Bellingcats analysis is lies.
1.We have the Luhansk video shot before July 17, but claimed to be on the 18th
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...n-t-look-for-who-did-the-MH17-shootdown/page3
No, what we have is Lysenko saying that there may be some video of a BUK being spotted before July 17th. That it is the
same video is entirely up to speculation, as there are other videos of BUKs before July 17th available. The corraborating witness statements from locals makes it likely that the video is legit, and the BUK in the video had one missile missing. If the video was made before, when was it launched?
But for the sake of the argument let's say that's true and the video was made before the shooting by the SBU: it still means that the rebels or Russians did have a BUK in the area at some point. So do you concede that the rebels had a BUK, and therefore means to shoot down MH17?
2.We have the buk shown in the Paris Match photo not there in a satellite photo from DigitalGlobe.
Source? The DigitalGlobe images show that the truck carrying the BUK is not at the vehicle yard, which is consistent with it having been photographed by Paris Match elsewhere.
3.We have a smoke plume photo that has been digitally altered, and that doesn't show up in another photo of the same place at that time.
See my previous post: there isn't evidence of digital altering, since the images analysed were not originals. As for there being another photo that doesn't show the plume, you do realize that it's not a permanent structure? A photo of the same area at another time that doesn't have the smoke plume says absolutely nothing. And why do you think someone would take a photo of empty sky at that time to begin with? A photographer looked up in the sky where a plane debris was falling down, so he decided to take a photo of a compeltely different part of the sky that had absolutely nothing special going on there?
What we
do have is independent corraboration by witnesses who said they saw the smoke plume.
4. we have photo of a buk in Torez reported on the 15th or 16th july that is claimed to be on the 17th.
Which ones are you talking about exactly?
5.We have buk that is on a truck then going down the road under its own steam then back on a truck (but apparently the same buk on the same day)
It got off the truck to shoot down the plane, duh.
6. We have a fake audio from the SBU trying to frame the anti coup forces.
If I recall when this was discussed way back then, the only "fake" part is that the published audio comprised of three separate calls. Otherwise the accusations of it being fake are pretty weak.
7. We have a distribution of damage on the plane that doesn't match with the alleged launch place (Snizhne)
According to a Russian state-owned company who is fighting its case on the criminal court to get sanctions removed. It's not an independent analysis: They could hardly come to the conclusion that a Russian BUK shot down MH17, so they've come up with an alternative scenario as their legal defense.
Come on...smell the coffee
This is just the start. would you like more?
I'm heading out for Italian pizza so will have to do it later.
All your claims so far have been debunked. Sorry it took a few days, that's the nature of the disinformation that you've been fed by Russian troll factory: it takes orders of magnitude longer to debunk outlandish claims, than it does to make them.
The key point is this: trolls and propagandists can
always create doubt in any evidence by breaking it up in smaller pieces and then trying to make each individual piece seem unreliable by either poisoning the well or even by exaggerating legitimate concerns like the fact that we haven't seen the original raw images, or that EXIF data in photos can be forged easily. When looking at one piece at a time, people who are predisposed to believing anything Putin says anyway are likely to think that there is a conspiracy going on masterminded by the USA and NATO in some dark back room of Pentagon. But if you put all the different pieces of evidence
together, and they still corraborate each other in a consistent matter, they become more reliabel that the sum of their parts. The sheer extent of the conspiracy required to forge numerous BUK photos, videos, audio intercepts from rebels, social media postings both in USA and Russia, witness statements, radar and satellite images, and
still make them support the same narrative is ludicruous. That's why it's much likely to be true than not.
Compare that with the Russian narrative, which seems to be different every week and consists of isolated and mutually contradictory theories. First it was the Su-54 planes shooting the plane with guns, then it was Ukraine with a BUK, then it was MiG shooting it with air-to-air missiles (with a witness hiding in Russian even), then it's Ukraine framing Russia for it, and now it's Almaz-Antey with its "magic missile" theory. And none of that sticks, why? Because it's all made up shit.
