Russia: Don't look for who did the MH17 shootdown

[Loren Pechtel]

Nice job of missing the point.

Nice job of having no point.

I was pointing out the proper reaction to losing the territory on which your naval base sits.

- - - Updated - - -

Not an honest referendum.

Says who? you? LOL

Says everyone except Russian apologists.

 

[Jayjay]

Basically, what we have is multiple videos and photos that show the same truck and the same BUK on its way from Donetsk to Luhansk.

No we don't. We have some photos of a buk on a truck when each was taken is disputed. Torez seems to be from another day with clear blue skies and there is evidence it is from the day before.

The video in Luhansk, if made on 17th, fits with the rest of it.

As there is no confirmation of the dates of the others and reason to think the SBU lied there is nothing to fit with.

Anything can be disputed. There are people who dispute that Earth is more than a few thousand years old; and others who dispute that Russia has troops in Ukraine. But merely disputing a single piece of evidence means nothing, you need to disprove it entirely to move it from consideration.

Again, if we have multiple pieces of evidence pointing to the same conclusion, they are stronger together than any uncertainty of individual pieces of evidence. Say you have a witness who says he saw a truck in Torez on a particular day, you can question his motives, or his memory, or his vision. But if you have in addition five other people who are saying the same thing independently of each other, then you have a very strong case that maybe there was a truck in Torez on that particular day.

What we have here is a massive body of evidence pointing that a truck with a BUK on it did in fact travel from Donetsk through Torez to Snizhne. Your complaints are basically that the timing of the photos and videos is not confirmed, and it could have been on another day. But how do you explain, that there are no tweets on the other day reporting the same event? If the truck was there on the day before, why didn't anyone report on it? Why isn't the low-rider truck on the vehicle yard on that day? Why does the timing of the tweets and photos as far as we know just happen to be along a plausible route from point A to point B? The fact that assuming that one of the photos is taken on another day makes less sense and raises more questions is a clue that maybe that hypothesis is nonsense.

I still have not seen a comprehensive rebuttal of the Bellingcat article. All you have done is try to throw a few random piece of feces to the wall and seeing what sticks... and nothing did.

Right, and the article points out why it would not have been there: obscured by clouds or trees, or the timing was slightly off. The truck was spotted in Zuhres at 11:40am, and the satellite image was taken at 11:08am. Zuhres is only 25 kilometers away from the edge of the satellite image, which is less than a 30 minute drive even for a truck.

So there is no confirmation it is from the 17th. and no original and we don't even have the name of the photographer.

So now you assume that Paris Match is involved in this massive cover-up as well? That's the problem with conspiracy theories...when you start positing that all the evidence is manufactured, you'd have to assume that every government, every media, and everyone who is even remotely involved is part of a global conspiracy.

Do you have confirmation that the Paris Match photo is not from the 17th? Paris Match says it is, and we have corroborating evidence frm the same truck being spotted on the same day later. Lack of the name of the photographer or the original is simply irrelevant. If you had a newspaper saying that Kim Kardashian was spotted somewhere on a particular date, you wouldn't doubt it just because you don't know the name of the paparazzi who took the photo or a third party confirmation of his camera's metadata. Taking a reputable newspaper at its word is sufficient if there are no other reasons to suspect foul play.

It does pose a problem for your argument though. Do you think you are more qualified than the experts that RTL Nieuws used to confirm that the originals showed absolutely no signs of tampering?

We need to hear their response to the specific problems Dr Neal Krawetz pointed out on his twitter feed. Curiously we have silence about the specific problems

Why is it curious that experts who confirmed that the originals were not tampered did not address some random twitter comment that they probably had not even seen? And as I pointed out, Krawetz did not analyze the originals. He analyzed BMP versions that were known to have been adjusted. Until you can show his analysis of the originals, I'm going to side with the experts who have.

 

[Jayjay]

No, it says no such thing. The missile in question has guiding system and it changes its course in the air - after all it si designed to hit fighter planes that move a lot faster than Boeing 777. Analysis of its position at the time of its explosion says absolutely nothing where it was fired from simply because it doesn't move in a straight line. Plus, there is no corroborating evidence (witnesses, photos, BUK sightings, etc.) that would place the launch site where Almaz-Antey says it is.

If it came from Snizhne it came from almost directly head on. It would definitely have come in a straight line.

What are your qualifications in missile guidance systems to make that statement? I am guessing, the same as mine: absolutely none.

We know that we can't trust Almaz-Antey, so until there is a second opinion, it would be stupid to believe them to present any scenario that would implicate Russia or the rebels objectively.

 

[Jayjay]

There are photos of it... in a military convoy in Russia on June 23rd.

I'm not disputing it was in Russia, I'm disputing the same one was in Donetsk. What is the evidence? You'll find it evaporates once you try to firm it up

That would be the second part of the Bellingcat report I mentioned earlier. The evidence includes comparison of markings and other features in photos taken in Russia, to those taken in Ukraine.

 

[Will Wiley]

I'm not disputing it was in Russia, I'm disputing the same one was in Donetsk. What is the evidence? You'll find it evaporates once you try to firm it up

That would be the second part of the Bellingcat report I mentioned earlier. The evidence includes comparison of markings and other features in photos taken in Russia, to those taken in Ukraine.

Can you explain why the anonymous photo of a buk on the roadside in Donetsk, that was not confirmed to even be there in the DigitalGlobe photo is reliable as evidence.
One big problem with Bellingcat is that they think that if they can geo locate a photo they think they have "verified" it. But with the Paris Match "photo" they have
1) No evidence as to the date it was taken, and lack of confirmation from the DG satellite photo
2)No evidence as to who took it, and as most of their evidence comes from the SBU one must wonder if this didn't too.
3) No examination as to whether the photo has been photoshopped.
4) No explantion as to how it relates to an almost identical photo from der spiegel. Is it a photo or part of a video?

That being the case it's hard to see why anyone would consider it evidence

 

[Will Wiley]

If it came from Snizhne it came from almost directly head on. It would definitely have come in a straight line.

What are your qualifications in missile guidance systems to make that statement? I am guessing, the same as mine: absolutely none.

We know that we can't trust Almaz-Antey,

No we don't

so until there is a second opinion, it would be stupid to believe them to present any scenario that would implicate Russia or the rebels objectively.

The buk missile explodes it's fragments to the side. There is no way a missile from almost head on would leave the damage we see.
http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/kurs-rakety/2023470

 

[Will Wiley]

What we have here is a massive body of evidence pointing that a truck with a BUK on it did in fact travel from Donetsk through Torez to Snizhne. .

No we don't, and we certainly can't say what dates any photos or videos were taken.
Can you verify any of this evidence? If not you could ask yourself why you believe the story you believe. Can you point to any one piece of evidence that you are sure about. Anything?

We have various unverified photos and videos. Most of these photos etc are either from the SBU or from social media accounts that were closed down shortly after they posted the photos or videos.
So can we look at any one of these...your best one.

 

[Ford]

Anything?

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you denied the existence of MH17 altogether.

 

[Will Wiley]

You seem awfully certain of that. Surely you have actual proof of this (absurd) claim. Put up or shut up.

Finnish legal expert Peter Iiskola says better than I why the Dutch investigation is corrupt.

We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.

- What makes it even more ridiculous is that Netherlands should know better, as it is the seat for at least eight international Tribunals, says Iiskola.

The MH17 investigation is led by the Netherlands - it is clearly procedurally biased from these general justice principles points of views. Therefore, this investigation should be nullified and replaced with a fair, unbiased and neutral one – or the 298 victims and their families will never find out the legal or the actual truth, and get justice! Now the fundamental human and legal rights are in this way denied, endangered and gravely breached.

This says the Finnish judge and international diplomat Peter Iiskola, who has worked in Iran-United States Arbitration in The Hague, as well as in United Nations and Council of Europe justice and human rights projects, and is also specialized in international air and space law.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was an international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that crashed on 17 July 2014 and killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board in Eastern Ukraine.

- What additionally makes everything very murky is that the flight path was changed in two exceptional ways. First of all, Malaysian Airlines confirms that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower. Second, the evidence confirms that the flight path on July 17th was NOT the usual approved flight path. It had been changed. The change was not ordered by Eurocontrol. So, who was behind this changed flight path which spearheaded the aircraft into the war zone, resulting in 298 deaths? Until the tapes of Kiev flight control is released, we will not know this, if they will be ever released, says Iiskola.

“Nemo iudex in causa sua” is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in his own cause. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge, even less investigate, a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

According to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the country in which an aviation incident occurs is responsible for the investigation of that incident, but that country may delegate the investigation to another state, as Ukraine has delegated the leadership of both the technical and the criminal investigations to the Netherlands apparently because the flight started from Amsterdam and most of the passengers were Dutch..

The general problem which we face in this investigation is that most NATO and EU countries have even within just some hours after the accident accused either Vladimir Putin, Russia or some alleged Russian supported separatist for the downing of the airplane.

- Therefore, we cannot really expect that the investigation lead by the Netherlands can ever lead to any unbiased conclusions. Netherlands is a member of both NATO and EU, which both are serious counterparts or in hostility against Russia with sanctions and other measures, says Iiskola.

Ironically, Netherlands should know better since it is the host country or seat for at least eight international tribunals, such as International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Special Court for Sierra Leone at the premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Special Tribunal for Lebanon and Appeals Chamber of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

 

[dystopian]

Finnish legal expert Peter Iiskola says better than I why the Dutch investigation is corrupt.

I demanded proof; not yet more baseless speculation and meaningless attempts to redirect and deflect.

Also, even a cursory googling of this Peter Iiskola fella reveals him as yet another typical anti-EU/Pro-Russia political troll along the lines of Geert Wilders and Le Pen. I wouldn't be surprised if, like these others, his bank accounts have been bolstered by Russian funds in exchange for fanning the flames.

 

[barbos]

Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

Good way to put it.
With Ukraine on the case, not releasing traffic control tapes and Netherlands not releasing text of the agreements and then flat out admitting the actual reason for doing so,I can't say justice is seen to be done.
Democratic countries (as I demonstrated with example of Belgium&Kongo) are not immune to behaving nasty when it comes to big enough picture. And shutting down Putin/Russia has been pretty big picture and obsession of a "free" world.

 

[Will Wiley]

Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

Good way to put it.
With Ukraine on the case, not releasing traffic control tapes and Netherlands not releasing text of the agreements and then flat out admitting the actual reason for doing so,I can't say justice is seen to be done.
Democratic countries (as I demonstrated with example of Belgium&Kongo) are not immune to behaving nasty when it comes to big enough picture. And shutting down Putin/Russia has been pretty big picture and obsession of a "free" world.

It's interesting how some westeners even on this forum (though I'm sure it's just a vocal minority) are so dull that they can't understand that the investigation is compromised. It's like having a policeman suspected of a crime and allowing him to investigate himself.

 

[dystopian]

It's interesting how some westeners even on this forum (though I'm sure it's just a vocal minority) are so dull that they can't understand that the investigation is compromised. It's like having a policeman suspected of a crime and allowing him to investigate himself.

´lololol, look at those stupid westeners thinking their stupid investigation is good and stuff! If investigation is so good, why they not telling us everything while investigation is ongoing? That be like have russia suspected of crime and then allowing thems to shut down the court wher--`

´NYET! COMRADE NYET!´

´Oh! I means that be like having russia state owned arms manufacturer say russia be totally innoccent nothing to s--´

´COMRADE! NYET NYET NYET!´

´...OH! I see what yous is meaning. Then, that be likes having a policemand suspected of crime and then investigating himself, da?´

´Da comrade, that´s good speeching. Russia is victim here, real suspects are those whose people died, is all framejob for making people think bad of russia! Ukraine to blame! Nato to blame!´

´Da, our soldiers in ukraine have seen this, yes? While fighting the Ukrainians they have seen how they--´

´NYET COMRADE!´

´What?`

´Remember, they is just on vacation.´

 

[barbos]

Good way to put it.
With Ukraine on the case, not releasing traffic control tapes and Netherlands not releasing text of the agreements and then flat out admitting the actual reason for doing so,I can't say justice is seen to be done.
Democratic countries (as I demonstrated with example of Belgium&Kongo) are not immune to behaving nasty when it comes to big enough picture. And shutting down Putin/Russia has been pretty big picture and obsession of a "free" world.

It's interesting how some westeners even on this forum (though I'm sure it's just a vocal minority) are so dull that they can't understand that the investigation is compromised. It's like having a policeman suspected of a crime and allowing him to investigate himself.

They don't understand that they need to convince not just themselves (propaganda has already done that) they need to convince ordinary folk in Russia.
Also, I have alternative and somewhat ironic theory on why all that secrecy, I think it is possible that right after the incident they were totally convinced that Russia was responsible in the worst possible way (probably because of what US was telling them) and all that secrecy was created to protect that "truth". Nobody really wanted a mess associated with such truth.
Now they probably realize that Russia is not involved in any way, but it's politically favorable to keep the secrecy and maintain atmosphere of distrust.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

Good way to put it.
With Ukraine on the case, not releasing traffic control tapes and Netherlands not releasing text of the agreements and then flat out admitting the actual reason for doing so,I can't say justice is seen to be done.
Democratic countries (as I demonstrated with example of Belgium&Kongo) are not immune to behaving nasty when it comes to big enough picture. And shutting down Putin/Russia has been pretty big picture and obsession of a "free" world.

No one wants to "shut down" Mother Russia. We just want it to stop expanding.

 

[Jayjay]

That would be the second part of the Bellingcat report I mentioned earlier. The evidence includes comparison of markings and other features in photos taken in Russia, to those taken in Ukraine.

Can you explain why the anonymous photo of a buk on the roadside in Donetsk, that was not confirmed to even be there in the DigitalGlobe photo is reliable as evidence.
One big problem with Bellingcat is that they think that if they can geo locate a photo they think they have "verified" it. But with the Paris Match "photo" they have
1) No evidence as to the date it was taken, and lack of confirmation from the DG satellite photo
2)No evidence as to who took it, and as most of their evidence comes from the SBU one must wonder if this didn't too.
3) No examination as to whether the photo has been photoshopped.
4) No explantion as to how it relates to an almost identical photo from der spiegel. Is it a photo or part of a video?

That being the case it's hard to see why anyone would consider it evidence

Why is the confirmation from Paris Match itself not evidence that the photo was taken on July 17th around 11? The shadows in the picture confirm that they told the truth about the time of day. Why wouldn't the date be correct? You are basically accusing that Paris Match deliberately lied about the time when the photo was taken, or that they photoshopped the photo, but you have not given any reason as to why they would do it. That's a serious accusation, shouldn't you back it up with something?

Second, the photo is corroborated by other sightings of the same truck on the same day, on the same route. You keep ignoring this point, but multiple pieces of evidence that support each other, are more certain than any one of them alone.

Third, that the truck can't be seen in DigitalGlobe has reasonable explanation in that the timing is not so accurate and there are obstructions that may have hidden it from view. But at the same time, the fact that the truck is not at the vehicle yard points to the photo being taken when Paris Match claims it was. Also, if you think lack of the truck in some photo is evidence, then surely, lack of sightings of the same truck with the BUK in donetsk is evidence that the photo was indeed taken on 17th.

Fourth, the image in Der Spiegel is different, but most likely the photographer took several pictures in sequence. It says nothing about the authenticity, if anything, it decreases the chances that they were photoshopped (as the forger would have to edit two photos in exactly the same way, which is rather unlikely).

Basically, the points you raise are on the same level as what moon-landing hoax-theorists bring up about the pictures and video of Apollo mission.

 

[Jayjay]

What are your qualifications in missile guidance systems to make that statement? I am guessing, the same as mine: absolutely none.

We know that we can't trust Almaz-Antey,

No we don't

Yes we do. They are Russian state-owned company with close ties to the military. And they are involved in a court case in European Union to get themselves removed out of the sanctions list related to the Ukrainian conflict. Either one of these is enough reason to not take Almaz-Antey's word without healthy dose of skepticism.

so until there is a second opinion, it would be stupid to believe them to present any scenario that would implicate Russia or the rebels objectively.

The buk missile explodes it's fragments to the side. There is no way a missile from almost head on would leave the damage we see.
http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/kurs-rakety/2023470

Sure, but that tells nothing about what manouvers the missile may have taken before it exploded. Almaz-Antey's presentation does not give much detail about the how the targeting mechanism works.

 

[Jayjay]

What we have here is a massive body of evidence pointing that a truck with a BUK on it did in fact travel from Donetsk through Torez to Snizhne. .

No we don't, and we certainly can't say what dates any photos or videos were taken.
Can you verify any of this evidence? If not you could ask yourself why you believe the story you believe. Can you point to any one piece of evidence that you are sure about. Anything?

We have various unverified photos and videos. Most of these photos etc are either from the SBU or from social media accounts that were closed down shortly after they posted the photos or videos.
So can we look at any one of these...your best one.

The best evidence is all the evidence. You are trying to nibble at the edges of single pieces of evidence and irrelevant details, but the real elephant in the room is the massive body of evidence that comes from multiple different sources that could not possibly have conspired to make up this scenario, and which supports the conclusion that it was indeed a Russian BUK that shot down MH17.

I could turn your own "logic" against you: What is your best evidence that Paris Match photo was not taken on 17th? So far, you have not produced a single conclusive reason to think so, only vague guesswork. Therefore, by your own logic, you should accept that the Paris Match photo was taken on 17th. Repeat that for every other photo and video we've discussed, and what do you have?

Anything?

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if you denied the existence of MH17 altogether.

An excellent point. How do we really know that MH17 crashed at all? We only have unverified photos and videos of the crash site, which may have been taken on another day, unreliable or anonymous witness statements, social media postings that can't be verified, and statements from governments who are allied with NATO or US. Most of the debris and even the alleged bodies have been removed from site in a secret investigation.

 

[Jayjay]

Finnish legal expert Peter Iiskola says better than I why the Dutch investigation is corrupt.

He is a known paid shill and a Russian propagandist and his rants are not worth responding to.

 

[barbos]

Good way to put it.
With Ukraine on the case, not releasing traffic control tapes and Netherlands not releasing text of the agreements and then flat out admitting the actual reason for doing so,I can't say justice is seen to be done.
Democratic countries (as I demonstrated with example of Belgium&Kongo) are not immune to behaving nasty when it comes to big enough picture. And shutting down Putin/Russia has been pretty big picture and obsession of a "free" world.

No one wants to "shut down" Mother Russia. We just want it to stop expanding.

It is not expanding, NATO is. And US wants to shut down Russia.