no follow-up on this report since that initial interview.

The "local stringers" are all too often basically PR for the side controlling the area.

Sometimes that's true. But then there shouldn't have been all those people saying they saw a ground-to-air missile trail.

 

[tupac chopra]

No we have video of eyewitnesses who saw military jets at that time in the area.
I know you somehow think eyewitness reports aren't evidence, but that is your problem.

Eyewitness reports are the lowest quality evidence possible. They are trumped by absolutely every other form of evidence.

That's not 'my problem', that's a simple fact.

.

First you say there is no evidence, now you say there is. Which is it?
Your problem is that you want both to be true. You want there to be "no evidence" then in the very next breath you tell us there is evidence.

 

[bilby]

Eyewitness reports are the lowest quality evidence possible. They are trumped by absolutely every other form of evidence.

That's not 'my problem', that's a simple fact.

.

First you say there is no evidence, now you say there is. Which is it?
Your problem is that you want both to be true. You want there to be "no evidence" then in the very next breath you tell us there is evidence.

I never said that there was any evidence. I merely pointed out that your claim that eyewitness evidence exists would be useless even if it was true. You apparently cannot read any better than you can reason.

 

[Ford]

First you say there is no evidence, now you say there is.

First you say a Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner, then you don't say a thing.

 

[tupac chopra]

First you say there is no evidence, now you say there is. Which is it?
Your problem is that you want both to be true. You want there to be "no evidence" then in the very next breath you tell us there is evidence.

I never said that there was any evidence. I merely pointed out that your claim that eyewitness evidence exists would be useless even if it was true. You apparently cannot read any better than you can reason.

No you said there was no evidence for military planes in that area at that time.
Right here.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...e-joining-NATO&p=108413&viewfull=1#post108413

But hey..if you want to keep denying it...m'eh Who cares

 

[Davka]

I never said that there was any evidence. I merely pointed out that your claim that eyewitness evidence exists would be useless even if it was true. You apparently cannot read any better than you can reason.

No you said there was no evidence for military planes in that area at that time.
Right here.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...e-joining-NATO&p=108413&viewfull=1#post108413

But hey..if you want to keep denying it...m'eh Who cares

Stop, you're killing me!

You're quoting what another poster said about how your arguments are baseless drivel as support for your baseless drivel?

 

[barbos]

Rebels had no idea that civilian planes were still or ever flying there, they had nothing to gain from shooting a civilian plane.
Ukrainians knew they were flying and they knew rebels had a system capable of shooting that high, that's a minimum. Maximum is that they tried to setup rebels into shooting a passenger plane, or pilots may have used passenger planes as cover thinking rebels are smart enough to realize that there was a passenger plane there.
One thing is for sure, rebels had no intents to shoot it, but you can't say the same about ukrainians.

First, civilian air traffic is not exactly a secret. Finding out whether there is a plane overhead is a matter of checking it on the internet,

You are being ridiculous. And I am hearing this for a first time that you can check position of a plane on the internet.

so shooting missiles at flying objects and not confirming what's up there is itself a matter of recklessness.

Yes, but they are not regular army. And regular army 30% of time shoot at their own forces.

Second, it's debatable whether Ukrainian could have known that rebels had a BUK.

Well, rebels told them they captured BUK from them.

Third, you don't use yourself as a bait. It would be a suicide mission because there is no way to be sure that the rebels would actually hit the other plane when aiming at you.

Not a suicide if pilot does not know.

This is why the scenario of them using civilian planes as cover is more plausible, at least to a layman such as myself. I do know that rebels have accused Ukraine of using other planes as cover at least once before this incident.

Yes, but you can't exclude it.

 

[tupac chopra]

No you said there was no evidence for military planes in that area at that time.
Right here.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...e-joining-NATO&p=108413&viewfull=1#post108413

But hey..if you want to keep denying it...m'eh Who cares

Stop, you're killing me!

You're quoting what another poster said about how your arguments are baseless drivel as support for your baseless drivel?

Hmmm you must have been a pretty poor journalist.
I wrote this...

Funny, was there been a lot of focus in the USA on the fighter jets at that time? Or didn't they get a mention?
Why weren't the US media focusing on that part of the story?

Bilby replied...

Probably because there is no evidence for it, other than the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists?

Hope you are doing better in your present career. I can see why you're no longer paid to do jounalism.

 

[Davka]

Stop, you're killing me!

You're quoting what another poster said about how your arguments are baseless drivel as support for your baseless drivel?

Hmmm you must have been a pretty poor journalist.
I wrote this...

Funny, was there been a lot of focus in the USA on the fighter jets at that time? Or didn't they get a mention?
Why weren't the US media focusing on that part of the story?

Bilby replied...

Probably because there is no evidence for it, other than the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists?

Hope you are doing better in your present career. I can see why you're no longer paid to do jounalism.

You really have a difficult time with basic logic, don't you? The sort of step-by-step linear thinking needed to follow simple written prose appears to be beyond your capacity to grasp. And you have this odd habit of saying one thing, and then when people respond to it, you act as if they're responding to something completely different. You even go so far as to quote the wrong post.

The Interwebz are clearly confusing you. Maybe you should stick to something a bit more basic, something more on your level. Here's a picture of a small cat in a boot:

 

[Ford]

Any second now, tupac. Any second now.

 

[bilby]

I never said that there was any evidence. I merely pointed out that your claim that eyewitness evidence exists would be useless even if it was true. You apparently cannot read any better than you can reason.

No you said there was no evidence for military planes in that area at that time.
Right here.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...e-joining-NATO&p=108413&viewfull=1#post108413

But hey..if you want to keep denying it...m'eh Who cares

Yes, I said there was no evidence. If you honestly think that is inconsistent with my never saying that there was any evidence, then you need to seriously learn how to think.

Right now, your position appears to be based on a mishmash of illogic and bizarre accusations with no basis - both against other posters in this thread, and against an apparently mythical Ukrainian pilot.

When your arguments are not even internally consistent, you have a real credibility problem - but don't worry, there are religions with internally inconsistent positions that have kept some believers for thousands of years, so as long as you are more interested in being believed (at least by the idiots amongst us), than in being right, you are golden. Idiots vote too, so their opinions are as valuable as anyone's when it comes to political bullshitting.

 

[Jayjay]

First, civilian air traffic is not exactly a secret. Finding out whether there is a plane overhead is a matter of checking it on the internet,

You are being ridiculous. And I am hearing this for a first time that you can check position of a plane on the internet.

http://www.flightradar24.com

 

[tupac chopra]

delete

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, I said there was no evidence. .

I know and then you said there was evidence, but you said it was low quality. But wateva.

and against an apparently mythical Ukrainian pilot.

Here he is.

 

[Ford]

I know and then you said there was evidence, but you said it was low quality. But wateva.

and against an apparently mythical Ukrainian pilot.

Here he is.
View attachment 1986

So this is the person who shot down the airliner?

Or is that just a shot of some random pilot?

 

[bilby]

Yes, I said there was no evidence. .

I know and then you said there was evidence, but you said it was low quality. But wateva.

Let's see that again shall we?

Funny, was there been a lot of focus in the USA on the fighter jets at that time? Or didn't they get a mention?
Why weren't the US media focusing on that part of the story?

Probably because there is no evidence for it, other than the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists?

Nobody planned or intended to shoot down an airliner.

But the idea that 'enemies' DID, and are therefore dastardly and evil, while 'friends' are lily-white innocents, was too good a propaganda opportunity for either side to miss.

Both sides have therefore spent a huge amount of ink, pixels, and bytes trying to blame their opponents for this mistake.

It was a mistake. The people who shot the airliner down were a bunch of ignorant hicks who had no concept of international aviation even existing, and who, if they had ever thought about commercial aviation at all, imagined that only planes going to or from Ukraine would fly over Ukraine.

As a result, they were trigger-happy, and had no qualms about shooting at any target on their radar screens. Because they were Russian backed rebels, and they assumed that any aircraft in the vicinity had to be Ukrainian military aircraft - or at the very least, Ukrainian aircraft of some type - and therefore legitimate targets.

Both sides of this are ignorant thugs. The Russian speaking side made a grave error which resulted in a tragedy. Those rebels, commanded by Girkin, who made this error, are responsible for the manslaughter of the passengers and crew of MH017.

All the rest of the FUD, conspiracist bullshit and propaganda is just fucking sad, as are those who disseminate this crap as though it was either accurate or important.

First bilby says that there is NO evidence for fighter planes.

Eyewitness reports are the lowest quality evidence possible. They are trumped by absolutely every other form of evidence.

That's not 'my problem', that's a simple fact.

And one reason that eyewitness reports are considered so unreliable is that they are difficult - to the point of being impossible - to distinguish from the fevered ramblings of moronic conspiracy theorists.

Then bilby mentions that eyewitness reports are not good as evidence.

Note that this new statement makes no claim at all about whether any evidence exists; it merely comments on the low value that would be placed on that particular kind of evidence, were it to exist.

I never said that there was any evidence. I merely pointed out that your claim that eyewitness evidence exists would be useless even if it was true. You apparently cannot read any better than you can reason.

Now bilby clarifies this point, for the hard-of-thinking.

Yes, I said there was no evidence. If you honestly think that is inconsistent with my never saying that there was any evidence, then you need to seriously learn how to think.

Right now, your position appears to be based on a mishmash of illogic and bizarre accusations with no basis - both against other posters in this thread, and against an apparently mythical Ukrainian pilot.

When your arguments are not even internally consistent, you have a real credibility problem - but don't worry, there are religions with internally inconsistent positions that have kept some believers for thousands of years, so as long as you are more interested in being believed (at least by the idiots amongst us), than in being right, you are golden. Idiots vote too, so their opinions are as valuable as anyone's when it comes to political bullshitting.

And now bilby re-iterates his original (and unchanged) claim that there is no evidence.

So should I assume that by "But wateva." you actually mean "I apologise, I misunderstood what you had written, and now realise that my accusation that you were being inconsistent was in error"?

Because the latter is certainly a more grown-up response, and is rather less likely to give people a poor impression of you, as a debater or as a moral individual. But it is your call.

 

[tupac chopra]

Then bilby mentions that eyewitness reports are not good as evidence.

Note that this new statement makes no claim at all about whether any evidence exists; .

If you'd bothered to follow the thread you'd see that the evidence was linked to already.Though apprently you believe that if you close your eyes put your fingers in your ears and sing ..lalalala...the evidence ceases to be.

And now bilby re-iterates his original (and unchanged) claim that there is no evidence

Ignoring the evidence that was linked to doesn't make it go away. Sorry

 

[bilby]

If you'd bothered to follow the thread you'd see that the evidence was linked to already.Though apprently you believe that if you close your eyes put your fingers in your ears and sing ..lalalala...the evidence ceases to be.

And now bilby re-iterates his original (and unchanged) claim that there is no evidence

Ignoring the evidence that was linked to doesn't make it go away. Sorry

That is the worst apology I have ever seen.