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

[arkirk]

You really don't know how to fucking read, do you? We're talking about a criminal *investigation* here, not the prosecution withholding information from the defense during the actual court case. Or do you honestly believe that cops should tell suspects everything before they've even been charged? What a wonderful world that'd be for career criminals.

That disrespect extends past the rule of law in your case to those with a lot more life behind them than you have...and a lot more knowledge.

Those with more life behind me? Irrelevant. Having been alive for longer than someone else doesn't mean they're more likely to be smarter or more knowledgeable (if anything it makes it more likely their knowledge is out of date, but that's neither here nor there) nor does it mean they're neccessarrily more experienced in any meaningful way.

And of course, I'm not particularly inclined to show any respect to people who demand it based solely on their age or the completely unsupported statement that they're more knowledgeable. Especially if they're so obviously incapable of actually understanding the difference between a criminal investigation and criminal proceedings.

So you think this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes? No you don't. You are so on one side without any real justification. You simply want to appoint cops to investigate Putin whom you do not like. I don't like him either particularly. We have people with hardons for political figures. You are obviously one of them. You spend a lot of time trying to prove that I am stupid and you truly know better than that. I think you lack perspective and think only inside a very narrow box. I really am beginning to understand the meaning of your handle.

 

[Cerberus]

We've been over this before--they're not going to be releasing the data from the launch detection satellites, that would show Russia too much about what we can see.

Then Kerry should have kept his mouth shut.
But yeah, we have been over this,.... in Iraq, great intelligence my ass.
I just got an idea. Russia can do the same and say "We know who did this, it's Ukraine, we have all the evidence, but we are not going to show you that"

Personally, I think US don't have any evidence at all, none.

Good post. The fact of the matter is on two planes: one, that for reasons best known to themselves the USA and the EU are hell-bent on demonising Putin (and they'd better be careful or he might turn round and bite them), and two: nobody but nobody who isn't on the scene can incontrovertibly prove anything one way or another. Too much smoke and mirrors and hearsay.

 

[dystopian]

So you think this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes? No you don't.

I don't understand why you would even ask this. Perhaps advanced age is taking its toll? I obviously think that investigating the incident is a matter for the international investigative cooperative that has already been established in accordance to international rules of law and conduct. And I obviously think that prosecuting it should be a matter for a international tribunal under U.N purview.

You are so on one side without any real justification.

I'm on the side of international law. I don't believe I'm doing so without any justification, real or otherwise.

You simply want to appoint cops to investigate Putin whom you do not like.

No, I don't. Please do not mistake your personal prejudices regarding my position with reality.

I don't like him either particularly. We have people with hardons for political figures. You are obviously one of them.

Except at no point have I suggested we go after Putin. In fact, beyond referring to the pro-russia trolls on this forum as 'putinbots' from time to time, I hardly ever mention the man at all. By randomly, without any justification whatsoever, insisting that I want to appoint cops to investigate putin and have some sort of hardon for him... you inadvertently suggest that perhaps it is you yourself who has the hardon. Though whether it's for me or putin, I can't quite tell.

You spend a lot of time trying to prove that I am stupid and you truly know better than that.

No, I really don't... in regards to either of those claims. I can only recall only *one* other thread in which we had a similar encounter as this... and it was because of the exact same arrogance with which you triggered this encounter: namely by demanding to be shown respect and deference simply because you're old and have 'experience/knowledge' (which I will state again, hasn't actually been demonstrated). That is not, of course, how respect works. Anyone who demands to be defered to on such a foundation is someone who will be denied the respect and deference they so desperately crave.

I don't spend a lot of time trying to prove that you're 'stupid' (although I certainly don't know better than to think you might be, though the presumption that I do does demonstrate my point above); I simply spent a relatively small amount of time explaining to you why you're wrong to make demands.

I think you lack perspective and think only inside a very narrow box.

Is this a dream? Or is this just fantasy?

Did you really just make such a hugely ironic statement without realizing it?

I really am beginning to understand the meaning of your handle.

No, you really aren't.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Then Kerry should have kept his mouth shut.
But yeah, we have been over this,.... in Iraq, great intelligence my ass.
I just got an idea. Russia can do the same and say "We know who did this, it's Ukraine, we have all the evidence, but we are not going to show you that"

Personally, I think US don't have any evidence at all, none.

Good post. The fact of the matter is on two planes: one, that for reasons best known to themselves the USA and the EU are hell-bent on demonising Putin (and they'd better be careful or he might turn round and bite them), and two: nobody but nobody who isn't on the scene can incontrovertibly prove anything one way or another. Too much smoke and mirrors and hearsay.

The west hardly paid attention to Putin until he began destabilizing and invading his neighbors. Putin wants to treat his neighbors like shit, and then threaten them when they seek protection from the west. At the end of the day, most people in the west simply want Russia to stop it's expansion. I hate to say it, but Eastern Ukraine is gone. But it would be a disaster if Russia invaded Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithunia. Sanctions are a much better encouragement for Putin than war.

 

[Will Wiley]

Good post. The fact of the matter is on two planes: one, that for reasons best known to themselves the USA and the EU are hell-bent on demonising Putin (and they'd better be careful or he might turn round and bite them), and two: nobody but nobody who isn't on the scene can incontrovertibly prove anything one way or another. Too much smoke and mirrors and hearsay.

The west hardly paid attention to Putin until he began destabilizing and invading his neighbors.

the only "invasion" if we can call it that has been Crimea. The Crimeans are overwhelmingly in favor of being part of Russia.
I think the west got interested when Putin interferred with America's plans to bomb Syria

Putin wants to treat his neighbors like shit, and then threaten them when they seek protection from the west.

Do you have some examples?

At the end of the day, most people in the west simply want Russia to stop it's expansion. I hate to say it, but Eastern Ukraine is gone.

The people there didn't want to be part of a country ruled by a government that came to power in a coup, and that contained significant racist elements.

But it would be a disaster if Russia invaded Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithunia.

Is there the slightest reason to think that might happen?

Sanctions are a much better encouragement for Putin than war.

Sanctions which damage an already frail Europe

 

[Jayjay]

No, what we have is Lysenko saying that there may

No he says there is a video, not that there may be one..

Fine. He says there is a video, which means that there may be one. Or there might not have been.

be some video of a BUK being spotted before July 17th.

And that the buk was in Luhansk.

That it is the same video is entirely up to speculation

Unless another video of buk in Luhansk comes to light then we can assume that this video is the only one.

Or that there was no video. Wouldn't be the first time when Ukrainian officials don't get their facts straight.

Also, it kind of makes sense for Ukraine to not publish a video of them knowing about BUKs, and to be silent about Lysenko's admission: if Ukraine knew about separatists having missile systems capable of shooting down planesat that altitude, it'd put them in an an awkward position because they'd have to explain why they didn't close the airspace from civilian traffic.

, as there are other videos of BUKs before July 17th available

In Luhansk?.....no
.

The corraborating witness statements from locals makes it likely that the video is legit,

Which statements relating to a buk in Luhansk?

I stand corrected, I was thinking of witnesses who saw it near Torez and Snizhe. I have to admit that lack of witnesses is indeed circumstantial evidence that the video may have been filmed earlier. Still doesn't explain the missing missile, but it does raise an eyebrow. I think this might be why the Dutch investigators are publicly asking for witnesses to come forward, and it seems that even they are a bit suspicious.

So, let's say the origin of that video is at doubt. It still leaves us with the video and photographs from Snizhne, the smoke trail and the people who saw it, and the same BUK very likely having been spotted in Russia. The case against Russia doesn't depend on a single crucial piece of evidence.

 

[Will Wiley]

So, let's say the origin of that video is at doubt. It still leaves us with the video and photographs from Snizhne

a video from Snizhne? There is an undated video of what appears to be a different buk (it's not on a truck) possibly on route there.

the smoke trail

The white smoke has been added to the photo, (Dr Neal Krawetz has confirmed this) and the trail goes staight into the air!. It should be on an angle and should be visible in this photo.

and the people who saw it,

Which people? And what about the winess/s who said it came from Ukrainian controlled territory?
http://www.rt.com/news/245141-reuters-witness-misreport-mh17/

and the same BUK very likely having been spotted in Russia.

Really? as the "Paris Match" photo is already known to be fraudulent, in that the anonymous photographer at the very least lied about when he took it, how could you say that? this is not to mention the unexplained appearance of a second similar photo in der speigel. Were they photoshopped, were they both stills from a video? There are many unresolved questions, but we don't even know the alleged photographers name. It's suspicious

The case against Russia doesn't depend on a single crucial piece of evidence.

You need at least one piece that stands up to scrutiny.
On top of all this a missile fired from Snizhne would not have caused fragment damage to the left engine cowling and would have produced fragment exit holes in the left side of the cockpit. It can't have come from Snizhne

 

[Jayjay]

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?

They definitely had a buk. We know that from multiple lines of evidence. It was captured on June 29 2014. Apparently, according to reports from that time, it was damaged and not able to function. This might explain why it was heading to Russia before the 17th. Before the plane came down. Like most or ll of the photos it comes from the SBU. Why do you trust them?

What "multipe lines of evidence"? The origin of the rebels capturing a BUK story was from Russian state-owned media and could have easily been planted to give cover to presence of Russian BUK's in Ukraine. There is no other evidence, no rebel-provided footage of the alleged captured BUK or anything of the sort. And I'm not trusting SBU, I trust what I can see and the combined body of evidence.

No, what we have is Lysenko saying that there may be some video of a BUK being spotted before July 17th.

We should have two videos of a buk in Luhansk but we only have one. It's from before July 17 but is later claimed to be from after the plane came down

Again, you state speculation as fact. The video was not published before July 17th.

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.

The last DigitalGlobe images obtained are from the morning of the 17th and show the road the "Paris Match" photo was apparently taken on. But the buk is not on the road. The DigitalGlobe imagery is very close to the same time and covers a big area. The buk should be there if the photo really was from the morning of the 17th July 2014,

Repeating the claim is not a source. Show me the satellite image.

See my previous post: there isn't evidence of digital altering, since the images analysed were not originals.

The originals contain more information but even a copy with retain evidence.

The allegation is that the copy shows evidence of tampering. By definition, that is not something that is "retained" from original, it's something that is added to it. But such evidence may be explained by simple image enhancements to make the smoke plume more visible, or characteristics of the camera. Why do you think that the only place this analysis was posted was on twitter? If there was something to this, I'd expect there to be a bit more professional post or an article, because proof that the photo is a forgery would be pretty big news! To me, it sees more likely that Krawetz simply doesn't find it all that convincing himself so he dropped it.

It'd be fairly easy for him to reproduce out the analysis on the photos that Bellingcat alleges are unmodified. Or someone else to do so, assuming the methods he uses are well known.

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.

It is taken at the same time pretty much.

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?

tThe same sky from a different angle, just after the plane came down.

1) You have not shown what this photo is so until then, I'll be assuming that its in your imagination.
2) When and if you do produce the photo, don't forget to include your reasoning why you think you can date this exactly to the time right after the plane came down.

And before you try to turn the tables and say that we can't know the time of the smoke plume photo either, let me point out that we don't have to. Smoke plume in a specific location is a rather rare even. Not having a smoke plume in the sky is what the sky has 99.999% of the time. So the burden of proof is on you to have proof for the exact timing of this alleged photo of yours, or it's pretty much worthless even if it exists (which I doubt), and even if it can be shown to be at the same part of sky (which I doubt even more).

What we do have is independent corraboration by witnesses who said they saw the smoke plume.

Who?

According to this article a woman named Varya Kovalyenko, a guy named Petr Fedotov and "other people there who saw it".

Which ones are you talking about exactly?

There is only one photo of a buk in Torez. It is claimed to be from the 17th but is earlier.

Bullshit.

It got off the truck to shoot down the plane, duh.

Before you say "duh" make sure we are on the same page. We have images of what is supposed to be the same buk driving on a main road. No truck.

My point is that lack of a truck is irrelevant, because the BUK would have to get off the truck to fire anyway. On the other hand, there is no reason why a scrapped BUK as you claim would be even able to move on its own on a road.

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.

The distribution of the damage shows the missile did not come from Snizhne. There is fragment damage to the left engine cowling and no fragment exit holes on the right side of the cockpit.

The distribution of the damage shows where the missile exploded. The speculative part is where it came from. Almaz-Antey clearly has vested interest in making up a scenario that is favourable to pointing out to Ukraine having fired the missile, so it would be foolish to take their word for it.

 

[Jayjay]

Almaz-Antey indeed does have business interests in mind. But in this case, their business interests is to get the sanctions removed by arguing that the weapons they manufactured were not used in downing MH17. Even if Almaz-Antey wasn't a state owned or even Russian, that would be enough to be skeptical of its claims.

That's a problem, you found a way to discount everything what Russians say.

I would discount what Almaz-Antey says even if they weren't Russian. Them being Russian state-owned company is just more reason to do so.

As for reputation being ruined, that explains why they are being public about it. I agree that they can't outright lie, but what they can do is concoct an alternative scenario that would provide their court case with reasonable doubt.

Concosting false scenario is very risky,

Not if you make it plausible enough that it may have happened. It's not like they would ever get caught doing so.

 

[Jayjay]

The west hardly paid attention to Putin until he began destabilizing and invading his neighbors.

the only "invasion" if we can call it that has been Crimea. The Crimeans are overwhelmingly in favor of being part of Russia.

Ever heard of Georgia?

Crimea was annexed because it was already 70% Russian. The other areas are merely being made into frozen conflict zones, and sadly that looks like what will happen to Eastern Ukraine.

Putin wants to treat his neighbors like shit, and then threaten them when they seek protection from the west.

Do you have some examples?

At the end of the day, most people in the west simply want Russia to stop it's expansion. I hate to say it, but Eastern Ukraine is gone.

The people there didn't want to be part of a country ruled by a government that came to power in a coup, and that contained significant racist elements.

It's only a "coup" in the delirious ramblings of Russian propagandists.

But it would be a disaster if Russia invaded Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithunia.

Is there the slightest reason to think that might happen?

Sanctions are a much better encouragement for Putin than war.

Sanctions which damage an already frail Europe

Sanctions always hurt the one imposing them to some degree. And they rarely work fast... if the threat of sanctions doesn't deter a country from doing something, it'll become a long process indeed to make change its mind.

 

[Jayjay]

a video from Snizhne? There is an undated video of what appears to be a different buk (it's not on a truck) possibly on route there.

I said videos and photos near Snizhne, i.e. there is a video of the BUK on its way there, on a truck, and a photo from Snizhne without the truck. That's rather relevant because the BUK was fired near Snizhne.

the smoke trail

The white smoke has been added to the photo, (Dr Neal Krawetz has confirmed this) and the trail goes staight into the air!. It should be on an angle and should be visible in this photo.

Eh, that's what his photos show. A smaller rocket horizontally for the launch, then a vertical plume when the main thruster fires.

I think you may be confusing Krawetz's critique with
Max van der Werff's, which is nothing more than him drawing fancy colors on top of the plumes. Furthermore, Dutch RTL Nieuws had the photos checked by experts and they saw no traces of tampering. You're

and the people who saw it,

Which people? And what about the winess/s who said it came from Ukrainian controlled territory?
http://www.rt.com/news/245141-reuters-witness-misreport-mh17/

Maybe it's not a good idea to publicly provoke the rebels in a rebel-controlled territory? And he did not name his friends to protect them, most likely.

So far, we have the photo (or multiple photos, but since they were taken by the same person they really count as one piece of evidence), and witnesses. Witnesses are less reliable, but they can corroborate that there was a smoke plume. Whatever they say about it coming from Ukrainian territory is handwaving, since we have no other photos showing a smoke plume in Ukraine, or tracks on the ground on Ukrainian-held territory, or other witnesses saying they saw BUK's scooting about there. We have all these near Snizhne.

and the same BUK very likely having been spotted in Russia.

Really? as the "Paris Match" photo is already known to be fraudulent, in that the anonymous photographer at the very least lied about when he took it, how could you say that? this is not to mention the unexplained appearance of a second similar photo in der speigel. Were they photoshopped, were they both stills from a video? There are many unresolved questions, but we don't even know the alleged photographers name. It's suspicious

Your refusal to provide the alleged satellite image that proves Paris Match photo as fraudulent is noted.

The case against Russia doesn't depend on a single crucial piece of evidence.

You need at least one piece that stands up to scrutiny.
On top of all this a missile fired from Snizhne would not have caused fragment damage to the left engine cowling and would have produced fragment exit holes in the left side of the cockpit. It can't have come from Snizhne

Most of the evidence discussed in this thread stands up to scrutiny so far, since you haven't been able to disprove any of it. But see my post a few days back... when you have circumstantial evidence, you can always come up with some way to scrutinize of suspect individual pieces. But when there are multiple pieces of independently obtained evidence pointing to the same thing, they are much stronger than each individual piece alone. and even if some tiny piece proves to be completely false (say, the video from Luhansk), the rest still stands.

The goal of Russian trolls and disinformation is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to cover the fact that there is a pretty strong case against Russia here, and practically no case against Ukraine.

 

[Cerberus]

The west hardly paid attention to Putin until he began destabilizing and invading his neighbors.

the only "invasion" if we can call it that has been Crimea. The Crimeans are overwhelmingly in favor of being part of Russia.
I think the west got interested when Putin interferred with America's plans to bomb Syria

Putin wants to treat his neighbors like shit, and then threaten them when they seek protection from the west.

Do you have some examples?

At the end of the day, most people in the west simply want Russia to stop it's expansion. I hate to say it, but Eastern Ukraine is gone.

The people there didn't want to be part of a country ruled by a government that came to power in a coup, and that contained significant racist elements.

But it would be a disaster if Russia invaded Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithunia.

Is there the slightest reason to think that might happen?

Sanctions are a much better encouragement for Putin than war.

Sanctions which damage an already frail Europe

And thank god he did, or I shudder to think what the situation would be right now if Obama and Cameron with all their macho sabre-rattling had had their way and 'put boots on the ground' in support of the 'rebels', who were in fact all sorts of jihadist groups including IS . . . which Assad was doing his best to keep out of Syria before they could consolidate. Jesus you couldn't make it up! I say again - thank you Mr Putin, we owe you!

 

[Will Wiley]

They definitely had a buk. We know that from multiple lines of evidence. It was captured on June 29 2014. Apparently, according to reports from that time, it was damaged and not able to function. This might explain why it was heading to Russia before the 17th. Before the plane came down. Like most or ll of the photos it comes from the SBU. Why do you trust them?

What "multipe lines of evidence"? The origin of the rebels capturing a BUK story was from Russian state-owned media and could have easily been planted to give cover to presence of Russian BUK's in Ukraine. There is no other evidence, no rebel-provided footage of the alleged captured BUK or anything of the sort. And I'm not trusting SBU, I trust what I can see and the combined body of evidence.

The Ukrainians told us they captured one and the anti coup rebels told us the same. I already linked to a video of the Ukrainians saying that. There is evidence you haven't seen that's all. It was captured on June 29 and tweeted about and mentioned by both sides.
The Ukrainians told us in another place it was damaged.

No, what we have is Lysenko saying that there may be some video of a BUK being spotted before July 17th.

We should have two videos of a buk in Luhansk but we only have one. It's from before July 17 but is later claimed to be from after the plane came down

Again, you state speculation as fact. The video was not published before July 17th.

I gave a reason why it's not. All you have done is assert. You need to explain why we don't have a second video. The fact we only have one supports the case that it is from before July 17

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.

The last DigitalGlobe images obtained are from the morning of the 17th and show the road the "Paris Match" photo was apparently taken on. But the buk is not on the road. The DigitalGlobe imagery is very close to the same time and covers a big area. The buk should be there if the photo really was from the morning of the 17th July 2014,

Repeating the claim is not a source. Show me the satellite image.

Bellingcat refused to publish the images (not surprising as it destroys their case) but openly admitted the buk was not to be seen and that it should have been.

See my previous post: there isn't evidence of digital altering, since the images analysed were not originals.

The originals contain more information but even a copy with retain evidence.

The allegation is that the copy shows evidence of tampering. By definition, that is not something that is "retained" from original, it's something that is added to it. But such evidence may be explained by simple image enhancements to make the smoke plume more visible, or characteristics of the camera. Why do you think that the only place this analysis was posted was on twitter? If there was something to this, I'd expect there to be a bit more professional post or an article, because proof that the photo is a forgery would be pretty big news! To me, it sees more likely that Krawetz simply doesn't find it all that convincing himself so he dropped it.

If you think you are more qualified than Dr Neal Krawetz then I'm not going to argue

It'd be fairly easy for him to reproduce out the analysis on the photos that Bellingcat alleges are unmodified. Or someone else to do so, assuming the methods he uses are well known.

They are available on his site IIRC

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.

It is taken at the same time pretty much.

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?

tThe same sky from a different angle, just after the plane came down.

1) You have not shown what this photo is so until then, I'll be assuming that its in your imagination.
2) When and if you do produce the photo, don't forget to include your reasoning why you think you can date this exactly to the time right after the plane came down.

Assume what you like, anyone can see the plane crash in the photo. It's shortly after the plane crashed,which is when the plume photo was taken. http://7mei.nl/2015/07/26/mh17-buk-plume-burns-witness-part-i/
The plume photo was then digitally altered though apparently even Dr Neal Krawetz can't make you doubt.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/about.php

And before you try to turn the tables and say that we can't know the time of the smoke plume photo either, let me point out that we don't have to. Smoke plume in a specific location is a rather rare even. Not having a smoke plume in the sky is what the sky has 99.999% of the time. So the burden of proof is on you to have proof for the exact timing of this alleged photo of yours, or it's pretty much worthless even if it exists (which I doubt), and even if it can be shown to be at the same part of sky (which I doubt even more).

We know the precise time of the smoke plume photo. The time is ok, but not the alterations.

 

[Will Wiley]

Eh, that's what his photos show. A smaller rocket horizontally for the launch, then a vertical plume when the main thruster fires.

The dark smoke (lower down in the plume photo) appears there at other times. Its not from the buk. I linked to this stuff, did you not look?
We have photos from this part June with the same smoke in the same place. There is mine there.

I think you may be confusing Krawetz's critique with

I linked to Dr Neal Krawetz's criticims on his twitter feed. You did not respond.

and the people who saw it,

Which people? And what about the winess/s who said it came from Ukrainian controlled territory?


So far, we have the photo (or multiple photos, but since they were taken by the same person they really count as one piece of evidence),

You have no photos that you can give a date to. And as we know the rebels captured a buk on June 29 these photos don't do much.
Are we really to believe that even though the rebels had a buk, there are no photos of it prior to July 17 And that suddenly on July 17 the first photos of it are taken?

Your refusal to provide the alleged satellite image that proves Paris Match photo as fraudulent is noted.

Bellingcat refused to publish it but admitted the buk was not in it

The goal of Russian trolls and disinformation is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to cover the fact that there is a pretty strong case against Russia here, and practically no case against Ukraine.

i'm not Russian. None of the links I have presented are from Russian people except one link to RT of a story which can be found elsewhere anyway. The links I provided are mainly from Dutch people who smell a rat
So you are just poisoning the well.

 

[Will Wiley]

There are quite a few sites mainly German and Dutch that have provided evidence that the rebels captured a buk. These aren't Russian trolls.
https://gabrielewolff.wordpress.com/
https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/
There are plenty more of varying quality but there are two where at least you can find evidence of the rebels capturing a buk.

Here is one that at least has an English translation.

http://7mei.nl/2015/07/12/mh17-another-buk-on-another-day/

In the period prior to the disaster Ukrainian officials made contradictory statements. When on an international stage Russian involvement in the civil war had to be pointed out, it appeared to be convenient to deny the rebels were in possession of a self captured BUK complex. Of course in that case they would have obtained their weapons directly from the Russians.

But according to Ukrainian media the claim the rebels had seized a BUK was corroborated by some Ukrainian officials. For example ATO (Anti-Terrorism Operation) chief Alex Dmitrashkovskiy would have stated a BUK had been lost. But at the same time he soothed the Ukrainian public with the phrase it was a ¨non-working, broken installation¨, actually ¨junk¨. [3]

According to a Russian source national security advisor Andriy Lysenko also stated the seized BUK didn´t function:

¨And yesterday, the representative of the information center of the National Security and Defense of Ukraine Andriy Lysenko also confirmed the capture of anti-aircraft missile regiment. He said: “(…) By decision of the commander all the equipment had been taken out of order and was not working… “

Even the chief of the counter-espionage department of the SBU, Vitaliy Naida, was fully informed, according to the Wall Street Journal:

¨Ukrainian rebels boasted on social media on June 29 that they gained control of a Buk-M1 system when they overran a Ukrainian armed forces base in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine, Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported. Mr. Naida said that Ukrainian armed forces made that system nonoperational back in March, around the time when the fighting in the area kicked off. The core of the missile system remains on the base, but there are no warheads to arm it, he said.¨

Now that has been established the rebels may have had possession of a (broken) BUK from the moment they had raided Ukrainian army base A-1402, the question arises if they did something with it. Maybe they moved it, for example to have it repaired, as a statement by the Russian scientist Sergey Kurginyan possibly might explain:

 

[Will Wiley]

That's a problem, you found a way to discount everything what Russians say.

I would discount what Almaz-Antey says even if they weren't Russian. Them being Russian state-owned company is just more reason to do so.
.

But you continue to provide no reason to do so based on evidence Do you have a reason based on evidence to discount their analysis?

It's an important question because it's very likely that soon the Dutch investigation will report that there were buk missile fragments in the body of the pilot.
Almaz Anteys analysis shows that a missile could not have been fired from Snizhne, and leave the pattern of damage found on the plane, which will them prompt the question of who was it that fired the missile.

US Intel Stands Pat on MH-17 Shoot-down

. Indeed, I’ve been told by a source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that a great deal of new information has been examined since the days immediately after the crash, but that the problem for U.S. policymakers is that the data led at least some analysts to conclude that the plane was shot down by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military, not by the rebels.

Yet, what has remained unclear to me is whether those analysts were part of a consensus or were dissenters within the U.S. intelligence community. But even if there was just dissent over the conclusions, that might explain why the DNI has not updated the initial sketchy report of July 22

Here is where a buk missile from Snizhne would spray fragments

 

[barbos]

That's a problem, you found a way to discount everything what Russians say.

I would discount what Almaz-Antey says even if they weren't Russian. Them being Russian state-owned company is just more reason to do so.

So keyword is "state-owned" here?
First of all, all military contractors are effectively "state-owned" by their biggest clients. second of all, how far does your mistrust of governments extend? How about US government? do you trust them?

As for reputation being ruined, that explains why they are being public about it. I agree that they can't outright lie, but what they can do is concoct an alternative scenario that would provide their court case with reasonable doubt.

Concosting false scenario is very risky,

Not if you make it plausible enough that it may have happened. It's not like they would ever get caught doing so.

I don't think you realize how definitive these kind of analyses are.
But dutch are free to suggest their theory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the only "invasion" if we can call it that has been Crimea. The Crimeans are overwhelmingly in favor of being part of Russia.

If the Crimeans actually were overwhelmingly in favor of being part of Russia the election would have been honest.

But it would be a disaster if Russia invaded Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithunia.

Is there the slightest reason to think that might happen?

Putin has made it clear that he wants to reclaim the lost pieces of Russia.

Sanctions are a much better encouragement for Putin than war.

Sanctions which damage an already frail Europe

Sanctions are better than a resurgent Russian bear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

a video from Snizhne? There is an undated video of what appears to be a different buk (it's not on a truck) possibly on route there.

the smoke trail

The white smoke has been added to the photo, (Dr Neal Krawetz has confirmed this) and the trail goes staight into the air!. It should be on an angle and should be visible in this photo.

I don't know the performance characteristics of the BUK. Going straight up isn't inherently a wrong path for a missile, though. Look at the launch of a SM-2 missile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d06XgUl1l3w

Note how it always heads straight up--the launcher doesn't have the ability to do anything else. The missile only tips towards it's target once it's well up there.

 

[barbos]

Sanctions are better than a resurgent Russian bear.

This is the kind of "logic" which started WW2.

- - - Updated - - -

Western Media made it clear that Putin wants to reclaim the lost pieces of Russia.

Fixed for you.