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

[Horatio Parker]

You show your bias.

Which bias would that be? To treat Russian claims as skeptically as American?

If America stands to lose by having its meddling with murderous extremist allies exposed, Russia stands to lose a great deal more. And Almaz Antey is a state owned company, no? It's statements may as well come straight from the Kremlin.

A claim by Almaz Antey is proof not only that the Dutch misrepresented their data, but that they deliberately did so in order to deceive? And therefore their entire report is negated?

If you're going to talk bias, I suggest you look to your own.

 

[Will Wiley]

They were shooting down plenty of planes with manpads.

Can you produce one, just one, just one photo or video of this "mystery buk" that can be dated or verified. All I'm asking is for ONE that can be verified and dated. Just one

There are many, but let's take the Paris Match photo for example:

Paris Match (who has no reason to lie about it) says it was taken around 11am on July 17th, and the analysis of shadows shows that the time is beween 10am - 10:15am. It's further verified by other sightings in social media. But actually, asking for single image is misleading. The most convincing evidence is that all the photos and videos corraborate each other. You are trying to point out some pedantic doubts about single dating of individual images, and indeed some images or videos may be fake, but the scope of the conspiracy required to forge all of them is so astounding that it's ridiculous.

We have photos and videos of the convoy which supposedly had the buk in it that can be dated, but this "mystery buk" isn't in any of them.

Actually, there is a high probability that it was:

The Buk seen in Russia was dubbed “3×2” due to an obscured number on the side of the vehicle (as is the case with the ID numbers of many of the vehicles transported from Russia to Ukraine). The remaining parts of the numbers of the Buk photographed by Paris Match as well as the loading markings and white paint on the rubber side skirt below those numbers were in exactly the same position.

A burn mark above the exhaust visible in one of the Paris Match photographs was also in exactly the same position as the one seen on Buk 3×2 in Russia. While all of these pieces of evidence seemed to indicate that the Buk in Ukraine and Buk 3×2 were one and the same, an additional piece of evidence made the case particularly compelling. During Bellingcat’s research[40] into the many Buk sightings, it became clear that the rubber side skirt above the tracks of Buk missile launchers can become damaged over time and that this damage creates a unique “fingerprint” allowing different Buk photographs to be matched. In the case of Buk 3×2 and the Buk photograph by Paris Match in Donetsk, the side skirts were nearly identical.

It's not completely conclusive, but similarities are close enough to call it.

FAIL Jayjay.
I asked for a dated verified photo or video, and you give me this crap. I did not ask for you long winded justification for why you think this is real.
Now I will ask again. Do you have one verified and dated photo. This photo is neither dated nor verified.
This photo is "verified" by other photos on social media ...bwa ha hahahahahah

 

[barbos]

You show your bias.

Which bias would that be? To treat Russian claims as skeptically as American?

What american claim you treated skeptically?

If America stands to lose by having its meddling with murderous extremist allies exposed, Russia stands to lose a great deal more. And Almaz Antey is a state owned company, no? It's statements may as well come straight from the Kremlin.

US/EU stand to lose way more. After all it's US/EU who are beacons of democracy, human rights and justice.

A claim by Almaz Antey is proof not only that the Dutch misrepresented their data, but that they deliberately did so in order to deceive? And therefore their entire report is negated?

Yes, in my view the entire report if not negated but questionable.
But am open to hearing some explanation.

If you're going to talk bias, I suggest you look to your own.

Yes I am biased against being bullshitted, and this report is a clear attempt to bullshit me.

 

[Will Wiley]

OK, that's official, someone hacked Jayjay's account.

I'm not saying Russia shot down Siberia Airlines flight 1812. I'm saying that the level of evidence by which we know it was most likely Ukraine, is less conclusive than the evidence we have for Russian BUK downing MH17. If you think that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ukraine shot down SA1812, by that standard of evidence it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Russia shot down MH17. .

But you don't even have one dated photo of this mystery buk. Do you understand how digital photos are dated?
It's easy to date a digital photo, yet you don't even have ONE

- - - Updated - - -

Which bias would that be? To treat Russian claims as skeptically as American?

What american claim you treated skeptically?
.

Many Americans are now skeptical about whether Sadaam had WMD.
Most still know that he did though

 

[barbos]

So, a Russian jet just crashed in Egypt. So, mechanical failure, ISIS terrorism or perhaps an angry Malay with a score to settle over MH17? Or is it those dastardly Ukrainians again?

Well, dutch owned the plane. But we know that pilots reported some mechanical problems and were attempting to land.

 

[Will Wiley]

Theories need to be plausible. You can't just throw random stuff.
Russian BUK is much less plausible than ukrainian one. The only reason why you are insisting on it is because of your bias against Russia.
If you try to avoid your bias you will realize that there were shitload of ukrainian BUKs in the area with half of that shitload being operated by drunk soldiers.

Sure you can.

First it was an air to air missile fired from Ukrainian jet, then BUK stolen by Ukrainians. Easy. Whatever sticks. Culpability is avoided(the Vincennes incident cost the US $63 billion). Aggression is covered up. Maybe you can even get sanctions lifted.

None of that is possible if Russian involvement is accepted by all hands.

The Ukrainians obviously needed all that AA capacity to deal with the rebel air force.

You're obviously unaware that the Ukrainians had accused the Russians of using their jets in the conflict by this point?

 

[Ford]

You show your bias.

This is without a doubt the funniest thing I've read on the internet all day. A blatantly pro-Russian partisan, whose posting history on all topics Russia (this one, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine) parrots the official Russian government line without deviation, has the nerve to call someone out on their "bias?"




But I shouldn't laugh. Your nation has suffered a tragedy today. Your President has declared a national day of mourning for the 214 Russians and 3 Ukrainians killed in the crash of their airliner Egypt. Well maybe a little less mourning for the Ukrainians, eh Barbos?

And while Russia doesn't want the Dutch investigating what happened to their airliner, Egypt immediately invited Russia to participate in the investigation of today's terrible crash.


Maybe you (and your comrades Will and Tupac) can take a clue from these developments. Do what your President has commanded. Spend the rest of the day thinking about your fellow Russians who lost their lives. Think about their families and friends who have to deal with such a horrific event. You can go back to repeating propaganda tomorrow. Show some respect for the victims for a change.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes I am biased against being bullshitted, and this report is a clear attempt to bullshit me.

But not biased against bullshitting.

- - - Updated - - -

You're obviously unaware that the Ukrainians had accused the Russians of using their jets in the conflict by this point?

How many planes did they shoot down?

 

[Jayjay]

Theories need to be plausible. You can't just throw random stuff.
Russian BUK is much less plausible than ukrainian one. The only reason why you are insisting on it is because of your bias against Russia.
If you try to avoid your bias you will realize that there were shitload of ukrainian BUKs in the area with half of that shitload being operated by drunk soldiers.

Where is the evidence for these "shitload of Ukrainian BUKs"? All we've seen is one satellite photo from Russia dated week before the event, and none in the most likely launch site. And how were they able to drive around and operate in rebel controlled territory? And why would they? The rebels don't have an air force. It makes no sense for Ukraine to deploy their BUKs, let alone "shitloads" of them.

 

[Jayjay]

You know, seeing all this talk of Dutch this and Dutch that; and seeing as how this thread is long past the point of no return; let me just say that despite knowing the hardships it's no doubt creating for many ordinary Russians... part of me is profoundly amused by the fact that following their abominable behavior the past couple of years, Russia's economy is now smaller than that of Spain and well on its way to becoming smaller than that of the Netherlands. Perhaps karma is real after all.

Yep, this is where we are headed:

 

[Jayjay]

Sure you can.

First it was an air to air missile fired from Ukrainian jet,

Yes, it was, there was a jet in the area, hence this theory

There was no jet, based on any radar data received by DSB. Russia made it up, likely based on debris showing up in radar briefly (which eye witnesses may have confused for another jet also). And then Russia conveniently lost the original radar data. Oopsies.

 

[Jayjay]

There are many, but let's take the Paris Match photo for example:

Paris Match (who has no reason to lie about it) says it was taken around 11am on July 17th, and the analysis of shadows shows that the time is beween 10am - 10:15am. It's further verified by other sightings in social media. But actually, asking for single image is misleading. The most convincing evidence is that all the photos and videos corraborate each other. You are trying to point out some pedantic doubts about single dating of individual images, and indeed some images or videos may be fake, but the scope of the conspiracy required to forge all of them is so astounding that it's ridiculous.

We have photos and videos of the convoy which supposedly had the buk in it that can be dated, but this "mystery buk" isn't in any of them.

Actually, there is a high probability that it was:

The Buk seen in Russia was dubbed “3×2” due to an obscured number on the side of the vehicle (as is the case with the ID numbers of many of the vehicles transported from Russia to Ukraine). The remaining parts of the numbers of the Buk photographed by Paris Match as well as the loading markings and white paint on the rubber side skirt below those numbers were in exactly the same position.

A burn mark above the exhaust visible in one of the Paris Match photographs was also in exactly the same position as the one seen on Buk 3×2 in Russia. While all of these pieces of evidence seemed to indicate that the Buk in Ukraine and Buk 3×2 were one and the same, an additional piece of evidence made the case particularly compelling. During Bellingcat’s research[40] into the many Buk sightings, it became clear that the rubber side skirt above the tracks of Buk missile launchers can become damaged over time and that this damage creates a unique “fingerprint” allowing different Buk photographs to be matched. In the case of Buk 3×2 and the Buk photograph by Paris Match in Donetsk, the side skirts were nearly identical.

It's not completely conclusive, but similarities are close enough to call it.

FAIL Jayjay.
I asked for a dated verified photo or video, and you give me this crap. I did not ask for you long winded justification for why you think this is real.
Now I will ask again. Do you have one verified and dated photo. This photo is neither dated nor verified.
This photo is "verified" by other photos on social media ...bwa ha hahahahahah

You are failing to understand the nature of how evidence is corraborated. The fact that the same truck with the same BUK was seen on the same day in multiple places along the route from Donetsk to Snizhne is verification. As for the date provided by Paris Match, that's a sufficient standard for dating any newspaper photo absent any particular reason to think the newspaper is not being honest. Plus, the fact that the time of date per shadows matches the time given by Paris Match means it is somewhat reliable.

I gave you a photo that is both dated and independently verified. Now it's your turn. Tell me, what reason do you have to think that Paris Match is not a reliable source in dating the photo? What other scenario can you present for the same truck being spotted elsewhere on the same day by several different people? My guess is you got nothing.

You keep ignoring the elephant in the room which is that there are multiple lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion. If all the evidence was made up or misinterpreted, they would likely point to random directions instead of forming any kind of a coherent narrative. Plus you have given zero evidence for any of your own conspiracy theories that would meet your own impossible standard of verification.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm not saying Russia shot down Siberia Airlines flight 1812. I'm saying that the level of evidence by which we know it was most likely Ukraine, is less conclusive than the evidence we have for Russian BUK downing MH17. If you think that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ukraine shot down SA1812, by that standard of evidence it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Russia shot down MH17. .

But you don't even have one dated photo of this mystery buk. Do you understand how digital photos are dated?
It's easy to date a digital photo, yet you don't even have ONE

If there existed only one photo, you might be right. But there are multiple photos and videos, from multiple sources, that each corroborate each other. The sum is greater than their parts. If one person says they saw Vladimir Putin in a pub, that's a bit doubtful. Even if there is a photo, that's suspect because photos can be forged or it could have been taken somewhere else. But if a hundred different people each take photos and report Putin arriving, having a pint, and leaving a pub, then there might be something to it, even if we might not have means to conduct a full-scale CSI investigation on any of those photos. It's the same with the BUK observations: in order to discount them you would have to construct such a vast and elaborate conspiracy theory that it defies any common sense.

Also why aren't you subjecting any of the Russian-provided "evidence" to nearly the same standard? Show me a single photo of an Ukrainian BUK that is dated on July 17th and meets your standards of verification, for example.

Which bias would that be? To treat Russian claims as skeptically as American?

What american claim you treated skeptically?
.

Many Americans are now skeptical about whether Sadaam had WMD.
Most still know that he did though

You can find a much more recent example in the Russian press conference from 2014, where they presented forged radar data evidence among other lies. That was Russia's Colin Powell moment.

 

[barbos]

You're obviously unaware that the Ukrainians had accused the Russians of using their jets in the conflict by this point?

How many planes did they shoot down?

One, MH17

 

[barbos]

Yes, it was, there was a jet in the area, hence this theory

There was no jet, based on any radar data received by DSB. Russia made it up, likely based on debris showing up in radar briefly (which eye witnesses may have confused for another jet also). And then Russia conveniently lost the original radar data. Oopsies.

That's irrelevant, there was an information about jet present and hence people proposed that theory.
John Kerry made up shit too and according to you russians did not even make it up, they were mistaken, which I am not even sure they were, there may have been jet but it had nothing to do with anything.

 

[Will Wiley]

There are many, but let's take the Paris Match photo for example:

Paris Match (who has no reason to lie about it) says it was taken around 11am on July 17th, and the analysis of shadows shows that the time is beween 10am - 10:15am. It's further verified by other sightings in social media. But actually, asking for single image is misleading. The most convincing evidence is that all the photos and videos corraborate each other. You are trying to point out some pedantic doubts about single dating of individual images, and indeed some images or videos may be fake, but the scope of the conspiracy required to forge all of them is so astounding that it's ridiculous.

We have photos and videos of the convoy which supposedly had the buk in it that can be dated, but this "mystery buk" isn't in any of them.

Actually, there is a high probability that it was:

The Buk seen in Russia was dubbed “3×2” due to an obscured number on the side of the vehicle (as is the case with the ID numbers of many of the vehicles transported from Russia to Ukraine). The remaining parts of the numbers of the Buk photographed by Paris Match as well as the loading markings and white paint on the rubber side skirt below those numbers were in exactly the same position.

A burn mark above the exhaust visible in one of the Paris Match photographs was also in exactly the same position as the one seen on Buk 3×2 in Russia. While all of these pieces of evidence seemed to indicate that the Buk in Ukraine and Buk 3×2 were one and the same, an additional piece of evidence made the case particularly compelling. During Bellingcat’s research[40] into the many Buk sightings, it became clear that the rubber side skirt above the tracks of Buk missile launchers can become damaged over time and that this damage creates a unique “fingerprint” allowing different Buk photographs to be matched. In the case of Buk 3×2 and the Buk photograph by Paris Match in Donetsk, the side skirts were nearly identical.

It's not completely conclusive, but similarities are close enough to call it.

FAIL Jayjay.
I asked for a dated verified photo or video, and you give me this crap. I did not ask for you long winded justification for why you think this is real.
Now I will ask again. Do you have one verified and dated photo. This photo is neither dated nor verified.
This photo is "verified" by other photos on social media ...bwa ha hahahahahah

You are failing to understand the nature of how evidence is corraborated. The fact that the same truck with the same BUK was seen on the same day in multiple places along the route from Donetsk to Snizhne is verification.

None of those photos can be verified. So you can't use unverified photos to verify another photo. What court would accept that? Not to mention you have just thrown out this vague allegation that somewhere are some photos. Once you start mentioning specific ones you will look pretty silly.
Do you even know who took them? Most of the photos and videos come from Ukrainain secret service. Why on earth would you take that at face value?

I gave you a photo that is both dated and independently verified..

No you have not. At best you have Paris Match saying that the mysterious anonymous photographer (if they even exist) told them he/she took it on such and such a day.

Seeing as most pf the "evidence" comes from Ukrainian secret service there is a good chance this one did too.
Paris Match have published photo-shopped photos before, and it is up to you to explain why you explain why anyone should accept it is real
There seems to be a pretty good case it is photo-shopped too, but that is another hurdle you need to overcome. But first things first.

We have truckloads of fake evidence in this whole saga, so you need to somehow verify this one. It is very very easily done if it is real.

You keep ignoring the elephant in the room which is that there are multiple lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion. If all the evidence was made up or misinterpreted, they would likely point to random directions instead of forming any kind of a coherent narrative.

You keep ignoring that most or all of the "evidence" comes from Ukrainian secret service of from Ukrainians who had social media accounts associated with Ukrainain Nazi/ultra nationalist groups.
Or were you unaware of that? Or from social media accounts that appeared for minutes then were closed down

Yet you are trying to peddle this bullshit as reliable.

 

[dystopian]

You know, seeing all this talk of Dutch this and Dutch that; and seeing as how this thread is long past the point of no return; let me just say that despite knowing the hardships it's no doubt creating for many ordinary Russians... part of me is profoundly amused by the fact that following their abominable behavior the past couple of years, Russia's economy is now smaller than that of Spain and well on its way to becoming smaller than that of the Netherlands. Perhaps karma is real after all.

Yep, this is where we are headed:

It is inevitable. You might as well surrender your waters to us now.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can't we just send in some special forces to shoot that kid who's got his finger in the dike and preemptively flood the place?

 

[dystopian]

Can't we just send in some special forces to shoot that kid who's got his finger in the dike and preemptively flood the place?

You would have to shoot thousands of kids to accomplish that; only to discover to your moral horror that your efforts were a waste, for we moved to AI controlled flood defenses almost 2 decades ago and have been transitioning to floating cities...

...your plan to defeat us is akin to a spearman attacking a helicopter gunship in Civ.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You mean, after we win you'll rage quit and then bitch about it on the Internet for a month?