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

[barbos]

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

And it were, just because western media says it were not does not mean it were not.
French MPs went to Crimea recently and have found no occupation forces at all.
Now germans are planing to visit too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

- - - Updated - - -

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

And it were, just because western media says it were not does not mean it were not.
French MPs went to Crimea recently and have found no occupation forces at all.
Now germans are planing to visit too.

The question itself was unfair as the status quo wasn't on the ballot. That's enough to damn it.

 

[Ford]

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

Well if you'd listen to entirely truthful Russian state media instead of evil Western media lies, you wouldn't say that!

Why just the other day in one of our staff meetings, the agenda was this:

1. How to increase ratings and revenue.

2. How to grow our digital platforms leading to increased revenue.

3. How to grow non-traditional revenue through events and sponsorships.

4. Concoct lies about Russia.

5. Break for lunch.

 

[Will Wiley]

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

All Putin has done recently is kept the Russian naval port in Crimea. One could hardly expect them to roll over and surrender it. They have had that naval base there for generations
On the flip side America has invaded bombed and meddled in more countries than I can count.
Yet Americans have this weird idea that Russia is trying to expand, but have little to say about their own Empire of Chaos. You must admit it is weird.

What is the evidence that Russia has a conquest bug?

 

[Harry Bosch]

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

Well if you'd listen to entirely truthful Russian state media instead of evil Western media lies, you wouldn't say that!

Why just the other day in one of our staff meetings, the agenda was this:

1. How to increase ratings and revenue.

2. How to grow our digital platforms leading to increased revenue.

3. How to grow non-traditional revenue through events and sponsorships.

4. Concoct lies about Russia.

5. Break for lunch.

Thank you comrade!

 

[Ford]

On the flip side America has invaded bombed and meddled in more countries than I can count.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

You want to change the subject?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

All Putin has done recently is kept the Russian naval port in Crimea. One could hardly expect them to roll over and surrender it. They have had that naval base there for generations
On the flip side America has invaded bombed and meddled in more countries than I can count.
Yet Americans have this weird idea that Russia is trying to expand, but have little to say about their own Empire of Chaos. You must admit it is weird.

What is the evidence that Russia has a conquest bug?

They gave it away decades ago. Their stupid, they don't get to invade a country to fix it.

 

[dystopian]

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

- - - Updated - - -

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

And it were, just because western media says it were not does not mean it were not.
French MPs went to Crimea recently and have found no occupation forces at all.
Now germans are planing to visit too.

The question itself was unfair as the status quo wasn't on the ballot. That's enough to damn it.

Not only that, but we've seen videos and photos of the way the election stations were run: they had to check off one of the giant checkboxes, then drop the ballotpaper; clearly visible; in a transparent glass box with everyone there easily capable of seeing what you voted. Oh, and there were armed guards outside, adding even more to the intimidation factor.

 

[tupac chopra]

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

- - - Updated - - -

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

And it were, just because western media says it were not does not mean it were not.
French MPs went to Crimea recently and have found no occupation forces at all.
Now germans are planing to visit too.

The question itself was unfair as the status quo wasn't on the ballot. That's enough to damn it.

Not only that, but we've seen videos and photos of the way the election stations were run: they had to check off one of the giant checkboxes, then drop the ballotpaper; clearly visible; in a transparent glass box with everyone there easily capable of seeing what you voted. Oh, and there were armed guards outside, adding even more to the intimidation factor.

One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia
Crimeans themselves though are happy

As European leaders engage in shuttle diplomacy to still the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, Crimea, where the Russian onslaught began almost a year ago, has become all but forgotten. It isn't the subject of any talks, and the international sanctions imposed on Russia for annexing the Ukrainian peninsula are light compared to the ones stemming from later phases of the conflict. Yet Crimea provides a key to understanding the crisis and its potential resolution: Ultimately, it's all about how the people in disputed areas see both Russia and Ukraine.

Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets.

GfK Ukraine's poll wasn't based on actual field work, which is understandable, since a Ukraine-based organization would have a tough time operating in today's Crimea, which is rife with Russian FSB secret police agents and ruled by a local government intent on keeping dissent to a minimum. Instead, it conducted a telephone poll of 800 people in Crimea.

 

[barbos]

Transparent voting boxes are customary in Ukraine, they used the same boxes they have always been using there without any thought it could be a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...le:Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2007.jpg

 

[Will Wiley]

Clearly NATO must invade Crimea and force them to be part of Ukraine even though Crimeans themselves don't want to be. Then they can invade eastern Ukraine and force them to live under the illegitimate rulers in the west of Ukraine, even though they don't want to be part of it

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Transparent voting boxes are customary in Ukraine, they used the same boxes they have always been using there without any thought it could be a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...le:Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2007.jpg

Nice job of missing the point. The issue is not transparent voting boxes--a transparent voting box with a folded ballot is fine. The problem is ballots where an observer can see how you voted. A transparent box is relevant because it means you have no way of keeping your vote hidden as the ballot drops in.

 

[dystopian]

Nice job of missing the point. The issue is not transparent voting boxes--a transparent voting box with a folded ballot is fine. The problem is ballots where an observer can see how you voted. A transparent box is relevant because it means you have no way of keeping your vote hidden as the ballot drops in.

Especially when said observer is armed and the vote is only being held because he and his other armed buddies want you to vote a certain way.

 

[barbos]

Transparent voting boxes are customary in Ukraine, they used the same boxes they have always been using there without any thought it could be a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime...le:Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2007.jpg

Nice job of missing the point. The issue is not transparent voting boxes--a transparent voting box with a folded ballot is fine. The problem is ballots where an observer can see how you voted. A transparent box is relevant because it means you have no way of keeping your vote hidden as the ballot drops in.

Nice job of being pathetic.
They have been using transparent boxes and unfolded ballots forever.
They wanted to leave Ukraine and voted to leave Ukraine and that's all.

 

[dystopian]

Nice job of being pathetic.
They have been using transparent boxes and unfolded ballots forever.
They wanted to leave Ukraine and voted to leave Ukraine and that's all.

"They were using bad voting methods before we ever showed up! All we did was add masked gunmen to intimidate them while they were voting in the hasty rigged referendum we called after invading. They wanted to leave! They wanted to leave so bad that Sevastopol had a 123% voter turnout! I mean I really don't know what you're all complaining about!"

Honestly, arguing with these people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at it, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like it's victorious.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

I must have missed where you linked to Ukraine admitting the capture of a BUK. Couldn't find it easily, so care to re-link? The only admission from Ukraine I've seen is that the rebels may have captured decommissioned or disabled vehicles, which is in line with what rebels are now saying as well.

The story itself could easily have been planet by Russia as a cover for providing their own BUKs to the rebels. Being tweeted is no proof, it just means that they are repeating the planted story. Or as might be more likely, the "capture" of scrapped BUK or other hardware was exaggerated independently and Russia then just decided to go with it.

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

There may not be a second video or there may be a second video which is not published. What would you do if you are an Ukrainian SBU official right after MH17, would you publish videos that would show that you knew the rebels were capable of shooting down aircraft at altitudes where civilian aircraft are flying? Furthermore, why release videos that are potentially revealing your spies or collaborators locations in Luhansk?

Basically, what we have is multiple videos and photos that show the same truck and the same BUK on its way from Donetsk to Luhansk. The video in Luhansk, if made on 17th, fits with the rest of it. Otherwise, it would be a remarkable coincidence. Or who knos, maybe the video was made prior to 17th, and it's on its way towards west. The BUK had to get there somehow, although that would not explain the missing missile.

What do you have? One offhand comment by Lysenko.

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.

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

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

On the contrary, I don't doubt Krawetz's analysis. I am just pointing out that what he analysed in that twitter post were images that are known to have been modified, and nobody has claimed otherwise. Note that Krawetz did not choose the images himself, he was just responding to a request, so that can hardly be used against him.

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

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

You recall wrong. Why do you think the only place where you find this analysis is in Twitter, and everytime you pro-Russian trolls bring it up, it leads to that same Twitter exchange? It's because there is nothing of the sort on his actual website.

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

You are linking to his about page. The only image there is this one:

You think it might be digitally altered?

As for the smoke plumes, it takes several minutes for the missile to hit its target, and the debris to land (at least 3 minutes from that altitude, to be exact). Even your own source admits that it would be practically invisible quite soon. You'd need to have an image taken basically before the debris hits the ground in order to have a good view of the smoke plume, and as you can see in the photos, it's quite faded already.

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.

What alterations?

And the timing already shows the smoke from the debris on the ground, so you are right, we know the timing: it's too late.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I did not bother looking then, and I looked now. It's still bullshit. There is a huge leap of faith with the assumption that the black smoke is part of the crash site, and it seems the entire argument is based on that. But the fact is that the photo looks exactly what a BUK launch should look like. Compare it to this video for example:

[youtube]P5V0Y0glqz0[/youtube]

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.

Yes, I did. And this particular argument was not there, so either you got it from somewhere else or made it up on the spot. I'm not a mind reader and it's not really my job to try to guess where you get your nonsense from.

and the people who saw it,

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

I linked to the telegraph article that included two witnesses by name. The fact that people saw the plume is not in doubt, and the photograph shows that the plume did not come from Ukrainian controlled territory. People make mistakes or lie for various reasons.

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?

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

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.

No, I'm just calling spade a spade. You don't have to be a Russian to be gullible.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

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

And Almaz-Antey has strong vested interest to present a scenario that would absolve Russia.

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

I saw that conspiracy theorist nonsense the first time you posted it and it's been addressed. Are you running out of material?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nice job of missing the point. The issue is not transparent voting boxes--a transparent voting box with a folded ballot is fine. The problem is ballots where an observer can see how you voted. A transparent box is relevant because it means you have no way of keeping your vote hidden as the ballot drops in.

Nice job of being pathetic.
They have been using transparent boxes and unfolded ballots forever.
They wanted to leave Ukraine and voted to leave Ukraine and that's all.

All you're showing is they weren't very democratic before.

 

[Jayjay]

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?

Nope. But US government is at least kept in check by free press. Russian government can get away with a lot more lies and disinformation because they are not going to be challenged by it in their own country.

Almaz-Antey's analysis is about as reliable as Colin Powell's presentation in 2003 about Iraq'a chemical weapons plants. I was skeptical of that as well.

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.

The analysis, when it pertains to the explosion and the fragments, seems legit. I am not qualified to doubt that. But I also don't buy the assumption that the final position and orientation of the missile that has its own propulsion and guidance system can be used to deduce the point where it was fired from. From the analysis, it seems that the details pertaining to how the targeting and manouvering of the missile works is strangely absent.

- - - Updated - - -

No. WWII started because Hitler had the conquest bug. Just like Putin has.

Well if you'd listen to entirely truthful Russian state media instead of evil Western media lies, you wouldn't say that!

Why just the other day in one of our staff meetings, the agenda was this:

1. How to increase ratings and revenue.

2. How to grow our digital platforms leading to increased revenue.

3. How to grow non-traditional revenue through events and sponsorships.

4. Concoct lies about Russia.

5. Break for lunch.

You have time for lunch? Lucky bastard...