The surprising results of the MH17 criminal investigation

[Jayjay]

The "suspect" did not do the investigating. As I have pointed out many times and you surely know, the investigation was led by Netherlands and Ukraine was merely one member of the team.

The correct approach was to leave anyone who was a suspect off the team.

Accept evidence from suspects but don't allow them to be on the investigation team.

Having a suspect as part of the investigating team corrupts the team.

No, it doesn't. Having the actual guilty party as part of the team might corrupt it, but not that of mere suspect. If you think the investigation is corrupt, then you have the burden of proof to produce some evidence of that corruption. For example, proof of any information being forged or intentionally withheld by Ukraine, or at least soem mechanism how they could have done so. Mere conspiracy theories or a suspicion (especially if it is coming from Russian propagandists) is not reason anough to summarily dismiss the results of the investigation.

I'm done repeating the same point over and over again, so if you have no evidence to support your contention that the investigation was in any way subverted, I hope you excuse my not responding. I like discussing evidence and facts, not arguing the whinings of pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation.

 

[barbos]

The correct approach was to leave anyone who was a suspect off the team.

Accept evidence from suspects but don't allow them to be on the investigation team.

Having a suspect as part of the investigating team corrupts the team.

No, it doesn't. Having the actual guilty party as part of the team might corrupt it, but not that of mere suspect.

Sometimes suspects ARE actual guilty parties, that's why they are called "suspects"

By the way, what happened to BUK rebels captured from Ukrainian army?
Why investigation does not try to track it?

 

[Jayjay]

No, it doesn't. Having the actual guilty party as part of the team might corrupt it, but not that of mere suspect.

Sometimes suspects ARE actual guilty parties, that's why they are called "suspects"

By the way, what happened to BUK rebels captured from Ukrainian army?
Why investigation does not try to track it?

As far as I can tell, the only reports about it come from the rebels and Russian state media. If it was defunct, like some reports say, it's probably not been moved around a lot, and is just sitting somewhere under a tarp. There aren't a lot of leads that could be followed there.

 

[barbos]

Sometimes suspects ARE actual guilty parties, that's why they are called "suspects"

By the way, what happened to BUK rebels captured from Ukrainian army?
Why investigation does not try to track it?

As far as I can tell, the only reports about it come from the rebels and Russian state media. If it was defunct, like some reports say, it's probably not been moved around a lot, and is just sitting somewhere under a tarp. There aren't a lot of leads that could be followed there.

That's not good enough. And no, reports about it came not only from Russia or rebels. Ukrainians admitted the capture and it was actually them who said it was disabled. As far as I know it did not look clearly disabled on the picture.
The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

 

[Jayjay]

As far as I can tell, the only reports about it come from the rebels and Russian state media. If it was defunct, like some reports say, it's probably not been moved around a lot, and is just sitting somewhere under a tarp. There aren't a lot of leads that could be followed there.

That's not good enough. And no, reports about it came not only from Russia or rebels. Ukrainians admitted the capture and it was actually them who said it was disabled. As far as I know it did not look clearly disabled on the picture.

You wouldn't happen to have a source would you? I tried to google for the incident, and found no photos, nor any Ukrainian admittance that anything was even taken (though there was something about Ukraine pulling back their AA equipment). I do seem to remember something about Ukraine saying they were scrap, but since I can't locate a source, it could have been just an echo.

The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Many of the photos of the BUK in Ukraine match one seen earlier in Russia. Adding one more BUK to the picture sounds like a hypothesis that does not explain anything, since it would still leave the Russian BUK somewhere in Donbas.

 

[barbos]

That's not good enough. And no, reports about it came not only from Russia or rebels. Ukrainians admitted the capture and it was actually them who said it was disabled. As far as I know it did not look clearly disabled on the picture.

You wouldn't happen to have a source would you? I tried to google for the incident, and found no photos,

google "captured BUK twitter". Rebel removed their Twit and photo after the incident.

nor any Ukrainian admittance that anything was even taken (though there was something about Ukraine pulling back their AA equipment).

Yes they admitted losing BUK but said they "disabled" it, what does "disabled" actually mean we don't know, could be taking fuses out.

I do seem to remember something about Ukraine saying they were scrap, but since I can't locate a source, it could have been just an echo.

The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Many of the photos of the BUK in Ukraine match one seen earlier in Russia. Adding one more BUK to the picture sounds like a hypothesis that does not explain anything, since it would still leave the Russian BUK somewhere in Donbas.

That's based on photos of unknown origin. If you think captured BUK is irrelevant then presumably rusian one is irrelevant too. They could have simply destroyed it in Ukraine instead of moving back.

 

[Jayjay]

You wouldn't happen to have a source would you? I tried to google for the incident, and found no photos,

google "captured BUK twitter". Rebel removed their Twit and photo after the incident.

nor any Ukrainian admittance that anything was even taken (though there was something about Ukraine pulling back their AA equipment).

Yes they admitted losing BUK but said they "disabled" it, what does "disabled" actually mean we don't know, could be taking fuses out.

That was informative. However after some digging, the whole story of the captured BUK seems even more fishy. For example this photo used in twitter to talk about the captured BUK turned out to be from 2011:

Same BUK from slighty different angles has been seen in other separatist tweets. But satellite photos from the military base (which could be identified on the photo) don't match with either the position or the presence of missiles of that BUK; Ukraine at War blog has a pretty good break down of these photos.

I could also find some pictures of scrapped vehicles but no idea where these were taken or when. If these are the actual equipment that the rebels captured, and they were moved for some reason to Russia, they certainly don't match any of the photos we have that are suspected to be the BUK that shot down MH17.

As for Ukraine saying they disabled the devices, could not find any clear reference to it. Best was Ukrainian government press release saying that they left behind obsolete stuff when they pulled out.

The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Many of the photos of the BUK in Ukraine match one seen earlier in Russia. Adding one more BUK to the picture sounds like a hypothesis that does not explain anything, since it would still leave the Russian BUK somewhere in Donbas.

That's based on photos of unknown origin. If you think captured BUK is irrelevant then presumably rusian one is irrelevant too. They could have simply destroyed it in Ukraine instead of moving back.

Except that it's probably faster to move it back than destroy it. My point however was the invocation of Occam's Razor: adding the rebel BUK to the mix does not explain anything that could not be just as well explained by a Russian BUK, and it raises more complications than it answers. The simplest scenario is that the story about captured BUK was planted by Russian ministry of defense as a means to have plausible deniability if they loan the rebels one of theirs, and the equipment that was really captured was just complete scrap.

As for "photos of unknown origin", multiple photos of the same thing that came to light in the same day from multiple sources makes them rather more reliable than photos whose origin we know for a fact to not be of any "captured BUK".

 

[barbos]

google "captured BUK twitter". Rebel removed their Twit and photo after the incident.

nor any Ukrainian admittance that anything was even taken (though there was something about Ukraine pulling back their AA equipment).

Yes they admitted losing BUK but said they "disabled" it, what does "disabled" actually mean we don't know, could be taking fuses out.

That was informative. However after some digging, the whole story of the captured BUK seems even more fishy. For example this photo used in twitter to talk about the captured BUK turned out to be from 2011:

You do realize that you found some random guy twitting some random picture?
I was talking about twit of actual separatists, They had some picture there and it was not what you found. Frankly I am not even sure they even pretended to post an actual picture, but I vaguely remember some low quality video played in the news with some BUK, it was well before the incident and it was actual something being captured.

Same BUK from slighty different angles has been seen in other separatist tweets. But satellite photos from the military base (which could be identified on the photo) don't match with either the position or the presence of missiles of that BUK; Ukraine at War blog has a pretty good break down of these photos.

I could also find some pictures of scrapped vehicles but no idea where these were taken or when. If these are the actual equipment that the rebels captured, and they were moved for some reason to Russia, they certainly don't match any of the photos we have that are suspected to be the BUK that shot down MH17.

As for Ukraine saying they disabled the devices, could not find any clear reference to it. Best was Ukrainian government press release saying that they left behind obsolete stuff when they pulled out.

The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Many of the photos of the BUK in Ukraine match one seen earlier in Russia. Adding one more BUK to the picture sounds like a hypothesis that does not explain anything, since it would still leave the Russian BUK somewhere in Donbas.

That's based on photos of unknown origin. If you think captured BUK is irrelevant then presumably rusian one is irrelevant too. They could have simply destroyed it in Ukraine instead of moving back.

Except that it's probably faster to move it back than destroy it. My point however was the invocation of Occam's Razor: adding the rebel BUK to the mix does not explain anything that could not be just as well explained by a Russian BUK, and it raises more complications than it answers. The simplest scenario is that the story about captured BUK was planted by Russian ministry of defense as a means to have plausible deniability if they loan the rebels one of theirs, and the equipment that was really captured was just complete scrap.

As for "photos of unknown origin", multiple photos of the same thing that came to light in the same day from multiple sources makes them rather more reliable than photos whose origin we know for a fact to not be of any "captured BUK".

Occam's razer suggests that there was no russian BUK, just the one which we know rebels captured which was subsequently moved to Russia.
And no, I have zero trust in photos of unknown origin.

 

[Jayjay]

google "captured BUK twitter". Rebel removed their Twit and photo after the incident.

nor any Ukrainian admittance that anything was even taken (though there was something about Ukraine pulling back their AA equipment).

Yes they admitted losing BUK but said they "disabled" it, what does "disabled" actually mean we don't know, could be taking fuses out.

That was informative. However after some digging, the whole story of the captured BUK seems even more fishy. For example this photo used in twitter to talk about the captured BUK turned out to be from 2011:

You do realize that you found some random guy twitting some random picture?
I was talking about twit of actual separatists, They had some picture there and it was not what you found. Frankly I am not even sure they even pretended to post an actual picture, but I vaguely remember some low quality video played in the news with some BUK, it was well before the incident and it was actual something being captured.

It was not a random picture, it was a representative sample. There are several pictures of BUKs from that same base, from different angles. For example here and here. The point was that those were probably all taken in 2011 at the same time, because the satellite images suggest that none of those BUKs were at the base anymore in 2014.

As for them being from random people, excuse me if I don't know who are the official rebel representatives, and who are just nthusiastic fans. I don't speak Russian so they look all the same to me. But note one of the pictures here was posted by "Donetsk Republic" twitter account which I assume is supposed to be official, no? And the one in the quote along with others is used also in this news article. So are you saying these are all false info? Then where is the real BUK then? Just vaguely remembering something is hardly convincing.

Same BUK from slighty different angles has been seen in other separatist tweets. But satellite photos from the military base (which could be identified on the photo) don't match with either the position or the presence of missiles of that BUK; Ukraine at War blog has a pretty good break down of these photos.

I could also find some pictures of scrapped vehicles but no idea where these were taken or when. If these are the actual equipment that the rebels captured, and they were moved for some reason to Russia, they certainly don't match any of the photos we have that are suspected to be the BUK that shot down MH17.

As for Ukraine saying they disabled the devices, could not find any clear reference to it. Best was Ukrainian government press release saying that they left behind obsolete stuff when they pulled out.

The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Many of the photos of the BUK in Ukraine match one seen earlier in Russia. Adding one more BUK to the picture sounds like a hypothesis that does not explain anything, since it would still leave the Russian BUK somewhere in Donbas.

That's based on photos of unknown origin. If you think captured BUK is irrelevant then presumably rusian one is irrelevant too. They could have simply destroyed it in Ukraine instead of moving back.

Except that it's probably faster to move it back than destroy it. My point however was the invocation of Occam's Razor: adding the rebel BUK to the mix does not explain anything that could not be just as well explained by a Russian BUK, and it raises more complications than it answers. The simplest scenario is that the story about captured BUK was planted by Russian ministry of defense as a means to have plausible deniability if they loan the rebels one of theirs, and the equipment that was really captured was just complete scrap.

As for "photos of unknown origin", multiple photos of the same thing that came to light in the same day from multiple sources makes them rather more reliable than photos whose origin we know for a fact to not be of any "captured BUK".

Occam's razer suggests that there was no russian BUK, just the one which we know rebels captured which was subsequently moved to Russia.
And no, I have zero trust in photos of unknown origin.

But you trust "vaguely remembering a low quality video"? f you don't believe in photos of unknown origin, how do you know that the rebels ever captured a BUK in the first place?

At this point, the story of the captured BUK should be put in same category as SU-25 (or was it a Mig?) flying near the MH17, nothing but a mirage peddled by Russia as means of disinformation.

 

[barbos]

google "captured BUK twitter". Rebel removed their Twit and photo after the incident.

nor any Ukrainian admittance that anything was even taken (though there was something about Ukraine pulling back their AA equipment).

Yes they admitted losing BUK but said they "disabled" it, what does "disabled" actually mean we don't know, could be taking fuses out.

That was informative. However after some digging, the whole story of the captured BUK seems even more fishy. For example this photo used in twitter to talk about the captured BUK turned out to be from 2011:

You do realize that you found some random guy twitting some random picture?
I was talking about twit of actual separatists, They had some picture there and it was not what you found. Frankly I am not even sure they even pretended to post an actual picture, but I vaguely remember some low quality video played in the news with some BUK, it was well before the incident and it was actual something being captured.

It was not a random picture, it was a representative sample. There are several pictures of BUKs from that same base, from different angles. For example here and here. The point was that those were probably all taken in 2011 at the same time, because the satellite images suggest that none of those BUKs were at the base anymore in 2014.

Again, You are refuting random and irrelevant twit. Let me try again. rebels captured a base with a BUK in it, and put a twit about it, ukrainians aid BUK was disabled, then month later MH17 crash and that twit was removed.

As for them being from random people, excuse me if I don't know who are the official rebel representatives, and who are just nthusiastic fans. I don't speak Russian so they look all the same to me. But note one of the pictures here was posted by "Donetsk Republic" twitter account which I assume is supposed to be official, no?

Don't know.

And the one in the quote along with others is used also in this news article. So are you saying these are all false info? Then where is the real BUK then? Just vaguely remembering something is hardly convincing.

Again, fucking ukrainian official officials admitted loss of a BUK, you can not dispute that. Pictures are irrelevant, nobody promised you real picture.

Same BUK from slighty different angles has been seen in other separatist tweets. But satellite photos from the military base (which could be identified on the photo) don't match with either the position or the presence of missiles of that BUK; Ukraine at War blog has a pretty good break down of these photos.

I could also find some pictures of scrapped vehicles but no idea where these were taken or when. If these are the actual equipment that the rebels captured, and they were moved for some reason to Russia, they certainly don't match any of the photos we have that are suspected to be the BUK that shot down MH17.

As for Ukraine saying they disabled the devices, could not find any clear reference to it. Best was Ukrainian government press release saying that they left behind obsolete stuff when they pulled out.

The reason why I am asking is an apparent lack of concern that the BUK which was moved to Russia after incident could actually be the captured one. I mean yes, BUK was moved to Russia but it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Many of the photos of the BUK in Ukraine match one seen earlier in Russia. Adding one more BUK to the picture sounds like a hypothesis that does not explain anything, since it would still leave the Russian BUK somewhere in Donbas.

That's based on photos of unknown origin. If you think captured BUK is irrelevant then presumably rusian one is irrelevant too. They could have simply destroyed it in Ukraine instead of moving back.

Except that it's probably faster to move it back than destroy it. My point however was the invocation of Occam's Razor: adding the rebel BUK to the mix does not explain anything that could not be just as well explained by a Russian BUK, and it raises more complications than it answers. The simplest scenario is that the story about captured BUK was planted by Russian ministry of defense as a means to have plausible deniability if they loan the rebels one of theirs, and the equipment that was really captured was just complete scrap.

As for "photos of unknown origin", multiple photos of the same thing that came to light in the same day from multiple sources makes them rather more reliable than photos whose origin we know for a fact to not be of any "captured BUK".

Occam's razer suggests that there was no russian BUK, just the one which we know rebels captured which was subsequently moved to Russia.
And no, I have zero trust in photos of unknown origin.

But you trust "vaguely remembering a low quality video"? f you don't believe in photos of unknown origin, how do you know that the rebels ever captured a BUK in the first place?

At this point, the story of the captured BUK should be put in same category as SU-25 (or was it a Mig?) flying near the MH17, nothing but a mirage peddled by Russia as means of disinformation.

Nope, rebels did in fact capture a BUK, ukrainians admitted it, You can dispute its operational state but not the fact that rebels captured it.

 

[barbos]

Here is I think a screen-shot of original twit:

Looks like it's a variant without radar though. Text of the twit implies that they captured more than just this one

 

[Jayjay]

Here is I think a screen-shot of original twit:

Looks like it's a variant without radar though. Text of the twit implies that they captured more than just this one

There is a video of this particular unit (loader number 113) from autumn 2014 in a shelled Ukrainian base:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZBaBrP9r80

(BUK 113 makes appearance at about 1:30).

So, if this was the one, then obviously it was NOT transported to Russia. Another problem is that the base it was in was not actually captured by the rebels in June, it was another base. To the separatist propagandists' credit though, it seems that they were smart enough to use a photo that had not been published in social media before, but it is very fucking unlikely that this was "captured" from Ukraine rather than just a photo taken years earlier. There are plenty of other pictures of the same BUK at the same base and even in same exact spot, in pictures from 2010 to 2011.

 

[barbos]

You can see the number? And you once again trust data from ukrainian propagandists.
Ukrainians admitted the loss, the fact that rebels used random picture is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Jayjay]

You can see the number? And you once again trust data from ukrainian propagandists.
Ukrainians admitted the loss, the fact that rebels used random picture is pretty irrelevant.

There are higher resolution images available where the number is more visible. Also pictures of the same vehicle from different angles in the same place. No need to "trust" anything except your own eyes.

Ok, let's say the rebels did used a random picture instead of what was really captured. The question is, why would they do that? Why wouldn't they use a real picture, if they are already bragging about it publicly, not to mention miss the opportunity to embarrass Ukraine? Maybe they didn't have a photographer at hand, or maybe it was really scrapped so badly that they would have lost face showing it, or maybe there was no captured BUK in the first place. Russia is known to lie and forge evidence before, so that's by far the simplest explanation.

 

[barbos]

You can see the number? And you once again trust data from ukrainian propagandists.
Ukrainians admitted the loss, the fact that rebels used random picture is pretty irrelevant.

There are higher resolution images available where the number is more visible. Also pictures of the same vehicle from different angles in the same place. No need to "trust" anything except your own eyes.

Ok, let's say the rebels did used a random picture instead of what was really captured. The question is, why would they do that? Why wouldn't they use a real picture, if they are already bragging about it publicly, not to mention miss the opportunity to embarrass Ukraine? Maybe they didn't have a photographer at hand, or maybe it was really scrapped so badly that they would have lost face showing it, or maybe there was no captured BUK in the first place. Russia is known to lie and forge evidence before, so that's by far the simplest explanation.

Everybody lies including US and ukrainian goernment. I just want to know what happened to captured BUK.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So I haven't really been following the MH-17 story primarily on account of the fact that I have ZERO fucks to give about Crimea, Ukraine or anything even peripherally relatd to them...

But I'm curious: why EXACTLY would Russia shoot down MH-17? What's the theory on what, if anything, that was supposed to accomplish?

 

[Jayjay]

So I haven't really been following the MH-17 story primarily on account of the fact that I have ZERO fucks to give about Crimea, Ukraine or anything even peripherally relatd to them...

But I'm curious: why EXACTLY would Russia shoot down MH-17? What's the theory on what, if anything, that was supposed to accomplish?

Accident. They thought it was an Ukrainian troop transport or bomber. The rebels had shot down a couple of them already before.

I don't think anyone is accusing Russia for deliberately shooting down a passenger plane, although there are many who take it for granted that Ukraine for some reason would...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So I haven't really been following the MH-17 story primarily on account of the fact that I have ZERO fucks to give about Crimea, Ukraine or anything even peripherally relatd to them...

But I'm curious: why EXACTLY would Russia shoot down MH-17? What's the theory on what, if anything, that was supposed to accomplish?

An oops--they thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian military plane. They didn't realize there were civilian planes flying over the area.

 

[Will Wiley]

So I haven't really been following the MH-17 story primarily on account of the fact that I have ZERO fucks to give about Crimea, Ukraine or anything even peripherally relatd to them...

But I'm curious: why EXACTLY would Russia shoot down MH-17? What's the theory on what, if anything, that was supposed to accomplish?

Accident. They thought it was an Ukrainian troop transport or bomber. The rebels had shot down a couple of them already before.

I don't think anyone is accusing Russia for deliberately shooting down a passenger plane, although there are many who take it for granted that Ukraine for some reason would...

No, you still aren't paying attention.
Some US intelligence analysts thought Ukrainian forces under the command of a rogue oligarch might have been trying to shoot down Putins plane which had similar markings.

They may have been considering Kolmoyskyi who was one rogue oligarch with troops loyal to him in the vicinity

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bilby]

Accident. They thought it was an Ukrainian troop transport or bomber. The rebels had shot down a couple of them already before.

I don't think anyone is accusing Russia for deliberately shooting down a passenger plane, although there are many who take it for granted that Ukraine for some reason would...

No, you still aren't paying attention.
Some US intelligence analysts thought Ukrainian forces under the command of a rogue oligarch might have been trying to shoot down Putins plane which had similar markings.

:laughing-smiley-014



Oh, god. Stop it. I'm going to break a rib!!!