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

[bilby]

That is A convoy; there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy - and as the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass',

Incorrect again.

My Russian is pretty rusty, but the title is right there on the top left of the clip before you hit play, and is hardly a difficult bit of translation. It practically sounds the same in Russian as in English - "Tipichniy dyen v Donbassye"

Still, you needn't take my word for it:



You don't even need to play the video to know that the person who posted it to YouTube chose the title "Typical day in Donbass". Given that title, it is obviously not evidence of the absence of ANY convoy with a BUK, any more than a video of a blue car is evidence that red cars don't exist.



Did you really imagine that your credibility would be improved by claiming that I was incorrect, when literally anyone can check for themselves incredibly easily?

Perhaps you assume that because you can't read Russian, nobody can? (That's a pretty poor assumption, by the way).

Or are you now just declaring everything incorrect, unless it conforms with your personal worldview?

 

[tupac chopra]

What you imagine should be the case and what is the case are two different things

Well, if somebody shoots a video of a convoy driving through town and titles that 'Typical day in Donbass', why would you consider the presence of a convoy driving through Donbass to be so atypical that this was the only one?

If you are familiar with this saga you will know that there is a theory promoted on the internet that purports to track a particular buk travelling through Eastern Ukraine on the 17th and 18th of July 2014.

The "Putin did it" case is based on that convoy on that day containing a buk.
If that convoy did not contain a buk then it means that there is a whole trail of false evidence.

Truth is the first casualty in war.
Added in editing

America it seems only has this "social media" evidence.[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRvINebeok[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jayjay]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/

There are six mentions of the truck in Donetsk, though four of them are via one account. Each one of them could be suspect individually but it's the mass of evidence that makes them probably genuine.

All debunked. https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/17-july-buk-sightings-planting-evidence-in-advance/

Here is the convoy. There is not a buk in it.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/4Co587-K4Qc[/YOUTUBE]

That was a long-winded piece, but only a part of it addressed Donetsk. And it does seem like there was a convoy of tanks, but the BUK was not with them. So apparently there were at least two different convoys on the same day. But how do you get from that convoy in the video to these descriptions:

"Donetsk 30minutes ago along prospect Ilicha by molokozavod some sort of anti-aircraft complex, like a Strela, was transported on a platform underneath a cover, accompanied by 10 normal vehicles"

"25-30 minutes ago around the Gruzia area something that looks like a Smerch was seen. It was sitting there. But maybe they are going to transport it somewhere or another."

(...)

"in the morning people wrote that it [a Buk] was at the crossing Shakhtostroiteley Boulevard and Prospekt Ilyicha, facing Makiivka. they were waiting, it seemed"

Only one of the posts there could apply to tanks:

"shakhtersk kamaz of terrorists, 3 tanks. Before them possibly a Buk passed by, covered up"

... and even that one says that the BUK had already passed by when the tanks came, which would explain its absence in the video. And for some reason this is now three tanks rather than four like in your video, but that could be a simple mistake.

So basically, your "debunking" doesn't really debunk it. It just paints a very elaborate, and tedious picture of some other convoy and tries to mix and match the reports until the reader is bamboozled and gives up.

 

[bilby]

... just paints a very elaborate, and tedious picture ... and tries to mix and match the reports until the reader is bamboozled and gives up.

Excellent summary of the entire thread.

 

[Jayjay]

Well, if somebody shoots a video of a convoy driving through town and titles that 'Typical day in Donbass', why would you consider the presence of a convoy driving through Donbass to be so atypical that this was the only one?

If you are familiar with this saga you will know that there is a theory promoted on the internet that purports to track a particular buk travelling through Eastern Ukraine on the 17th and 18th of July 2014.

The "Putin did it" case is based on that convoy on that day containing a buk.
If that convoy did not contain a buk then it means that there is a whole trail of false evidence.

Truth is the first casualty in war.

Who says there was just one convoy? Or that all the vehicles were in the convoy? You are basically trying to refute someone who claims they slipped on a banana peel by showing a picture of an orange.

America it seems only has this "social media" evidence.[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRvINebeok[/YOUTUBE]

Watching that is almost comical in retrospect, because we now know that almost everything that Russia presented in their press conference that was mentioned were outright lies. True, US hasn't released their intel (presumably infrared satellite imaging), but isn't that still better than falsifying evidence?

 

[tupac chopra]

Did you really imagine that your credibility would be improved by claiming that I was incorrect, when literally anyone can check for themselves incredibly easily?

You were incorrect. Here is another video of the same convoy. There is no buk.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/I0tkiyKXvwY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[tupac chopra]

That was a long-winded piece, but only a part of it addressed Donetsk. And it does seem like there was a convoy of tanks, but the BUK was not with them. So apparently there were at least two different convoys on the same day. .

Except , yet again we have no real evidence of this second mysterious convoy. All the stuff you and Bellingcat need just doesn't exist.
Aren't you even the least bit skeptical that we have photos and videos of everything, that can be verified, except the particular ones you need?

 

[bilby]

Did you really imagine that your credibility would be improved by claiming that I was incorrect, when literally anyone can check for themselves incredibly easily?

You were incorrect. Here is another video of the same convoy. There is no buk.
<snipped video>

I said "the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass'". You responded with one word - "incorrect". You are wrong - it is NOT incorrect, that really is the title of that video.

No matter how many other videos you have, and no matter whether they are of the same convoy, or a different convoy, or of the disneyworld afternoon parade, that does not change the fact that what you called as 'incorrect' was, in fact, completely correct.

 

[tupac chopra]

You were incorrect. Here is another video of the same convoy. There is no buk.
<snipped video>

I said "the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass'". You responded with one word - "incorrect". You are wrong - it is NOT incorrect, that really is the title of that video.

I wasn't disputing the title. I did not say you were incorrect about the title.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=219455&viewfull=1#post219455

 

[bilby]

I said "the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass'". You responded with one word - "incorrect". You are wrong - it is NOT incorrect, that really is the title of that video.

I wasn't disputing the title. I did not say you were incorrect about the title.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=219455&viewfull=1#post219455

Yes, you did - as that link clearly shows.

Perhaps that's not what you intended to do; but it is what you did.

I can only respond to what you actually post.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Deja vu all over again...

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

A preliminary Russian report confirmed the initial private assessments of American military officials that the S-200 missile overshot its target drone—which had been destroyed successfully by an S-300 fired at the same time—and instead of self-destructing, locked in on the passenger plane about 250 kilometres (160 mi) further away and exploded as a ball of shrapnel 15 metres (50 ft) over the plane.[10][11][12]

Russian officials initially dismissed the American claim as "unworthy of attention",[12] and Russian President Vladimir Putin told the press the next day that "the weapons used in those exercises had such characteristics that make it impossible for them to reach the air corridor through which the plane was moving".[12] Ukrainian military officials initially denied that their missile had brought down the plane; they reported that the S-200 had been launched seawards and had successfully self-destructed. Indeed, Defense Ministry spokesman Konstantin Khivrenko noted that "neither the direction nor the range (of the missiles) correspond to the practical or theoretical point at which the plane exploded".[12][13]

However, some Ukrainian officials later admitted that it was probably their military that shot down the airliner. Ukrainian officials speculated that water interference caused the missile to veer off course.[14][15] Ukraine reportedly banned the testing of Buk, S-300 and similar missile systems for a period of 7 years following this incident.[16][17]

 

[Jayjay]

That was a long-winded piece, but only a part of it addressed Donetsk. And it does seem like there was a convoy of tanks, but the BUK was not with them. So apparently there were at least two different convoys on the same day. .

Except , yet again we have no real evidence of this second mysterious convoy. All the stuff you and Bellingcat need just doesn't exist.
Aren't you even the least bit skeptical that we have photos and videos of everything, that can be verified, except the particular ones you need?

Did you bother reading my post? The social media sightings I referred to didn't talk about tanks. They talked about a tracked vehicle on a trailer, and regular vehicles. And we have multiple photos and videos from different sources, so obviously the BUK and the truck existed. Just because you show a video of another convoy of tanks on the same day in no way disproves anything.

It's pretty ridiculous for you to claim that the "stuff doesn't exist" when there's a shitload of photos, videos, witnesses, and analysis to support it. What you are doign is ignoring the brunt of the evidence while trying to shed doubt on some minor details.

 

[tupac chopra]

I wasn't disputing the title. I did not say you were incorrect about the title.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=219455&viewfull=1#post219455

Yes, you did - as that link clearly shows.

Perhaps that's not what you intended to do; but it is what you did.

I can only respond to what you actually post.

Sigh....You were incorrect to dispute that it was the convoy. It is the convoy relied upon to make the "Putin did it " case

- - - Updated - - -

Except , yet again we have no real evidence of this second mysterious convoy. All the stuff you and Bellingcat need just doesn't exist.
Aren't you even the least bit skeptical that we have photos and videos of everything, that can be verified, except the particular ones you need?

Did you bother reading my post? The social media sightings I referred to didn't talk about tanks. They talked about a tracked vehicle on a trailer, and regular vehicles. And we have multiple photos and videos from different sources, .

You have zero photos of such a convoy. Which is why you haven't posted any.
We have dozens of photos and videos of the convoy and lots of other things, but not one your missing buk, that is from that day. Strangely the very ones you need don't exist
It is a fantasy.

It's pretty ridiculous for you to claim that the "stuff doesn't exist" when there's a shitload of photos, videos, witnesses, and analysis to support it. What you are doign is ignoring the brunt of the evidence while trying to shed doubt on some minor details.

I'm pointing out that your evidence doesn't pass muster. A photo that is claimed to be taken on a certain day with a clear blue sky , when it was cloudy, or with the wind blowing the wrong way for that day,posted on the site of some ultra nationalist nut or a site that was closed down 30 minutes after it opened or that came from the SBU doesn't count.

Those are the only photos/videos you have. And when you look for one of your fantasy convoy, you don't even have one, despite the fact we have loads of the real convoy that day

 

[barbos]

You have not served in Ukrainian Army, have you?
It's an established FACT that Ukrainian so called Army had BUKs distributed pretty close to the "frontline".
Why would they do that you ask? Because their generals are idiots and they are still using their soviet era tactics/strategy which was based on war with actual NATO army with everything including Air Force. Also they were really expecting russian invasion and they were accusing Russia in actually flying fighters (Su-27 etc) and shooting all these planes at the time. So there is no surprise they had all these BUK radars on.
Now all you need is a drunk commander deciding to conduct a training exercise using an actual passenger plane as a target.

Fact? By whom? Russian propaganda ministry?

By ukrainian propaganda too.

And what are the military standards of the rebels? Grenadier Guards? Delta Force?

I seem to recall that Russian soldiers traded their arms for vodka in Chechnya during that war. Probably a Dutch story. Of course the rebels never drink.

A friend of mine's father was a Wehrmacht vet on the eastern front in WWII. He was taken prisoner and escaped four times due to drunk Red Army soldiers.

Your point?

 

[bilby]

Yes, you did - as that link clearly shows.

Perhaps that's not what you intended to do; but it is what you did.

I can only respond to what you actually post.

Sigh....You were incorrect to dispute that it was the convoy. It is the convoy relied upon to make the "Putin did it " case

Sigh... Except that:

a) That's not what you said (although I now believe it is what you meant to say); and

b) How can it be said to be 'the' convoy, when the very title of the video showing it implies that such convoys are a routine sight in Donbass?

If you say that there was a red bus driving past my house this morning, and I posted a video of a green bus driving past my house, entitled "Yet another bus drives past my house", that would be a total non-sequitur. It would not constitute evidence of any kind regarding the presence or absence of red buses in my neighbourhood.

You REALLY need to learn how to think, AND how to communicate, because you are demonstrably awful at both.

 

[tupac chopra]

You REALLY need to learn how to think, AND how to communicate, because you are demonstrably awful at both.

Do you need to always try to make things personal? Why not just discuss the evidence?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Fact? By whom? Russian propaganda ministry?

By ukrainian propaganda too.

But the DSB report was invalidated, by you, and its author's motives impugned by a single data point. Now you're citing Ukrainian propaganda?

Your standards are erratic.

And what are the military standards of the rebels? Grenadier Guards? Delta Force?

I seem to recall that Russian soldiers traded their arms for vodka in Chechnya during that war. Probably a Dutch story. Of course the rebels never drink.

A friend of mine's father was a Wehrmacht vet on the eastern front in WWII. He was taken prisoner and escaped four times due to drunk Red Army soldiers.

Your point?

I suspect there's plenty of drinking on all sides.

 

[barbos]

Supporting evidence can be manipulated too.
Fact is, if there is no date on any of these pictures they are pretty much worthless.
And i think these internet investigators tend to simply assign July 17 date to every available photo.

I have hard time believing russian military allowed to take some of these photos after the fact.
I mean Assuming russians (not rebels) are responsible there would be no photos of BUK after disaster. They would cover damn thing and transport it at night without anyone taking pictures. Also I really doubtful russians (not rebels) would bring it into the city (Donetsk)
I think these are pictures of captured BUK and they were taken right after it was captured, they drove it around not knowing what to do with it, and rebels had no reason to hide the fact at the time that's why there are so many pictures. I believe they twitted one picture themselves too.

Also some of the pictures could in fact come from SBU (Ukrainian "KGB"), just to add some "positive" noise.

If it was noise, it would not be consistent with all the other evidence.

It would if they made it after they had all the other "evidence"

Also note, most of the photos and videos are taken before the disaster.

Well, 2 weeks before is "before" too.

They did get it out pretty silently, even though it was spotted later in Russia. Also your theory doesn't account for the fact that we have several witnesses seeing and reporting it independently from each other, before the incident, and none afterwards. If the rebels were "driving it around not knowing what to do with it", how come nobody saw it then?

They saw it just fine, they just did not pay much attention at the time.
Now, Paris Match said they took the picture themselves and it was pure luck. This is pretty serious indication that thing was driving there at that time. But then all that talk about freelancer, wrong position and time. This picture is still not dated well enough. Who actually took the picture and when it was in possession of Paris Match? Ukrainian freelancer? was he working at SBU at the time too?
It is possible that they realized significance of that picture only after the fact and simply assigned timing they thought fit the theory but in reality was not. People have a tendency to connect the dots even there is no connection.
In any case, this seems to be the only photo which can be linked to a person who took it and that person should be questioned.
And again, apparent amount of "evidence" provided is too great for it to be operation conducted by russians. I can give you rebels, but russian army would not leave so much "evidence". Russians are not idiots this theory assumes. Assuming most of the evidence can be trusted it all looks like rebels captured more less operational BUK and then spend two weeks reading manuals and checking everything is in working order and then tried to use it completely forgetting that there are passengers planes out there.

 

[barbos]

By ukrainian propaganda too.

But the DSB report was invalidated, by you, and its author's motives impugned by a single data point. Now you're citing Ukrainian propaganda?

Your standards are erratic.

No, it's your standards are erratic, you believe ukrainian side so I gave you ukrainian side.
That's fact, ukrainians have/had BUKs there.

And what are the military standards of the rebels? Grenadier Guards? Delta Force?

I seem to recall that Russian soldiers traded their arms for vodka in Chechnya during that war. Probably a Dutch story. Of course the rebels never drink.

A friend of mine's father was a Wehrmacht vet on the eastern front in WWII. He was taken prisoner and escaped four times due to drunk Red Army soldiers.

Your point?

I suspect there's plenty of drinking on all sides.

More on ukrainian side, they simply have more people to engage in drinking.

 

[bilby]

You REALLY need to learn how to think, AND how to communicate, because you are demonstrably awful at both.

Do you need to always try to make things personal? Why not just discuss the evidence?

I'm not trying to make things personal; You are attempting to do something you clearly do not have the necessary skills to do. My advice is that you obtain those skills before making any further such attempts.

If I was trying to entertain people by playing the violin, I would not be justified to consider their telling me I need to learn to play the violin first as 'making it personal'; anyone who has heard the sound I make with a violin would be absolutely justified in saying that I can't play it, and need to learn how before getting it out in public. Anyone who has read your 'arguments' in this thread - particularly in the last few posts, would be equally justified in saying that you need to learn how to think, and how to communicate, before engaging in public debate.

Here is an example:

That is A convoy; there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy - and as the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass',

Incorrect again.

In English, this exchange has tupac chopra telling bilby that the title of the video is NOT 'Typical day in Donbass'.

Had tupac chopra wished to object instead to bilby's statement "there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy", it should have looked like this:

That is A convoy; there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy

Incorrect.

- and as the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass',

Note that the 'again' needs also to be excluded, as this is the first time bilby and tupac chopra have discussed this convoy; Previous discussions tupac chopra may have had with other people cannot form the basis of this new discussion, as one party is unaware of the content of the earlier discussion.

These simple communications failures render you incapable of accurately making any kind of argument; essentially you are being incoherent. Perhaps where you went to school, you were told that 'close enough is good enough' and that as long as you say something that is similar to what you mean, others will pick up the slack for you, and divine your meaning. Well, if so, you were misinformed.

As to thinking - well, here we have a video of a convoy of military vehicles, that does not include a BUK launcher. You seem to be attempting to claim that this demonstrates the absence of a BUK launcher from the Donbass region; but the 'evidence' you have is a video that has a title that clearly implies the existence of OTHER convoys in the Donbass - so this CANNOT be evidence that no BUK launcher is in that area - only that no BUK Launcher is in that particular convoy. This is basic logic; If you really don't see how a video that does not show a particular object is NOT evidence that that object does not exist, then you need to go back to the basics of logic and start again.

I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to teach you to communicate or to think, any more than I would expect you to teach me to play the violin. But I would be most grateful if you could learn before your next public attempt. This is not a personal attack, any more than criticism of my violin recital would be a personal attack; it is an observation that a particular skill is lacking, and that observation is inspiring advice to learn that skill.