MH17 -- Looks like it might have been the Russians

[Jayjay]

Meh.

Who gives a shit who did it?

Someone fucked up royally, and hundreds died.

It was a massive fuck up.

Lots of completely uninvolved people died.

Because morons think the Donbass is worth fighting for.

It's not.

Fuck the lot of them. And double fuck the armchair warriors who want to score points for their team off the back of this tragedy.

You are all fucking scum, and need to take a good long look at yourselves.

Arseholes.

I take offense in that^*. It's not about "scoring points" or teams, it's to set record straight and not let MH17 truthers get their message across without being challenged. Truth is always the first casualty of war.

(* but only a teeny weeny bit of offense. Not much at all. We're all here discussing ideas after all, not getting our kicks from being offended or outraged by trivialities.)

 

[barbos]

It may have been seen 300 or 400 hundred kilometres in side Russia with some of the vehicles

Except it's not the same convoy, but nice sleight of hand
Just because Bellingcat tell you it's the same convoy doesn't mean you have to swallow it

And just because Russian propaganda tells you Putin's farts smell like roses, doesn't mean you have to believe it. The convoy has at least one same truck that was seen in a convoy with BUK 3x2. And if you've seen the Millerovo video, you'll notice that some of the vehicles have been covered... a smart precaution if you are about to smuggle them to Ukraine. One of those vehicles under the cover could have easily been the BUK in question.

I have said it before and will say it again, I don't believe russians are so incompetent as you and that belingcat believe.I don't believe they will let you see so much "evidence". As for the rest yes, both sides lie, including western side.

 

[Will Wiley]

The report he is referring to only says that the there is no evidence of separatists having access to a BUK. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,

So there is no evidence of the anti coup forces having a functioning buk.

and in any case it is more likely that the shooters were Russian and not separatists

.Even though there is no evidence for that either. I see.
And what he corrected was the notion that Ukraine had a buk in territory held by rebels. Fair enough though the dividing lines were very fluid anyway

This is false. Records show that Ukraine did not have a veto on the report, most of their requests for revision were overuled. The country who had most input and was able to get most changes included into the Dutch Safety Board report was Russia, by a very large margin.

You don't know was kept out before this and you don't know what was in the secret agreement. Because it's secret

What you are looking at is what happened after all the parties involved agreed what would go in.

This is also false. From the DSB report:

The Ukraine told us that all their relevant radars were inoperative. So they supply some irrelevant nonsense and exclude the important relevant data, because, their radars weren't working

This is particularly telling because Russia in its big press conference used radar data to claim that there were Ukrainian jets in the airspace

. Thee are plenty of eyewitnesses to military jets in the sky. You can find them on youtube.

THere is massive evidence supporting Russian involvement.

You have no evidence. You keep making these silly claims that there is "massive evidence".
What is this "massive evidence of involvement"? Why are you hiding it?

Why don't you go through all this "massive evidence" and present your strongest piece of evidence of Russian involvement?

I'm pretty sure you will back down, because despite your claims I suggest you don't have anything

 

[Will Wiley]

It may have been seen 300 or 400 hundred kilometres in side Russia with some of the vehicles

Except it's not the same convoy, but nice sleight of hand
Just because Bellingcat tell you it's the same convoy doesn't mean you have to swallow it

And just because Russian propaganda tells you Putin's farts smell like roses, doesn't mean you have to believe it. The convoy has at least one same truck that was seen in a convoy with BUK 3x2. And if you've seen the Millerovo video, you'll notice that some of the vehicles have been covered... a smart precaution if you are about to smuggle them to Ukraine. One of those vehicles under the cover could have easily been the BUK in question.

This is just silly. There one truck that may have been 350 kilometres inside Russia. And if that same truck, some time later is seen in Ukraine then it must mean that every other vehicle that was near it at that previous time must also have later gone to the Ukraine.

That is clearly a crazy thing to insist is true. Stop for a moment, and think about what Bellingcat has convinced you of. It's crazy

 

[Jayjay]

So there is no evidence of the anti coup forces having a functioning buk.

and in any case it is more likely that the shooters were Russian and not separatists

.Even though there is no evidence for that either. I see.

Of course there is evidence. The tweet from Pieter Omtzigt that you quoted referred to report by the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service, which stated that the Dutch intelligence didn't have such evidence at the time. Plenty of evidence has surfaced since, and it all points to Russia rather than Ukraine.

This is false. Records show that Ukraine did not have a veto on the report, most of their requests for revision were overuled. The country who had most input and was able to get most changes included into the Dutch Safety Board report was Russia, by a very large margin.

You don't know was kept out before this and you don't know what was in the secret agreement. Because it's secret

What you are looking at is what happened after all the parties involved agreed what would go in.

And your evidence for that is what? Why the hell would Netherlands, who has more reason than anyone to find out who killed two hundred of their citizens, agree to keep the results secret just because Ukraine says so? Why would Malaysia? If there had been foul play to the extend you think, someone would have leaked it already.

This is also false. From the DSB report:

The Ukraine told us that all their relevant radars were inoperative. So they supply some irrelevant nonsense and exclude the important relevant data, because, their radars weren't working

Nice dodge. Russia didn't provide even that, what's its excuse?

This is particularly telling because Russia in its big press conference used radar data to claim that there were Ukrainian jets in the airspace

. Thee are plenty of eyewitnesses to military jets in the sky. You can find them on youtube.

What they saw was debris from MH17 and mistook that as airplanes. No radar data actually shows any planes.

THere is massive evidence supporting Russian involvement.

You have no evidence. You keep making these silly claims that there is "massive evidence".
What is this "massive evidence of involvement"? Why are you hiding it?

Why don't you go through all this "massive evidence" and present your strongest piece of evidence of Russian involvement?

That's just your way of avoiding he fact that there are multiple independence lines of evidence. Not any one single data point is bullet proof, but when there are many data points that all point to the same conclusion, that's what makes the conclusion almost inevitable.

As for individual pieces, we discussed the Paris Match photos in this thread a while, and you were unable to show them as fakes. There are at least two other sightings of the BUK on the same morning. There is picture of the smoke plume (which we also discussed and which was verified by photo forensics experts to be legit). There are tweets from that morning reporting the BUK even without photos. The same BUK was seen in Russia earlier, as seen in dash cam footage from Russian drivers (which you probably think were SBU spies also). There is intercepted communications with rebels bragging how the "cossacks" shot down a plane. It's simply ludicruous that all of these would have been engineered by some grand conspiracy, as you seem to think.

I'm pretty sure you will back down, because despite your claims I suggest you don't have anything

That's a comical accusation, because I can't see you showing any evidence to support your claims that doesn't fall apart after a 5-minute google search.

 

[Jayjay]

And just because Russian propaganda tells you Putin's farts smell like roses, doesn't mean you have to believe it. The convoy has at least one same truck that was seen in a convoy with BUK 3x2. And if you've seen the Millerovo video, you'll notice that some of the vehicles have been covered... a smart precaution if you are about to smuggle them to Ukraine. One of those vehicles under the cover could have easily been the BUK in question.

This is just silly. There one truck that may have been 350 kilometres inside Russia. And if that same truck, some time later is seen in Ukraine then it must mean that every other vehicle that was near it at that previous time must also have later gone to the Ukraine.

That is clearly a crazy thing to insist is true. Stop for a moment, and think about what Bellingcat has convinced you of. It's crazy

The truck was not seen in Ukraine. There was at least one truck that was carrying a clearly identifiable vehicle that was part of the same convoy as th 3x2 BUK in June 24th elsewhere in Russia. If I looked through the videos again frame by frame I'm sure I could spot other same vehicles as well. This shows it's most likely the same convoy. The BUk could have been one of the vehicles under the tarp, or it could have been separated from the convoy by that time already. I don't know. But complaining that the BUK was not seen in Millerovo specificly is a red herring, when it's obvious that BUK was seen elsewhere in Russia. Nobody is saying that all the vehicles from the convoy went to Ukraine, it could have very well been just the BUK.

 

[Will Wiley]

This is just silly. There one truck that may have been 350 kilometres inside Russia. And if that same truck, some time later is seen in Ukraine then it must mean that every other vehicle that was near it at that previous time must also have later gone to the Ukraine.

That is clearly a crazy thing to insist is true. Stop for a moment, and think about what Bellingcat has convinced you of. It's crazy

The truck was not seen in Ukraine. There was at least one truck that was carrying a clearly identifiable vehicle that was part of the same convoy as th 3x2 BUK in June 24th elsewhere in Russia.

So you have a verified photo/video of a buk in Russia. Wow! But not one single verified photo of a buk in Ukraine. Not even one.

If I looked through the videos again frame by frame I'm sure I could spot other same vehicles as well.

?

This shows it's most likely the same convoy.

Because you imagine that if you bothered to look you'd convince yourself there was evidence...er...ok.

The BUk could have been one of the vehicles under the tarp, or it could have been separated from the convoy by that time already

Or it just was never there.

. I don't know.

You do know. What you know is you don't have one verified photo or video of this mystery buk in Ukraine. You have photos videos leaked online after the incident by Ukrtainian intelligence, or a photo probably taken/created by them that can't be verified in any way. Come on.

But complaining that the BUK was not seen in Millerovo specificly is a red herring,

You have no evidence that can be verified in any way that this alleged buk was in Ukraine.

when it's obvious that BUK was seen elsewhere in Russia. Nobody is saying that all the vehicles from the convoy went to Ukraine, it could have very well been just the BUK.

Let me get this right. Maybe the buk only went to Ukraine even though you have no verified photo or video of it. Despite the fact we have many verified photos and video of other vehicles used by the anti-coup forces. good grief

 

[Will Wiley]

As for individual pieces, we discussed the Paris Match photos in this thread a while, and you were unable to show them as fakes. .

good grief! there are plenty of problems with that photo.
But you don't seem to understand the most elementary thing about evidence. It's up to you to show it is genuine if you want to keep accusing Russia of involvement.
All you have so far is "it's real because I hate Russia"

1.Who took the photo? name please
2.Why didn't the photo show up in a satellite photo of that area at that time. It's not in the photo.
3.How did you decide the photo wasn't altered or even a complete fake.

Oh ..I know...Russia is evil...therefore the photo is real

 

[Jayjay]

The truck was not seen in Ukraine. There was at least one truck that was carrying a clearly identifiable vehicle that was part of the same convoy as th 3x2 BUK in June 24th elsewhere in Russia.

So you have a verified photo/video of a buk in Russia. Wow! But not one single verified photo of a buk in Ukraine. Not even one.

Do you have amnesia? There are a lot more photos of the BUK in Ukraine than there is from Russia. We discussed the Paris Match photo in length a few pages ago. It is independently corroborated by observations in twitter from Donetsk at the time (from sources that had no reason to make things up), as well as the other photos from the same day. The shadows on the photo match the alleged time of day. To any reasonable and objective person, that's sufficient verification. You wouldn't question any other random newspaper photo unless there is reason to, so why this one?

What you are doing is setting up an impossible standard of "verification", so that you can dismiss any amount of evidence, no mater how convincing, by just waving your hand, when you have no positive evidence of your own of any kind of forgery or foul play. For example, you've made an accusation that either the photographer is an SBU agent or Paris Match is in some sort of conspiracy with SBU, but you've not got a shred of evidence to support it.

If I looked through the videos again frame by frame I'm sure I could spot other same vehicles as well.

?

This shows it's most likely the same convoy.

Because you imagine that if you bothered to look you'd convince yourself there was evidence...er...ok.

The BUk could have been one of the vehicles under the tarp, or it could have been separated from the convoy by that time already

Or it just was never there.

Possibly. What evidence do you have to support it? The BUK 3x2 was clearly photographed in another town the day before. What positive evidence do you have that it didn't continue with the convoy to Millerovo? Occam's razor says that simplest explanation is most likely to be true. What's the simplest explanation here? Is it that the BUK was separated from the convoy, or that it was under a tarp, or is it an elaborate conspiracy theory that some of the dashcam footage was forged by the SBU or CIA or the Illuminati?

. I don't know.

You do know. What you know is you don't have one verified photo or video of this mystery buk in Ukraine. You have photos videos leaked online after the incident by Ukrtainian intelligence, or a photo probably taken/created by them that can't be verified in any way. Come on.

See above. What evidence do you have that the Paris Match photo was "leaked onlike by Ukrainian intelligence", much less "taken/created by them"? And at least the video from Zhures was published before the incident. Not sure about the picture in Torez.

But complaining that the BUK was not seen in Millerovo specificly is a red herring,

You have no evidence that can be verified in any way that this alleged buk was in Ukraine.

when it's obvious that BUK was seen elsewhere in Russia. Nobody is saying that all the vehicles from the convoy went to Ukraine, it could have very well been just the BUK.

Let me get this right. Maybe the buk only went to Ukraine even though you have no verified photo or video of it. Despite the fact we have many verified photos and video of other vehicles used by the anti-coup forces. good grief

The 3x2 BUK's conection to the one sighted in Ukraine is based on the similarity of some other markings and the side skirt in the BUK. The number itself is not clearly visible in any of the photos from Ukraine. And you seem to have a peculiar double standard: if you admit that the photos of other vehicles that the rebels used are "verified", even if they come from basically the same news and social media sources as the BUK photos, what basis do you have for excluding the BUK photos and pretending they are not equally "verified"?

 

[Jayjay]

As for individual pieces, we discussed the Paris Match photos in this thread a while, and you were unable to show them as fakes. .

good grief! there are plenty of problems with that photo.
But you don't seem to understand the most elementary thing about evidence. It's up to you to show it is genuine if you want to keep accusing Russia of involvement.
All you have so far is "it's real because I hate Russia"

1.Who took the photo? name please
2.Why didn't the photo show up in a satellite photo of that area at that time. It's not in the photo.
3.How did you decide the photo wasn't altered or even a complete fake.

Oh ..I know...Russia is evil...therefore the photo is real

No. The photo is likely to be genuine because that's the simplest explanation. To answer your questions,

1. Irrelevant. You wouldn't use this against any other photo published by a reputable newspaper.
2. The satellite photo was taken an hour later, and we don't know the exact time for per minute when the truck started moving or what route it took (it was parked on the side of the road in the Paris Match photo). There are plausible reasons why it wouldn't show in the DigitalGlobe satellite image, such as being obscured by trees or clouds. On the other hand, satellite photos confirm that the truck carrying it was not in the vehicle yard where it usually is, so it doesn't help your case either. It's simply inconclusive.
3. One reason to think it's not fake is that there are actually two known photos, as the photographer probably used a burst mode. Faking two slightly different pictures in a same way would be unnecessarily complex thing to do. Also, if it was a fake, you'd probably have some artifacts unless it was an extraordinarily good fake.

So, the preponderance of evidence (including the independent corraboration of BUK sightings in Donetsk) pointing to the picture being real, what evidence do you have that it is not real?

(EDITED TO ADD: I've made numerous references to "few pages back", but I now realize it was the old MH17 thread. I'm sure you know it Will, but just FYI for the record and for possible other readers.)

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, how sure you are in this theory that these have been russians?

 

[Jayjay]

Jayjay, how sure you are in this theory that these have been russians?

If I've understood correctly, operating a BUK system takes several years of training. It's unlikely that the rebels could have done it.

 

[Lion IRC]

I understand practice makes perfect but would it really take that long to learn how to follow an operation manual?

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, how sure you are in this theory that these have been russians?

If I've understood correctly, operating a BUK system takes several years of training. It's unlikely that the rebels could have done it.

You did not answer my question.

But I am curious, why do you assume that no rebels have required training?
And it seems that you don't base your argument on belingcat, which is curious as well.

 

[Will Wiley]

Jayjay, how sure you are in this theory that these have been russians?

If I've understood correctly, operating a BUK system takes several years of training. It's unlikely that the rebels could have done it.

Which leaves only one group who could have done. Someone from the Ukrainian military.
Which is why America refuses to release the evidence they have.

MH-17’s Unnecessary Mystery

The Los Angeles Times article said: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the designation for a Russian-made anti-aircraft Buk missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

That uncertainty meshed somewhat with what I had been told by a source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts shortly after the shoot-down about what they had seen in high-resolution satellite photos, which they said showed what looked like Ukrainian military personnel manning the battery which was believed to have fired the missile.

 

[Will Wiley]

So you have a verified photo/video of a buk in Russia. Wow! But not one single verified photo of a buk in Ukraine. Not even one.

Do you have amnesia? There are a lot more photos of the BUK in Ukraine than there is from Russia. ?

No I don't have amnesia. None of the photos can be verified. Not one of them You don't even have one. They all also have the wrong weather or were produced by Ukrainian intelligence. But rather than examine them we have to put up with your endless bleating like a sheep rather than examining them and verifying them

 

[Will Wiley]

good grief! there are plenty of problems with that photo.
But you don't seem to understand the most elementary thing about evidence. It's up to you to show it is genuine if you want to keep accusing Russia of involvement.
All you have so far is "it's real because I hate Russia"

1.Who took the photo? name please
2.Why didn't the photo show up in a satellite photo of that area at that time. It's not in the photo.
3.How did you decide the photo wasn't altered or even a complete fake.

Oh ..I know...Russia is evil...therefore the photo is real

No. The photo is likely to be genuine because that's the simplest explanation. To answer your questions,

again you don't understand the most basic thing about evidence. You can't just claim that some anonymous photo that appears it could have been photo shopped is real when most of the alleged evidence comes from the Ukrainians who probably shot the plane down.

repeating over and over like a sheep that "it is likely" doesn't cut it. If you want to go accusing Russia of being involved then provide evidence that you know these fake photos are real.

 

[Jayjay]

If I've understood correctly, operating a BUK system takes several years of training. It's unlikely that the rebels could have done it.

Which leaves only one group who could have done. Someone from the Ukrainian military.
Which is why America refuses to release the evidence they have.

MH-17’s Unnecessary Mystery

The Los Angeles Times article said: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the designation for a Russian-made anti-aircraft Buk missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

That uncertainty meshed somewhat with what I had been told by a source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts shortly after the shoot-down about what they had seen in high-resolution satellite photos, which they said showed what looked like Ukrainian military personnel manning the battery which was believed to have fired the missile.

That's two separate claims. First, there is the quote from the LA times, that the BUK could have been operated by defectors from Ukrainian military. This is a remote possibility (if it were true, surely names of such defectors would have been made public to implicate the rebels), but someone from Ukrainian military who defects to the rebel side is still a rebel. But it just confirms that using the BUK takes a lot of training and only way rebels could have had such training was if they had someone who either defected from Ukrainian military, or was/is member of Russian armed forces.

The second claim refers to Parry's anonymous source claiming there was satellite footage of drunken Ukrainian soldiers. At the time of his article in 2014, these source said that "the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility." I wonder why Parry never did a follow-up story based complete analysis?

 

[Jayjay]

No. The photo is likely to be genuine because that's the simplest explanation. To answer your questions,

again you don't understand the most basic thing about evidence. You can't just claim that some anonymous photo that appears it could have been photo shopped is real when most of the alleged evidence comes from the Ukrainians who probably shot the plane down.

repeating over and over like a sheep that "it is likely" doesn't cut it. If you want to go accusing Russia of being involved then provide evidence that you know these fake photos are real.

You have not shown any of these photos to be fake, despite them being public for a long time. On the other hand, a lot of the evidence from Russian side has been: Russian satellite footage with doctored time stamps, or the "Russian Engineers Union" claiming that the holes in the debris was from bullets.

You have not shown a single piece of evidence that would support any of your claims about photoshopping or that the photos came from "Ukrainians who probably shot the plane down". The photos that are from anonymous sources are so because in a rebel controled territory providing information about troop movements can get you killed. That doesn't discredit the photos. And even when the photographer is known, as is in the case of the smoke plume, you would still categorically reject it. I'll be happy to discuss any evidence you migth have to see if they have any merit, but it seems that you are more happy just defending yoru religious dogma than discuss the facts.

For starters, what makes you think any of the photos are doctored? What makes you think there is a conspiracy that produceddozens of tweets, photos and videos at the same time, from differnt places, documenting th emoving of the BUK in an area where someone happened to find track marks and take a photo of the smoke plume right after the BUK was fired? How is it possible that this kind of massive conspiracy of dozens of not hundreds of individuals could be organized without a hitch, and that it somehow matches up perfectly with a BUK that was seen in Russia the month prior?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have amnesia? There are a lot more photos of the BUK in Ukraine than there is from Russia. ?

No I don't have amnesia. None of the photos can be verified. Not one of them You don't even have one. They all also have the wrong weather or were produced by Ukrainian intelligence. But rather than examine them we have to put up with your endless bleating like a sheep rather than examining them and verifying them

We have examined the evidence in the old thread, and you got caught up with the first photo I brougth up (the Paris Match one), failing to show that it was fake or produced by Ukrainian intelligence, yet refusing to move on to the next piece. But I'm always happy to continue if you have something new you want to share.

 

[Jayjay]

If I've understood correctly, operating a BUK system takes several years of training. It's unlikely that the rebels could have done it.

You did not answer my question.

But I am curious, why do you assume that no rebels have required training?
And it seems that you don't base your argument on belingcat, which is curious as well.

I base it on general impression I get from various sources, that it's hard to operate a BUK and it requires a long specialized training. Haven't seen that contradicted anywhere. I suppose, it could be possible that defectors from Ukrainian military could have used the BUK, but even then, where did they get it from? The ones they bragged to have captured from Ukraine seem to have been disabled. And if the same BUK was indeed seen in a convoy in Russia just one month before, that would imply that it came from Russia... and could have had Russian operators as well.