FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2nd Malaysian Airliner MH17 downed in Ukraine nr Russia
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5756
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote:

The documentary, Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17? Will be aired on BBC Two on May 3 at 9pm


Uh-oh. Conspiracy Files... don't get your hopes up that there will be a fair and balance discussion of the topic... Rolling Eyes



'....a fair and balanced discussion of the topic....', no. But it will be an opportunity to watch how yet again they bend over for an injection of 'Official narrative' lies. Be good if someone uploads it to here, or at least
grabs a copy for future reference.

IT'S ONLY A FEW DAYS TILL IT'S BROADCAST, so put it in your calendars, folks.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15956
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2016 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a reminder

Explosive report about BBC censorship
The very rough translation is my own
Boeing downing coverup: BBC report removed
Piotr Bein Blog, 25 July, 2014
Censorship because of the "BUKS"
The BBC Russian service" has deleted this story about the investigation of the disaster Boeing in Ukraine, say bloggers
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/explosive-report-abot-bbc- censorship.html

The attempt to work out how the Malaysian Boeing could be shot down near Donetsk, has led to a scandal. The management of the BBC has deleted a report its own correspondent from the site, in which she refuted information of Americans and Ukrainians about the place, where stood the "Buk", allegedly shot down the plane. In addition, local residents told the reporter that they saw a fighter plane . The BBC have censored a report for the first time, say Russian bloggers.
"The document is not available"
"The BBC tells the truth, wow, I'm surprised"
The report by correspondent of BBC Russian service Olga Ivishina about the her search of the place where, according to statements of American and Ukrainian representatives, the "BUK" of Donetsk militias shoud be, apparently, will never see the light of day,. The subject on which she posted link on her microblog on Twitter soon after the publication, has been removed...
also
http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-bbc-report-ukrainian-fighter-jet- shot-down-mhi7-donetsk-eyewitnesses/5393631

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15956
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MH-17 ‘Investigation’: Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out
Posted on August 24, 2014 by Eric Zuesse.
Perpetrator of the Downing in Ukraine, of the Malaysian Airliner, Will Stay Hidden
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/mh-17-investigation-secret-augu st-8th-agreement-seeps.html
Eric Zuesse

Regarding what caused the downing of the Malaysian airliner MH-17 in Ukraine on July 17th, the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN, reported in a brief Russian-language news story on August 12th, that four days earlier (August 8th) a representative of that nation’s Prosecutor General office, Yuri Boychenko, had said that (as auto-translated by google), “the results [of the investigation] will be announced upon completion of the investigation and with the consent of all the parties who signed the corresponding agreement.” This UNIAN report said that, “As part of the four-party agreement signed on August 8 between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia [all of which nations are allies of the United States and are cooperating with its new Cold War against Russia], information on the investigation into the disaster Malaysian ‘Boeing-777’ will not be disclosed.” In other words: the official ‘investigation’ is being carried out by four nations that, as U.S. allies, are hostile toward Russia. One of those four nations, Ukraine, is not only a prime suspect in possibly having shot this airliner down, but is currently waging a hot war to ethnically-cleanse the pro-Russian population out of southeastern Ukraine; and the initial ‘news’ reports in Western ‘news’ media regarding the downing of MH-17 had stenographically repeated the Ukrainian Goverhment’s line that said that this airliner was probably downed by the local rebels there, who were trying to shoot down the Ukrainian Government’s bombers that are constantly bombing them. Some Western ‘news’ reports even speculated that perhaps Russia itself had shot this airliner down. If the UNIAN news-report is correct, then there is no way that the ‘investigation’ will be able to be released to the public if it indicates that the Ukrainian Government (which, according to that news-report has veto power over the making-public of the study’s findings) is blamed for having shot the airliner down.


On August 12th, another pro-Ukrainian-Government ‘news’ site, gordonua.com, headlined, as auto-translated by google, “GPU: The results of the investigation [into the] crash [of] the Boeing 777 will be released with the consent of the parties,” and said, “Information about the accident MH17 in the Donetsk region will be published in obtaining the consent of all the parties that are involved in the investigation.” UNIAN was cited there as gordonua’s sole source. ‘News’ media didn’t probe the matter further.

Until 23 August 2014, that seems to have been the last of the matter, as far as news reports were concerned, and both of those two news reports were just tiny squibs in the Russian language, published only in Ukraine, by supporters of the Obama-installed Ukrainian Government. The news was ignored both inside and outside Ukraine.

Then, on 23 August 2014, Global Research News published the first English-language news-report on this matter; it was based on the second Russian-language news-report, the one that had appeared at gordonua.com on August 12th. Global Research concluded from it that, “The Causes of the MH17 Crash are ‘Classified’.” Of course, this way of phrasing the matter is a slight oversimplification, because, actually, the findings will remain ‘classified’ only if, and to the extent that, the Ukrainian Government is found to have caused the airliner’s downing. In other words: this ‘investigation’ will not be published unless the Ukrainian Government and the other three nations that are performing it agree unanimously to publish it.

So: imagine a murder-case in which 298 innocents are slaughtered, and in which there are only three suspects (here: Ukraine, the pro-Russian rebels, and Russia itself), and one of those three suspects has veto-power on the making-public of the ‘investigation’ into that crime. Well: this is that murder-case, and the veto-holding ‘investigator’ and suspect is Ukraine. Neither of the other two suspects holds any such veto-power over this ‘investigation.’

In a sense, whether the official investigation into the downing will ever be made public is insignificant, just as would be any ‘investigation’ that is carried out by, or with veto-power from, one of the prime suspects in the crime that is being investigated.

The international public would obviously need to be fools in order for them to trust such an ‘investigation’ as that. Case closed?

President Obama got the economic-sanctions-increase against Russia, that he had wanted out of this shoot-down. Who needs any ‘investigation’ to determine this mass-killing’s actual perpetrator? Certainly not Obama. Ultimately, it is he who caused it, because he was the person behind this ethnic-cleansing campaign, without which ethnic-cleansing campaign the airliner itself wouldn’t have been downed.

The downing of this airliner goes straight back to the U.S. White House, which has already won what it wanted from it.

Those 298 corpses are just casualties of this U.S.-caused war, like the Ukrainians are casualties of it who live in the portions of Ukraine that had overwhelmingly elected in 2010 the Ukrainian President whom Obama ousted from office in 2014. Obama doesn’t want a President like that elected ever again in Ukraine; so, those voters are being gotten rid of, and ethnic cleansing is how it’s being done. And the residents there are likewise not being heard from in Western ‘news’ media, and nobody in the West is asking these victims what they think of the Ukrainian Government that Obama installed. Perhaps that’s because they are increasingly becoming a guerilla army to defeat the regime that Obama installed.

As to the specific operation that downed the plane, there is already a lot more information about that than the official ‘investigation,’ if that’s ever published, is likely to reveal, and it points clearly to the Ukrainian military as the perpetrator, in yet another of their ‘false flag’ operations. And unlike the Ukrainian Government’s charges that rebels shot it down by mistake, Ukraine shot it down with deadly purpose and knowing full well what they were doing.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15956
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Balanced Viewpoint? BBC Snubs Moscow During Making of MH17 Documentary
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160505/1039150231/maria-zakharova-bb c-documentary-comment.html

When working on their documentary about the crash of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the BBC chose not to ask for comments and opinions from the Russian Foreign Ministry, spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.

The BBC aired the documentary titled "Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?" which covered various theories of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17's crash in eastern Ukraine. The documentary took evidence from eye witnesses, experts and secret intelligence sources, as well as studied satellite photographs, wire taps and videos in an attempt to divide facts from fiction in many conspiracy theories, involving Ukraine, Russia and the CIA.

A BBC spokesperson said the film took a "balanced viewpoint" in its reporting of the events. However, according to Zakharova, the BBC just outright ignored opinions from the Russian Foreign Ministry.

"Never employees of the BBC's Moscow Bureau asked questions regarding the investigation of Malaysian Boeing crash when preparing this film," Zakharova wrote on her Facebook account.

Dutch Safety Board Concludes MH17 Probe as 'Sufficient Material' Gathered
The spokeswoman added that when other news agencies asked her to comment on the crash of the MH17 flight, BBC journalists never asked questions nor wanted to clarify anything.
Amusingly, the BBC said they tried to contact the Russian Foreign Ministry, but the ministry refused to give any comments. Zakharova, on the other hand, said this wasn't true.

"For a long time we were in close working contact with the staff at the BBC's Moscow Bureau, we repeatedly gave them interviews, took part in online conversations, met with their journalists at briefings, visited their office, etc. Without an exaggeration one can say that we [the Russian Foreign Ministry] talks with the representatives of BBC a few times a week," Zakharova said.

Flight MH17, with 298 people on board, crashed on July 17, 2014, in eastern Ukraine after being shot down en route to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam, leaving no survivors. Most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Donbass independence supporters and the Kiev-led forces were fighting in the region at the time of the crash, and traded blame for the incident.


Kremlin Questions Bellingcat's Report on MH17 Crash in East Ukraine
MH17 Crash: More Questions Arise as US Fails to Provide Promised Info
Malaysia Urges to Create Independent Expert Group to Probe MH17 Crash

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15956
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MH17 documentary 'No one deserves to die that way'

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxQ8WZySFJI
Russia Insider - Russian News Without the Anti-Russian Bias http://russia-insider.com
Link to the RI article:
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/excellent-new-russian-mh17-docum entary-ukraine-and-west-are-guilty-video/ri8883
RT documentary MH17: 'No one deserves to die that way'

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5756
Location: East London

PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Russian radar data shows no missile attack on MH17 from rebel side, indicates Ukraine involvement':
https://www.rt.com/news/360634-mh17-ukraine-radar-data/

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15956
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRILLIANT Dutch site
by far the best on MH17

Ukraine foreign minister Klimkin: JIT investigation finished in spring 2017
October 28, 2016 // 0 Comments
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/

Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    James O'Neill
    Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
    Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


    Joined: 13 Oct 2005
    Posts: 44
    Location: Brisbane Australia

    PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    This is not "brilliant" site and it is not the best source of information on MH17. In fact it is a purveyor of disinformation. One example is its repeated use of information supplied by Bellingcat, a well known agent for US and UK propaganda. Many of the photos supplied to the site and which it uncritically publishes are photoshopped. There are man y other examples of the use of doctored material, including for example the transcripts of alleged intercepts between Donetsk commanders that were cobbled together to suggest that they were referring to MH17 when the were made before the shoot down, referred to a different plane altogether, and were pieces of separate conversations.
    There are other websites that provide much better analysis, including The Saker, Duran and Consortium News.
    Even with its manifest bias and selective reporting, it has not been able to come up with a single convincing explanation as to what possible motive Russia would have to shoot down a Malaysian civilian airliner. It would serve neither their purposes nor those of the fighters in Donetsk.
    Ukraine on the other hand had a variety of motives, which of course the website does not discuss.
    The JIT report was farcical, not least because the investigation was carried out by one of the prime suspects who also had the benefit of the agreement of 8 August 2014 that no report would be published that all the (then) four parties did not agree to. Can you nominate any other serious criminal investigation where the suspect has the power of veto?
    There are many other criticisms that could be made, but in a short comment the above examples make the point. You do your readers a disservice by recommending such a seriously flawed point of reference.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Open letter to the president-elect of the USA requesting a new investigation into the July 2014 downing of Boeing MH-17
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/01/open-letter-to-the-president-elect -of-the-usa-requesting-a-new-investigation-into-the-july-2014-downing- of-boeing-mh-17/

    by Billy Six

    Here is the text of the letter sent to the Trump organization in New York and to the White House, Washington DC, last Friday, November 25, 2016.

    Dear Mr. Trump,

    Your election has raised hopes that easing of tensions, between U.S. and Russia, and peacemaking in Europe in general is achievable. Settlement of the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine and lifting the sanctions against Russia which is vital for the world community has a realistic chance now. With this in mind, there is also hope for a higher quality investigation into the disputed downing of MH17, as you expressed your doubts in an October 2015 interview, regarding the proof of Russian guilt:

    “They say it wasn’t them. It may have been their weapon, but they didn’t use it, they didn’t fire it, they even said the other side fired it to blame them. I mean to be honest with you, you’ll probably never know for sure.“ (MSNBC)

    Indeed, we agree with you, we will never be sure, with the kind of investigation we have seen over the past two years. The official investigation of the “Dutch Safety Board“ (DSB) and the “Joint Investigation Team“(JIT) was neither independent nor convincing. This kind of investigation forms a huge burden particularly to the families who lost their loved ones in the downing of MH17. They need to know the truth.

    WE ARE ASKING YOU, TO PLEASE PUSH FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION. This could happen within an international framework like the U.N. comprising the following aspects:

    (1) A team of international, independent scientists who would be able to exclude veto power for any government. This exclusion of veto is especially important, due to the overwhelming role of one of the involved parties, Ukraine. The main source of information to the DSB and JIT used for their official investigations was SBU, the Ukrainian secret service.

    (2) Keeping all scenarios on the table.

    (3) Declassifying and releasing “available satellite images” claimed by Secretary of State, John Kerry, on 20th of July 2014; or (if not) disclaiming their existence.

    (4) Conducting forensic examination of impact holes (for metal residues) in the MH17 wreckage and reproducing the same pattern of damage by shelling tests (as usually done in crime cases). Completing key information fields, such as body forensics, voice recorder, radar data etc.

    (5) Prior construction of, a clear path to an international, objective trial in the U.N. framework with judges from countries which are not connected with the crash.

    FURTHERMORE, WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE INITIATE PEACE TALKS WITH ALL PARTIES CONCERNED (including but not limited to Russia, Ukraine, and the EU) aiming at settling the dispute and establishing a reconstruction plan for Eastern Ukraine including the compensation of the MH17 families.

    Thank you so much, in advance, for your attention to this matter.

    Independent journalists & experts on MH17,

    MARK BARTALMAI, journalist & Ukraine documentaries producer, GERMANY
    DR. THIERRY BAUDET, journalist, publicist & initiator of Dutch referendum on EU/Ukraine association agreement, NETHERLANDS
    BERND BIEDERMANN, missile defense colonel ret., military attaché ret. & book author, GERMANY
    CHRISTOPHER BLACK, international criminal lawyer, CANADA
    NORBERT FLEISCHER, investigative journalist, GERMANY
    PROF. DR. ELMAR GIEMULLA, lawyer of German MH17 victims, GERMANY
    DR. HERMANN HAGENA, airforce general ret. & author of MH17 military study, GERMANY
    PROF. DSC. OTTO-FRIEDRICH HAGENA, physicist, GERMANY
    PETER HAISENKO, journalist, publisher & former “Lufthansa” pilot, GERMANY
    JOHN HELMER, longest-serving foreign correspondent in Russia, UNITED STATES
    FRANK HÖFER, journalist & film producer, GERMANY
    DIETER KLEEMANN, airforce colonel / trainer ret. & book author, GERMANY
    PATRICK LANCASTER, investigative journalist with 100s of hours on MH17 site from day one & U.S. Navy veteran, UNITED STATES
    DR. JAMES O´NEILL, barrister on human rights & geopolitical analyst, AUSTRALIA
    JOOST NIEMÖLLER, journalist & MH17 book author, NETHERLANDS
    GRAHAM PHILLIPS, investigative journalist, UNITED KINGDOM
    PROF. DR. KEES VAN DER PIJL, political scientist, peace activist & author, NETHERLANDS
    HECTOR REBAN, political analyst & blogger on MH17, NETHERLANDS
    NORBERT K. REISBERG, Lt.-Col. ret., airforce pilot ret. & military scientist, GERMANY
    DAN SHEPPARD, private MH17 researcher, AUSTRALIA
    JOACHIM SIEGERIST, journalist, publisher & author, GERMANY
    BILLY SIX, investigative journalist & book author, GERMANY
    MAX VAN DER WERFF, blogger & private MH17 investigator, NETHERLANDS
    PROF. KAREL VAN WOLFEREN, journalist, political analyst & book author, NETHERLANDS
    MOHD AZAHAR ZANUDIN, technician, supplier for army/police & blogger on MH17, MALAYSIA

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Just got an interesting tweet from Kiev Air Traffic Control Wink
    But turns out it was a spoof account -
    Originally was churning out only weather and related info and linking to the official Ukraine ATC website
    www.uksatse.ua
    Now same Twitter account has been edited to be some kind of fooling around spoof account
    https://twitter.com/ATCUkr/status/813878678782443520
    both u troll guys can f*** each other, while listening soviet anthem. good luck




    UkrainATCtroll.jpg
     Description:
     Filesize:  99.37 KB
     Viewed:  62 Time(s)

    UkrainATCtroll.jpg



    KievATC.jpg
     Description:
    Kiev ATC think the world should 'trust them' on MH17 ATC trancript.
     Filesize:  112.2 KB
     Viewed:  53 Time(s)

    KievATC.jpg



    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/


    Last edited by TonyGosling on Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Why Kiev is to blame for MH-17 tragedy
    Adam Garrie
    http://theduran.com/kiev-blame-mh17-tragedy/

    September 29, 2016, 3:52 pm 8 1,343
    Though the preliminary report of the Joint Investigation Team is flawed because it ignored the Russian evidence, the ultimate reason why MH17 was shot down was because Kiev recklessly allowed civilian air traffic over a war zone.
    19Share on FacebookTwitter
    The conclusions of the Dutch led investigation into the downing of MH-17 near Donetsk should surprise no one. The investigation set itself up to be incomplete from the onset by refusing to examine evidence that the Russian government, BUK-missile manufacturer Almaz-Antey, and apparently even the US government, were willing to provide.

    At the same time the investigators relied on information provided by Kiev, including hazy and rather meaningless pictures from social media websites.

    This is the equivalent of someone wanting an objective portrait of Japanese political and social affairs trusting North Korean television to provide accurate reportage on the subject.

    Not since George W. Bush deceived people into thinking Iraq was linked to the 9/11 atrocity, have crashed jetliners been used so unconscionably as fodder in political charades.

    But there are two bigger elephants in the room.

    First of all and most tragically, the investigators neglected to make enquires as to why a passenger jetliner was allowed to fly over a dangerous war zone. Anyone in 2014 with half a brain and a smartphone with a news-app knew that a bloody war was raging in Donbass.

    mh17-garrie

    The fact that the people of Donbass democratically declared independence and Kiev unilaterally declared the war doesn’t even enter into this. It was a zone of violence where missiles of many varieties had been regularly fired.

    The proximate reason the plane was allowed to fly over the area is because the pathologically neurotic, devious and dishonest regime in Kiev refused to admit there was a war there. Instead it spoke to the world of an ‘anti-terrorist operation’ in spite of the fact that terrorism is actually a tactic Kiev employes to try to subdue and break Donbass This has included the bombing of schools and homes, and the document mistreatment of prisoners and even children, including cases of child rape. This latter was brought to light by a member of the Ukrainian Rada (parliament), who is a supporter of the war.

    The fact the pathologically dishonest regime in Kiev could pretend Donbass was a safe place to fly planes over is the equivalent of President Assad hosting an international hot air balloon festival over Raqqa.

    So whilst the proximate fault lies at the hands of Kiev, the overriding fault lies with the Dutch, Malaysian and European authorities, who went along with the lies and put the lives of innocent people in the hands of a country run by mad men and women.

    So-called responsible nations acted in an irresponsible way. They parachuted their citizens into an active volcano because Ukraine’s President Poroshenko acted like a deaf, dumb and blind man with no expertise in geology who claimed a volcano was really just an insignificant rock formation.

    In tort law, some courts apply a test called the ‘last clear chance’ doctrine. This doctrine states that even when someone has committed an act of negligence, the plaintiff can still be held liable if he or she had the last clear chance to avoid a harmful act. In this case whilst those who shot down the plane are the guilty party, there exists a contributing negligent act by those who allowed the plane to fly there in the first place.

    The second elephant in the room is that the investigative team has not actually blamed the Russian Federation at all. They are implied a vague guilt by a fake association scenario. The media is full of this, but the team itself has not blamed Russia. Here’s why. The Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics are not part of the Russian Federation, their soldiers are not soldiers of the Russian army, their missiles are not missiles of the Russian army, and unlike the regime in Kiev, they do not have an air force.

    Putting aside the fact that the plane was more likely shot down by Kiev’s military than by those of the Donbass republics, Russia does not factor into the matter as the Russian state’s involvement in Donbass has been limited to the role of peacekeeper and aid supplier.

    Many in Russia wish this was not so. Many want Russia to aid militarily the young republics against Kiev in a war that would be quickly and easily won by Russia.

    I’ve explained previously why Putin has taken such a moderate position on this.

    The only other thing worth commenting on is a statement that the missile launcher arrived in Donbass from across the Russian border.

    Again there is no solid evidence of this, whilst it appears to be a fact that the particular missile in question has long been decommissioned by the Russian military.

    The report was something of a farce, but the negligence of those who allow the plane to fly over a war zone is tragic.

    This could have been avoided, MH-17’s route could have been changed. Is a desire not to question the motives of a failed regime in Kiev really more important than protecting civilians from a war in which they had no involvement?

    Well like the Dutch report itself, I’ll leave it to you to assign the blame.


    James O'Neill wrote:
    This is not "brilliant" site and it is not the best source of information on MH17. In fact it is a purveyor of disinformation. One example is its repeated use of information supplied by Bellingcat, a well known agent for US and UK propaganda. Many of the photos supplied to the site and which it uncritically publishes are photoshopped. There are man y other examples of the use of doctored material, including for example the transcripts of alleged intercepts between Donetsk commanders that were cobbled together to suggest that they were referring to MH17 when the were made before the shoot down, referred to a different plane altogether, and were pieces of separate conversations.
    There are other websites that provide much better analysis, including The Saker, Duran and Consortium News.
    Even with its manifest bias and selective reporting, it has not been able to come up with a single convincing explanation as to what possible motive Russia would have to shoot down a Malaysian civilian airliner. It would serve neither their purposes nor those of the fighters in Donetsk.
    Ukraine on the other hand had a variety of motives, which of course the website does not discuss.
    The JIT report was farcical, not least because the investigation was carried out by one of the prime suspects who also had the benefit of the agreement of 8 August 2014 that no report would be published that all the (then) four parties did not agree to. Can you nominate any other serious criminal investigation where the suspect has the power of veto?
    There are many other criticisms that could be made, but in a short comment the above examples make the point. You do your readers a disservice by recommending such a seriously flawed point of reference.



    CzG-DOAUkAA_TAr.jpg
     Description:
    MH17 investigation non disclosure agreement
     Filesize:  206.94 KB
     Viewed:  56 Time(s)

    CzG-DOAUkAA_TAr.jpg



    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Ukraine Air Traffic Control does not look to be a reliable organization
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/ukraine-air-traffic-control-do es-not-look-to-be-a-reliable-organization/

    Posted on January 23, 2016 by admin in Uncategorized // 30 Comments

    UkSATSE (Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise) is responsible for air traffic control over Ukraine airspace. One of their air traffic controllers was responsible for controlling MH17.

    This post will show that UkSATSE is not a reliable organization and made very unusual decisions.

    An overview of what happened with UkSATSE
    UkSATSE was not able to provide primary radar recordings to DSB. The reason given was because of maintenance. That is very unlikely. A Dutch expert stated at January 22 that three radar stations could have detected a BUK missile. Three radar stations having maintenance at the same time is very unusual.
    It is more likely UkSATSE did not have primary coverage of aircraft flying east of Donetsk because one of the radar stations was damaged by armed men in June. See this post.
    UkSATSE did not notify Eurocontrol about three non-operational radar systems. They should according law. More info here.
    UkSATSE did not tell DSB that at least one radar system was taken out of order. This came out when the Ukraine ambassador to the Netherlands told this at February 4 2016.
    UkSATSE decided not to close the airspace completely but close it to Flightlevel 320. DSB was not able to find out what was the reason to close up to FL320. Knowing that Surface to Air missiles can reach altitudes far higher than 32000 feet. The airspace should have been closed completely. What if an aircraft suffered from decompression and had to decent to lower altitide. It would have entered airspace used by military fighter aircraft. This is an interesting statement done from someone who is working as an air traffic controller in Ukraine. The statement was posted in Pprune.org , a forum used by pilots and controllers. The user with nickname TC_Ukraine knows a lot about the systems used in Ukraine seeing this post, He mentions Indra which is indeed used. For Kiev ATC Italian Strela software is used. Spanish Indra is used as well at various airports in the east of Ukraine.


    Ukrainian officials should close whole airspace over eastern part. now is closed up to fl260. Russian terrorists can easily hit passenger a/c.
    Uksatse decided not to mention war activities in their NOTAMS. Russian aviation authorities did. See this post for the details.
    DSB was not allowed to question the Dnepropetrovsk based air traffic contoller responsible for controlling MH17. UkSATSE according to DSB did not give permission for an interview as reported by Dutch largest newspaper Telegraaf at January 23 2015.
    The Dutch CEO of the Dutch ATC told that in each investigation the air traffic controller is questioned. Russia media reported that the controller named Anna Petrenko suddenly went on a holiday at July 18 and never returned.
    This article has some details on corruption of UkSATSE managers. In 2011 European banks were considering to provide UkSATSE money to modernize the air traffic control infrastructure.
    The headquarters of Uksatse was stormed by armed military men at June 4 2014. See the video. Here is another video.



    This post could explain the raid by armed men. The general director of the Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise (UkSATSE), Yurii Cherednychenko, has been suspended from office pending an investigation into UkSATSE’s operations, the press office of the Ministry of Infrastructure has announced.

    Employees of UkSATSE held a protest near the entrance to the enterprise on June 3 with the aim of preventing Zdorovets from entering the enterprise. Zdorovets returned to UkSATSE’s central office in the company of security forces on June 4. (source)

    Cherednichenko (who was fired for corruption) has lots of office workers loyal to him. New director Zdorovets couldn’t get to main office for few days, as people blocked his way to it. Even controllers were forced to do it by ATC managers. So Zdorovets hired some guys from National Guard of Ukraine and finally entered office)






    by

    30 Comments on Ukraine Air Traffic Control does not look to be a reliable organization
    Prosto Tak // January 23, 2016 at 1:41 am // Reply

    > UkSATSE was not able to provide primary radar recordings to DSB. The reason given was because of maintenance. That is very unlikely. A Dutch expert stated at January 22 that three radar stations could have detected a BUK missile. Three radar stations having maintenance at the same time is very unusual.

    — Actually, there was only one Ukrainian primary radar technically capable of detecting events at the crash area at the time of the incident, as shown in this post: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/ukraine-air-traffic-control-li kely-did-not-have-primary-radar-available-at-time-of-mh17-shot-down/

    The radar is named as “Chugujiv” in the table, other possible transcriptions are Chuhuyiv or Chuguev, not far from Kharkiv / Kharkov.

    So it’s highly plausible that exactly this one of about 18 functioning Ukrainian primary radars might have been on maintenance that very day.

    > This is an interesting statement done from someone who is working as an air traffic controller in Ukraine.

    — The person might have been working as an air traffic controller in Ukraine but was not much competent, as it seems.

    The statement you mention, “Ukrainian officials should close whole airspace over eastern part. now is closed up to fl260. Russian terrorists can easily hit passenger a/c,” as I see that forum now, was first published at “14th Jun 2014, 21:06.” Whatever time zone that forum may use (not Japanese or Australian, I presume), the statement was published AFTER two separate Ukrainian NOTAMs closing the airspace in the region up to FL320 from 18:00 UTC that very day had been actually announced at least several hours in advance to have them distributed and implemented before 18:00 UTC: http://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2bbfed05-38d4-4079-89f 8-e5ff80b6a23d&title=Bijlage%202%20NOTAM%20MH17.pdf http://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=51f502d5-7364-4c2a-b8b 0-d839d799a55f&title=Bijlage%201%20NOTAM%20MH17.pdf

    Besides, what we see now at that forum is a post-edited message: “Last edited by TC_Ukraine; 19th Sep 2014 at 17:36” — two days AFTER the crash!

    > Uksatse decided not to mention war activities in their NOTAMS. Russian aviation authorities did.

    — And they did, and closed their adjoining airspace up to FL320, exactly one day before MH17 was shot down!

    I am sure the Russian aviation authorities have been vaguely notified by their military that aircraft were going to be shot down at the East of Ukraine at much higher altitudes than before, as the Russian military knew the ‘Buk’ was already being transported into Ukraine and was supposed to be used very soon — but they did not tell the whole truth to the civil aviation authorities which would make them close the airspace in full.

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Exposed: The REAL Reason MH17 Was Shot Down
    Western Journalism
    1,650,818 views
    Published on 23 Jul 2014
    Produced, written, and edited by Kris Zane. Narrated by Tom Hinchey

    Link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQ_4pf9hV8

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Lev Aleksandrovich – MH17 eyewitness
    https://7mei.nl/2015/05/30/lev/

    SAM_0063My name is Bulatov Lev Aleksandrovich, a pensioner, former miner.

    Max: What is your address?

    Lev: Petropavlivka, Komarova street, 1, where we are standing now.

    SituatieMapLevMap below: Petropavlivka is located in the green zone, in the little orange circle not far from the last FDR point. (source: Dutch Safety Board)

    MeteoDutchSafetyBoardIf you don’t speak Russian, no problem. Most Western journalists don’t. They use ‘fixers’. You can watch the original recording from April 17th 2015 and concentrate on Lev’s facial expressions, body language and sounds he makes. Or instead you read the full transcription below and watch the video after.


    M: So you are a pensioner, former miner?
    L: Yes, I was a miner.

    I testify that I saw with my own eyes how a SU fighter jet attacked Boeing. There were 3 claps. I saw everything from the beginning to the end.

    M: Are you sure it was a fighter jet?
    L: I saw it with the optics [of the monoculars]. It [the jet] started from about 700-1000 metres.

    M: Can you show the optics you have please?
    L: Using this binoculars, monoculars to be precise, I saw it [the jet] clearly. I could have even remembered its number, but I did not consider this at that moment.

    M: So why were you outside your house?
    L: I am not afraid of anyone, I am not afraid of shelling, so I was never hiding.

    M: And is your monoculars always outside?
    L: No, it is always in a place where I can quickly grab it while leaving the house.

    M: And so what happened next?
    L: The fighting started. I heard SUs flying over the surface, hitting Torez and Shakhtersk. And than I saw… The fighter jets were actually three. And later I saw that one jet sharply accelerated in that direction [pointing with his arm] to the north and went up.

    M: How did the sky look? Was it cloudy or sunny? How was the weather?
    L: It was very sunny and a bit cloudy. Weakly cloudy, I would say 4 [out of 10] for clouds. Anyway, it is all subjective, but visibility was perfect. I saw the silhouette of this rook (fighter jet) with my monoculars as I can see my own fingers. And when it accelerated, I heard the roar of turbines and it sharply went up. After some time I heard 3 claps:

    bah-bah—bah (the last one followed after some time).

    M: So you heard 3 claps?
    L: Yes, bah-bah—bah, short, exactly as I am saying. The last one after some time. I saw the plane [MH-17] started to crash. But! the central part started falling in that direction [showing with his arm], in the direction of Grabovo. The cockpit was separated, as well as one wing with a turbine and tale. Everything else was intact.

    M: So at that moment the plane was already hit?
    L: Yes it was hit and there was a loud roar of turbines.

    M: So it was hit, but the turbines were still working?
    L: Yes, there was a “sad” roar of turbines, I would say “heartbreaking”, really strong roar. And when it [the plane] started to fall and the wrecks were fuzzing already, the plane was falling with back end down. Like this (showing with his arm).

    M: How quickly was it falling?
    L: Hmmm…. How quickly I cannot say… It was so frustrating, I could not fix the time. Wrecks were fuzzing and the central part fell there (pointing with his arm). I had to dodge from the wrecks, so that they do not fall on my head . Here the hatch fell as I understand. Some blocks fell here, one bounced and broke the window glass. Knifes and teacups fell in the yard. What else… The smell of perfume! The strong smell of expensive perfume… Like Chanel… Very strong smell. I even felt sick of it.

    M: May be it was kerosene?
    L: Kerosene split there on the trees (shows with his arms). The foliage fell. On the wires as well…

    M: Here?
    L: Yes, yes, exactly here.

    M: Is it North or West?
    L: North, exactly North. I was surprised why Boeing changed its usual route a bit.

    M: And why?
    L: Most likely to be hit later. The flight controllers are deciding on the route… The sky was clear, it was not night. Here [points] – this is the usual international route. When a “Caravel” (Boeing-777) is flying, I can see it very well with the monoculars … 2 turbines… at 10km, 12km… It is seen very well, even the windows. And here I got very surprised – this one [fighter jet] accelerated up and that one [Boeing] was just there.

    M: So you were thinking the route is unusual?
    L: Yes, very unusual.

    M: You never saw it there before?
    L: No, never saw a plane going there. Always there, roughly talking, over Shakhtersk. The international route. Hmm… perhaps… No, never saw planes here. Only there [over Shakhtersk]. Of course sometimes they deviate a bit. But here – never.

    M: Were there any other civilian airliners or just the Boeing?
    L: Before there were some there, as always.

    M: How many fighter jets were there?
    L: One fighter jet attacked, I saw it with my own eyes.

    M: Are you sure it was attacking? Perhaps it was just flying back to its base?
    L: Here is Boeing and here is the fighter jet approaching it. So why did the fighter jet go up and attack the Boeing?

    M: I am just asking, I do not know anything. Perhaps it was flying back to its base, the rocket was aimed at it, but hit MH17…
    L: The rebels do not have this… They only have MANPADS. As I have heard they just have 5km range.

    M: Though there are many photos and videos of BUK missile system in Torez and in Donetsk.

    L: (laughing)

    M: There is also a photo of a trail left after the BUK rocket was launched near Snezhnoe…
    L: This is just “trep” [talkie-talkie in Russian], if you understand what it means in Russian. Firstly, when the boeing was flying [over this area] I have always been here. If the BUK was launched there would have been a loud roar and a huge trail in the sky. If the rocket was launched either from Torez, here (shows the direction), or Shakhtersk direction, it is not even 99%, 100% I would have seen the trail. Moreover, I am saying it once again it [fighter jet] came and attacked [the Boeing] above. There was nothing else. I saw a fighter jet attacking the Boeing: bah-bah—bah. This is what I saw.

    M: So I will repeat it – firstly you saw the jet and then heard the sound.
    L: Yes, yes, yes. I saw with my monoculars, how it [the fighter jet] was approaching it [the Boeing] and attacked it not reaching it.

    M: Was it attacking with bullets or a rocket?
    L: I cannot say what it was. Perhaps there were the separate claps or a cannon was working.

    M: I do not understand, were there 3 claps?
    L: Bah-bah—bah. These I will remember for my whole life. The situation is that there was a fight, here and there were explosions, but this sound I have heard perfectly from here – this bah-bah—bah.

    M: So the Boeing was falling. What happened next?
    L: So when it started to fall, the fighter jet went to the North, towards Debaltsevo. Then went down. But I did not see it too much, only saw it when it descended. Later I did not see it. It went away and wasn’t hit. These [other 2 fighter jets], I saw them being hit and falling.

    M: So what about the other jets?
    L: There were 3 in total.

    M: 3 fighter jets?
    L: There were 3 fighter jets. As I was saying, there was a fight and they were attacking the rebels’ positions, bombing towns and mines.

    M: So could you tell me please, where were the other jets going?
    L: 2 jets fell. One fell in the direction of Shakhtersk, I was not there, but approximately saw the direction. And the other one somewhere near Torez. This is all approximately, as you understand. Just what I can see with a monoculars.

    M: Understood.
    L: I cannot estimate the distance. I saw it was falling. There was a trail behind it and it was falling. And then the explosion. There was a fight.

    M: Here in the Netherlands our government thinks it certainly was a BUK. And they are looking for people who saw the BUK in Torez.
    L: I heard all of this.

    M: And nobody is looking for those who saw the plane. Perhaps they do not believe you?
    L: (laughing) As it is said – if they want to see something, they will see it. I was telling them – look, I am a witness, do you think I would not have seen the BUK launch?

    M: If the government will ask you to undergo the lie detector test, will you agree?
    L: No problems, but I need to travel somehow. Also, I had a heart attack three years ago. If this will not harm my health, I am always ready to confirm my words. This is it.

    M: Thank you very much, I need to think about your story.
    L: I am ready to swear, I do not believe in God, but I believe in justice. Even taking into account the fear of being killed (the forefront was here [in the summer]),

    I was telling and proving what I saw. But nobody wanted to listen.

    The French were here, I showed them around.
    M: So, the French were here, the Germans were here…
    L: Everybody – from Poland, New Zealand, China, again from France, from the Netherlands several times, from Canada – everybody. I have not seen the Malaysians, I would have told them.

    M: Thank you very much.

    1
    Lev’s wife had gone inside the house. I hadn’t noticed. Lev gave me the knife and souvenir she had just picked up from inside the house. He gave both objects to me. His wife said:

    “Maxim, these are for you. As a present. Because you are the first who really wanted to listen to us.”

    I felt tears coming. Nine months I spent behind my laptop looking for clues, now, here in the huge crash area things were totally different. I have had dreams one of my…..thoughts went through my head which I will keep to myself. I started crying, crying…….
    Two people had come together with me, a curious villager showed up and Lev and his wife……I couldn’t stop the tears…..some people had told me they saw десантики (parachutists), but their chutes never opened.

    “Maxim, maxim, cry. Don’t worry. All of us cried a lot. For days we all cried.”

    Later Lev gave me a piece of paper with his telephone number on it. Please call me when all this is over and finally the truth known to everybody.


    See also: November 3, 2014 Who cares for eyewitnesses?

    L: (laughing) As it is said – if they want to see something, they will see it.

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    MALAYSIA AIRLINES FLIGHT MH17 – ONE THOUSAND DAYS OF FAKING
    http://johnhelmer.net/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-one-thousand-days- of-faking/

    By Max van der Werff, Amsterdam
    Original in Dutch and English translation, also by Max van der Werff, appear here.
    On April 12, 2017, a thousand days had passed since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down above East Ukraine. Up until now, those who did it have not been identified, indicted or arrested, and many questions remain unanswered.
    Foreword
    After publication of the final report of the Dutch Safety Board in October 2015, I summarized the results of my two visits to the crash site and more than two thousand hours of Internet research in the article MH17 – Lying for Justice. Since then, I’ve had four meetings with the members of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and in total about 6 hours of talks have been recorded. Finally, I handed over 14GB of data to the Dutch researchers with the assurance that only Dutch researchers would have access to the material.
    Special credits for citizen journalists Marcel van den Berg, alias MH17research and Hector Reban (alias). I frequently used Hector’s blog and Marcel’s blog for writing this article. No other public source can match the information that can be found on both websites.
    For numerous topics related to MH17 I would like to refer you to the interview in Café Weltschmerz where I was interviewed as a citizen journalist myself.

    Purpose of this article
    1) Analysis of evidence presented by the JIT on September 28th, 2016.
    2) Reporting what was not presented by the JIT (including motive, exact weapon, lies of Kiev).
    3) Information on MH17 discussions in mass media.
    4) Presentation of plausible scenarios of what might have happened to MH17.
    5) Speculating on prosecution and quality of the future evidence.

    Chronology
    The entire press conference of the JIT is on Youtube and lasts in total 1 hour and 19 minutes. Left channel is Dutch spoken, right channel is with English translation. I divided the presentation into 74 parts and in an excel sheet [link] topic keywords and direct links are provided. This is useful not only as a reference, but is essential to split the press conference and discuss it in chronological order, the way events must have happened in reality, according to the JIT.

    Key conclusions drawn by the JIT
    – The Buk-Telar was brought to the firing location from the territory of the Russian Federation [26min05s]
    – The Buk missile was fired from an agricultural field near Pervomaiskyi. [40min19s] & [29min07s]
    – The type of Buk missile which downed MH17 is 9M38 series and Telar after being used is returned to the territory of the Russian Federation. [20min31s]

    Reconstruction of the route and the evidence presented by the JIT

    Route of 235 Km that the Buk (on a trailer) might have passed during the night of 16/17th of July 2014 from the Russian border to Donetsk.
    The JIT doesn’t indicate which border crossing has been used and neither which route exactly might have been followed, but states: “At eight o’clock in the morning a witness has seen the Buk in Yenakiieve ” [33min27s]. Furthermore, the JIT used animated information from an anonymous Twitter account claiming that the Buk was standing at this crossroads in Donetsk [34min52s].

    Route allegedly been driven on July 17th, 2014 is N21. I’ve done this route myself several times, both in the direction from Donetsk to Snezhnoye and back.
    Volvo trailer in combination with Buk-Telar was filmed at this spot in Donetsk, by an anonymous freelance reporter claimed to be working for Paris Match.

    Paris Match published the first photo on July 23, 2014. The second photo was put online on July 25th. That’s one week after MH17 was downed. The freelancer took this picture in the morning and later in the day MH17 was shot down. It immediately becomes the world news that the passenger plane is probably shot down by a Buk missile.
    – Why would a magazine like Paris Match wait one week for the online publication of such huge scoop?
    – Why does Alfred de Montesquiou, the leading reporter of Paris Match, claim that pictures were taken in Snezhnoye?
    Only almost two years later, during the press conference of the JIT it is revealed that these two pictures are screenshots from a video recorded by hand.
    – Why didn’t Paris Match ever publish the video and why de Montesquiou talked about photos?
    Screenshot of one of the videos I took from within a moving bus:
    Despite of shrinking the entire video from 115MB to 3Mb and lowering the resolution to 640 × 360, I didn’t succeed to make the quality as bad as in the ‘Paris Match’ video. There are many other problems with ‘Paris Match’ evidence. Details are here in Hector’s PDF.
    JIT mentions Makeevka video, but does not show it.

    May 3rd, 2016 (meanwhile, one year, nine months and sixteen days have passed) a new YouTube channel appears which is created specifically for placing of one video. The anonymous uploader uses the alias “Ivan Olifirenko. This video, just like the Donetsk video has abonimable quality and moreover is also edited with special software called Cropipic.
    On July 15, 2014 a convoy of the fighting unit ‘Vostok’ is passing a petrol station which also appears in ‘Olifirenko’ ‘s video. This video clearly shows that the road surface is damaged by tanks and other vehicles.

    But in the video of ‘Olifirenko ‘ that is supposed to be made on July 17, 2014, you can’t see any of this damage.
    Thus, this video is from an earlier date than July 15th 2014, or the quality is (made) so bad that it is completely useless as evidence. It is also remarkable that video was put online on the same day as the BBC documentary about MH17 was broadcasted.

    Zuhres video and the witness who wished to remain anonymous.

    The original video has been removed from YouTube. If we search for “зугрес бук” (“Zuhres buk” in Russian), then we find this video with the upload date July 22, 2014. It’s not possible to check via the public sources when the original video was put online and removed.
    Also the quality of this video is so substandard that it was a piece of cake to shop in another vehicle without being noticeable which vehicle is added:

    This is the exact location in Zuhres 2 and I have interviewed many people here. On July 17, 2014 or on any other day nobody has seen a Buk on a trailer passing by and no one has heard anything about it from others.

    However, I learned something else that is important for finding the truth. Several residents of apartment 31 told me that an alcoholic was living in the apartment where from the video has been recorded. This man passed away couple of months before my visit, in the summer of 2015.
    Following information about registered persons at this address can be found:
    Anatoli Alekseyevich Andryushin, born October 9, 959 (АНДРЮШИН АНАТОЛИЙ АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ)
    The neighbors indicate that there were often several people staying for a long time in the apartment while the main occupant was absent and many of them had a key. Three persons are officially registered at the same address:
    Elena Anatolevna Andryushina, born on July 17, 1986 (АНДРЮШИНА ЕЛЕНА АНАТОЛЬЕВНА)
    Tatiana Alexandrovna Andryushina, born on July 30, 1963 (ТАТЬЯНА АЛЕКСАНДРОВНА)
    Andrey Anatolevich Andryushin, born on May 22, 1985 (АНДРЮШИН АНДРЕЙ АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ)


    Via this link:
    Andrey Andryushin
    Date of birth: 1985-05-22
    Place: Zugres2
    Political views: Liberal
    Religion: Orthodox
    Education: Modern computer information technology

    Exactly this Andrey Andryushin appears as a witness in a video from June 30, 2016:

    Andrey claims that he recorded this video with the Buk-transport on July 5, 2014 and he didn’t put it on YouTube himself. The video was also on his VKontakte (sort of Facebook) page, but out of fear he deleted his entire account.
    – Why does Andrey claim he made this video on July 5?
    – Where is Andrey now? Is he safe? (See questions 4a/b/c/d)
    – Did the JIT have contact with Andrey?
    It’s worth noticing that the JIT presents the video for few seconds as evidence, but pays no attention to the statement of the creator of the video that he did not record it on July 17th.

    Photo of Buk-Volvo combination made at the location ‘Pit Stop’ in Torez.


    Unfortunately, the same problems as with the videos:
    – Abominable resolution
    – Anonymous photographer
    – Original recording is not an open source
    – Metadata unavailable
    During the press conference the JIT did not show the pictures, but referred to a until now unknown video supposedly made in Torez [36min03s]. The original link of the Dutch police is removed. Here is a backup.

    “Because of the importance to protect the creator of these images, the background is erased,” says the JIT. It remains unclear why the jeep in the video is riding with the door open. Quality of the video is so poor that you can’t see whether the wheels of the vehicle are turning.

    Animation JIT: “Around noon, the white Volvo trailer with the Buk-Telar arrives to Snezhnoye. Buk is unloaded from the truck near the supermarket Furshet “[36min24s].


    The Furshet supermarket is located on Lenin Street, a major thoroughfare. If there was indeed a Volvo with a trailer standing at this place and Buk-Telar was unloaded there from the trailer, many people would have seen it. Let’s look at the map:

    The Buk Telar allegedly drove independently from the red cross on the map to the firing location through the green cross in Karapetiyan Street. In this case, the route that the Telar drove according to the JIT animation (red) can’t be right [36min36s].
    https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/489884062577094656

    With a google image search, we find several websites where the picture of Karapetiyan Street has been published, but none gives us a clearer picture of the Buk than this:

    If we accept this pixel-salad without metadata as legitimate evidence, then the following photo provides evidence that the rebels have mobile nuclear weapons of Topol-M type:

    Photo credit Sergey Mastepanov
    Of course, I’ve also been at this location, made measurements and searched for witnesses. Some screenshots of the videos I made on October 19, 2015:



    After studying the lines of sight it’s obvious the picture must have been taken from an apartment on the top floor, from building No. 3. An old lady told me that this apartment was not occupied in July 2014.
    Also valid for this picture: anonymous photographer, low resolution, original file is not an open source and no metadata.
    Video of Prospect Gagarin, Snizhne [36min44s]


    It was not difficult to find the apartment from where the video was taken. Following the lines of sight from Prospect Gagarin, you arrive at ‘Building 1’ with the coordinates 48.014758, 38.761652


    It was slightly more difficult to find someone who had the keys and was willing to give access to the roof from building 43, but eventually that was solved too. From there it is simple:



    The apartment from where the video was taken, was on July 17th 2014 inhabited by Vita Volobueva. Address: Prospect Gagarin, house 43, apartment 143, ninth floor.
    This video has a low resolution as well, original image is not an open source and there is no verifiable metadata.

    a Photo says more than a thousand words

    This iconic photo was posted on Twitter three hours after the crash of MH17. The JIT reports: “This picture of the smoke trail is taken in Torez and spread through social media.” [38min14s]
    I wrote a lot about the photographer Pavel Aleynikov, the uploader Vladimir Djukov and about the photo. In this article, I will limit myself to few comments:
    – The so-called plume of smoke in reality consists of a black and a separate white smoke plume:

    There is no explanation for the fact that the black smoke moves strictly horizontally and the white one doesn’t, other than that the plumes are not related to each other.

    This photo was taken on June 5, 2015, almost a year after MH17. For better visibility, I increased the contrast slightly. See the original video. (Credit: Yana Yerlashova)


    We are sure that no Buk has fired on June 5, 2015 and that it must be another source of the black smoke on the photo of that day.
    – I asked the spokesman of the OM three times to confirm that the JIT claims that the presented photo shows the smoke plume of Buk missile which shot down MH17. The final answer was evasive.
    – JIT presentation: “The photo is investigated by the NFI. The NFI has no evidence that this picture has been manipulated. “[38min14s]
    It is important to know what have been the research questions and what has been studied exactly. That information (just like the original photo itself) is not public. The photo has been investigated by the NFI, the NIDF and FOX-IT. One of the persons who examined the photo wrote me:
    “My research did not go beyond determining that these were real RAW files, and therefore in principle, original camera results. About what’s on it, no idea. I haven’t paid attention to that, except being amazed by the value that was tied to the rather obscure images. “
    – For more detailed explanation and discussion of other problems with the smoke plume picture, I refer you to this article.
    “Painstaking detective work on social media”

    JIT presentation:
    “Additionally, in spring of 2016 the research team after painstaking detective work on social media found two new photos.” [38min46s] “From the first picture and testimony of witnesses an analysis of sightlines was made. The direction in which the witness looked when he or she saw or photographed the trace. The place where these lines of sight come together is very close to the agricultural field in question at Pervomaiskyi.” [39min04s]
    The displayed image is made at exactly the same location as this one ….

    … which appeared on Twitter on July 15, 2014, two days before MH17 was shot down. The coordinates of the recording location were calculated and published on the Webtalk.ru forum.
    If we place cutouts of the both photos above each other, we see an exact match. Photos (or video recordings) are almost certainly made with the use of a tripod:
    The smoke from the ‘new photo’ is located more to the left compared to the two columns of smoke from the picture of the tweet on July 15:

    Having the recording location and the coordinates of the launch site claimed by JIT, we can draw on a map a line of sight (white) and an estimated line of sight (red) for the columns of smoke on the picture of the tweet on July 15:

    The red line of sight points to Saur Mogila, the highest point of Donbass. A place where in July 2014 fierce battles took place almost daily. On images from Google Earth of July 16, 2014 two pieces of scorched earth can be seen. Probably the smoke spots were caused by an attack on July 15.

    It is clear that the apartment from where the recordings were made, served as an observation post, but why did Andrey Tarasenko twitter a photo of July 15 and not the one of the smoke plume on July 17?
    Andrey Tarasenko claims he was walking home from work at the time of the attack:
    A Ukrainian miner says that at the moment of the catastrophe with the Malaysian Boeing he saw a white trace shooting from the ground into the air. Twenty seconds later, he saw smoke rising in the distance. Andrey Tarasenko said he and his friend were walking home when it happened. “Do you know how does a trace of a plane look like? It was the same, but this was a rocket launched from the ground,” Tarasenko said. Tarasenko estimated that he was on a 16 kilometers (10 miles) distance from the Boeing 777 crash site. He never saw the plane. (source)
    From the firing of a Buk-rocket untill the creation of smoke rising from the crashed MH17, several minutes have passed. Twenty seconds as claimed by Tarasenko is nonsense.
    If the rest of Tarasenko’s story is correct, in any case he was not in the apartment when the recording was made. Interesting questions:
    – Who made the image(s)?
    – Who is the occupant of the apartment?
    – How and from whom did Tarasenko get the files?
    The main question is of course:
    Why was “the long research on social media” necessary and photo (or video?) of the smoke plume from Buk that shot down MH17 wasn’t made public immediately?

    Most searched weapon in the world – route back to the Russian Federation

    JIT presentation: “Immediately after the launch, the Buk-Telar was discharged. There are almost no pictures available of the discharge route because it took place in the evening and night hours.” [41min27s]
    “The Buk-Telar presumably was driving independently in direction of Snezhnoye. There he was put again on the white Volvo trailer in the late evening hours of July 17th.” [41min49s]
    What we know:
    – MH17 was hit around 16:20h.
    – The distance of the route from the ‘launch site’ to the square of the Furshet Market is about 7 kilometers.
    – Sunset on July 17, 2014 near Donetsk was at 20:22hrs.

    If the assessment made by the JIT is correct, then the Buk-Telar was at least four hours within a radius of seven kilometers from the launch location since the launch of a missile and only after that it was loaded back on the trailer in the center of Snezhnoye for transport back to Russia.
    – Statistically speaking, how many witnesses should have seen the Buk-Telar during almost four hours in the neighborhood and in the center of Snezhnoye and how likely is it that no satellite or spy images were made after it was known that MH17 was shot down?
    Following the JIT story. In the late evening hours of July 17, the Buk-Telar is again put on the white Volvo trailer and drives through Lugansk to Russia. There are 175 kilometers from Snezhoye to Lugansk. That is, if you follow the route that Telar drove according to the JIT. The shortest route is less than 90 kilometers. Why this huge detour of about 80 kilometers?
    Lugansk video

    JIT-presentation: “In Lugansk in the early morning a video has been made of a Volvo-truck with a loader carrying the Buk Telar. It shows that the installation carries only three missiles. From there the transport drives to the Russian border and crosses the border.” [42min07s]
    Arsen Avakov states on his Facebook page that the video is made by a surveillance-team on July 18th, at 04:50 in the morning.
    The video displays a lighted streetlight next to the billboard. This is remarkable, as Lugansk was almost entirely without electricity in the morning of July 18, 2014.
    Also regarding to this video the following:
    – Abominable Resolution
    – Anonymous photographer
    – Original recording not open source
    – Metadata unavailable

    Regarding the route the question can be raised once again: why a big detour with a route of about 246 kilometers was chosen…

    … while it can also be done more than 100 kilometer shorter.

    Rebels phonecalls tapped
    The JIT claims to have obtained a lot of evidence through wiretaps alongside many pictures and witnesses. Joost Niemöller asked the following question [1u6min32s]
    “What is the source of the wiretapped telephone conversations?”
    Answer by Wilbert Paulissen, head of Dutch Police Investigations:
    “These are mainly wiretapped telephone conversations of the Ukrainian service. Thus, these wiretapped telephone conversations are becoming available to the JIT via the court. That is the source of the wiretapped telephone conversations”.
    Joost Niemöller:
    “You say mainly. Are there any other sources?”
    Wilbert Paulissen:
    “No, these are: wiretapped telephone conversations from Ukraine. To put it simply.”

    Ukrainian secret service falsified wiretapped telephone conversations
    Almost immediately after it became known that MH17 was shot down, the Ukrainian secret service SBU published some wiretapped telephone conversations that would prove the guilt of the rebels. Here is an analysis of the audio:

    The so-called evidence proves something quite different: Ukraine does not hesitate to produce (poorly) falsified evidence.
    The fact that the audio was forged is not being denied by anyone. Not even by the top of the Dutch investigation team. However, JIT countries have agreed information is only being made public if no member objects. What this non-disclosure agreement contains exactly is… confidential.
    Various wiretapped telephone conversations were played during the JIT presentation. Since it is proven that the SBU forged wiretapped telephone conversations, I limit myself discussing only one tap [43min21s]:
    Person 1: “Where is the vehicle now?”
    Person 2: “The vehicle is already in Russia for a long time.”
    The JIT indicates that the tapped conversation was recorded on July 18, 2014 at 07:44. The Buk, according to the JIT, was filmed in Lugansk the same morning at 04:50 and then still had to travel the entire route to the Russian border.
    How is it possible that the “vehicle” at 07:44 was in Russia for a “long time” already?
    JIT fails to fulfill its promise to appoint exact weapon
    Head of Dutch Police Investigations Wilbert Paulissen:
    “Based on the criminal investigation it can be concluded that the flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014 by a missile from the 9M38-series.” [20min31s]

    The 9M38-series consists of two types: 9M38 and 9M38M1. From the outside the two missiles are almost identical, but according to manufacturer Almaz Antey the warheads of the two missile types contain differently shaped particles. The warhead of the 9M38 contains square particles of two different sizes, while the missile type 9M38M1 contains square particles of two different sizes and butterfly-shaped particles.

    JIT: “The warhead of 9M38 is composed of an explosive core with a sheath of preformed particles which are dispersed with great force during the explosion.” [23min35s]
    Using the term “9M38” in combination with a warhead of missile type 9M38M1 is at least confusing.


    The JIT also shows an explosion of a warhead with butterfly particles in an animation. A missile of 9M38M1 type. And thus, not the 9M38 type.
    Why does the JIT say that flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014 by a missile from the “9M38-series”, but does not specifically appoint 9M38M1 as the weapon?
    Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey during tests has detonated a warhead 9N314M of a 9M38M1 missile near the cockpit of a disused Ilyushin-86 .

    After the experiment the aluminum skin of the IL-86 (right) contains many butterfly-shaped entry holes. There are no butterfly-shaped holes found in the skin of MH17. How can this be explained?
    Russia claims it has no longer 9M38 missiles in its arsenal. This type of missile is still used by Ukraine, according to the Russians.
    Does the JIT use the term “9M38-series” to disguise MH17 has not been shot down by a missile of the 9M38M1 type?

    Primary radar data absent, primary radar data present.
    More than two years ago Russia claimed the primary radar data had been erased, but six days before the JIT presentation it was reported a copy was nevertheless preserved.
    Paulissen: “Regarding the new primary radar images the Russian Federation spoke about last Monday, I can report that they are not yet in possession of our research team and that we were not able to see them yet.” [44min15s]
    Ukraine claims it has no primary radar data, because all radars were either under maintainance or had been destroyed before July 17, 2014.

    Dutch MP Omtzigt: “DSB report: Russians have deleted primary radar data
    Ukraine had them switched off due to maintenance. (So no radar data of the missile)
    Westerbeke: “There has been a lot of talk about radar images. Both Ukraine and the Russian Federation provided radar data to the JIT.
    Recently the JIT has, after intensive research, also traced a video file with relevant primary military radar data from the area. Recorded by a mobile radar in Ukraine. This radar was used at that time to test new software. Though this radar has a limited range, it did detect MH17 and completes the further completes the entire picture.” [14min16s]
    Why Ukraine did not immediately make this primary radar information available to the JIT and why more than two years “intensive research” was needed?
    Jeroen Akkermans rightfully states the Russians have wasted a lot of time and that the radar data “could obviously have been forged“.
    Since we have already established Ukraine has produced falsified evidence, the uncritical attitude of the Dutch researchers and media towards that country is especially noteworthy.
    Westerbeke: “The discussion about the radar images in our opinion can be closed. Today we want to emphasize that the material available to us is more than sufficient to draw conclusions in the criminal investigation. [14min55s]
    This might be so as per Westerbeke’s opinion, but fact is the wrangling over the radar images is still ongoing after 1000 days. Point of discussion remains if the Russian radar data proves that no Buk was launched from the launch site designated by the JIT or the following applies:
    “In this case the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence” [46min06s]

    No doubt about motive
    Head of Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko:
    “Terrorists and militants have planned a cynical terrorist attack on a civilian aircraft Aeroflot AFL-2074 Moscow-Larnaka that was flying at that time above the territory of Ukraine.”

    [source]
    According to Ukraine this false flag operation failed because the Russian crew drove to the wrong place Pervomaiske and accidentally did not shoot down the Aeroflot airliner, but MH17 instead. The shooting down of an Aeroflot airliner with Russian citizens on board would according to Ukraine be used as casus belli for an overt Russian invasion of Ukraine.
    What was said during the JIT presentation about the motive?
    Paulissen: “The research is still focused on this question, but I have started my story deliberately sketching the context in which the event took place. That context, as we have seen it and as I told you, was that there was heavy fighting and that men sought an answer to the many air strikes by the Ukrainian army. Thus, that is an indication in a particular direction. Whether it is so, the further research will have to clarify, but we are attending to this matter.” [1u08min39s]
    Westerbeke “Our research is focused precisely on that question. Was it a mistake? Was it deliberate? Who was in charge there? Who gave the order? These are real follow-up questions, and that is exactly what we are going to look for further.” [1u10min26s]
    ? JIT member Ukraine announced in August 2014 it possesses hard evidence about culprits and motive, but the JIT reports in September 2016 it is still looking for the culprits and their possible motive ?
    The (Dutch) researchers have had two years to verify and evaluate the hard evidence collected by Ukraine. The fact that during the press conference both Paulissen and Westerbeke stated the issue about the motive remains unsolved is a strong indication Ukraine also lies about the motive issue.

    1000 Days MH17 – the role of the media

    Triumphant headline by Dutch state sponsored channel NOS: “These are the culprits”
    And:
    “18 volunteers of research collective Bellingcat are hunting the culprits of the MH17 tragedy. They have reduced the number of suspects down to 20 Russian soldiers.”
    No doubt about it. NOS is the leading news source for millions of Dutch citizens. If NOS makes such a claim and puts so prominently on its website, then it must be true. Right?
    https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/553633974594314242

    Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat: “Here’s members of the Russian 53th brigade whose brigade shot down MH17 with one of their Buks. Time to speak up? ”
    Pieter Omtzigt tweet:
    “Thus Ukraine is saying: separatists shot down MH17. So, Ukraine distances itself from bellingcat (Russian brigade from Kursk guilty)”
    Then number two of Bellingcat, Aric Toler, responds:
    “We never said that Russians definitely shot them down, but they definitely provided the weapon for it.”

    So what is the truth?
    Eliot Higgins:
    “You confuse the statements in the investigation report of Bellingcat with my personal opinion. Bellingcat is a group of individuals working together. It would be wrong to attribute statements made by one of them to Bellingcat. It is my personal opinion that it is plausible that the BUK installation was operated by the members of the 53th brigade. The Bellingcat reports do not go that far and leave the question open, so that people can draw their own conclusions on the evidence presented in the reports.” [source]
    Another example. The Algemeen Dagblad published in cooperation with Der Spiegel and Correctiv an article in which:
    – an incorrect launch site was claimed
    – at least one witness testimony was forged
    The coverage of AD is based on information from detective buro Correct!v. The factual and demonstrable errors in the analysis of Correct!v have been investigated by Billy Six and myself and Marcel van den Berg discusses not less than eight errors.

    Despite all the “overwhelming evidence” spread by (social) media about the involvement and guilt of Russia in the downing of MH17 Westerbeke says:
    “We as Joint Investigation Team, on basis of the research, are not going further at the moment than to confirm that the Buk Telar was brought from Russia and that it was transported back. We did not go further in our conclusions and this means we do not comment on the involvement of the Russian Federation as a country or persons from the Russian Federation.” [55min27s]

    Marcel van den Berg wrote two orderly posts on it:
    (alleged) Russian lies.
    (alleged) Ukrainian lies.
    Besides, the rebels in Donbass also refuse to provide openness and relevant questions remain unanswered.
    Also very interesting and relevant: Marcel maintains a list of events (84! now) indicating the Netherlands is not interested in leaving no stone unturned.

    Which scenario can explain why all stakeholders frustrate and even sabotage getting the truth on the table?
    This question keeps many people who rely on studying public information busy. What virtually everyone agrees on is the following:

    Ukraine should have closed its airspace.
    Even DSB (Dutch Safety Board) is clear about it. If the responsible authorities claim to be aware of the presence of weapons in a conflict zone that can shoot down a civil aircraft at high altitude and still do not close the airspace, there is at least a matter of gross negligence.
    Professor Giemulla has started proceedings at the ECHR against Ukraine on behalf of a number of German family members of the deceased based on this argument. Professor Giemulla describes The Netherlands as “a black hole“, because until now no Dutch family members have joined this lawsuit.
    Paulissen of the JIT: “regarding the closure of airspace, we state that the JIT investigation is not focused on this. That was part of the DSB research. Conclusions have been drawn, so we do not focus on it within the criminal investigation”. [1u02min28s]

    Legal proceedings Ukraine vs Russia
    Ukraine has filed a case against Russia at the International Court of Justice. MH17 is part of a complaint against Russia because of “aggressive” and “illegal annexation of Crimea”. According to Ukraine Russia has violated two international treaties by “financing of terrorism” and “racial discrimination”. The Court has not ruled on the case and experts do not know what the Court will finally decide. [April 19th 2017 – first order ICJ]
    MH17 is a part of a geopolitical conflict
    Main parties in this conflict are the United States and Russia. Netherlands (NATO) and Ukraine are in the US camp. Ukrainian rebels are in the Russian camp.
    Opinions about the credibility of the JIT and especially the reliability of the input of the secret service of Ukraine are divided.
    Based on public information (and thus not on the basis of information that the JIT claims to possess, but says it does not release due to tactical and strategic reasons), I am not convinced that a Buk coming from Russia shot down MH17. Who doubts the western narrative is being framed as a “useful idiot” and “Kremlin-troll”. So be it.
    Back to the question: Which scenario can explain why all stakeholders frustrate and even sabotage getting the truth on the table? It is tempting to speculate on the basis of incomplete information and to fill in the missing pieces as “truth.” The last thousand days I was able to resist this temptation. I did however include a hypothesis of Colonel bd. Rudolph in Lying for Justice. According to Rudolph’s hypothesis, the Ukrainian air defense accidentally shot down MH17 during an exercise. Another hypothesis that also assumes it was an accident:
    – Russian-backed rebels captured one or more operational Buks of the Ukrainian army.
    – Nevertheless, Ukraine deliberatly did not close its air space.
    – MH17 was accidentally shot down by rebels.
    This scenario provides an explanation for the following motives:
    – Russia does not want it becomes public knowledge MH17 was shot down by rebels backed by Moscow.
    – Ukraine does not want to become public knowledge the murder weapon originated not from Russia, but from the arsenal of Kiev itself.
    – Rebels obviously do not want to be identified as culprits.
    – The Netherlands obediently follows the strategic interests of the United States and is committed to keep Ukraine out of the wind and make Russia look as bad as possible.
    * Disclaimer: I still do not know what really happened *
    JIT countries claim to know for sure the weapon came from Russia
    It is nonsense to think that rebels could have organized a rent-a-buk without the highest authorities in Russia being informed about and having sanctioned it. If the actual murder weapon came from Russia, this claim will have to be substantiated. Eventually The Netherlands will have to initiate a lawsuit against Russia. If this is ever going to happen remains rather questionable.
    Less unlikely is one day it will come to trial in which individual culprits with Russian nationality will be accused. (whether or not a trial in absentia).
    Westerbeke:
    “Which people were involved in the supply, command, protection, firing and discharging of the Buk Telar? [..] We now have a hundred people in the picture who can be in some way associated with the shooting down of flight MH17 or transporting the Buk. We have been able to determine the identity of these one hundred people.” [45min52s]
    At the end of this article a reflection and prediction regarding the type of evidence that will be used in case of such litigation.
    1) Tapped telephone conversations, videos and other materials that may have been forged by the SBU and of which the authenticity cannot be determined objectively.
    2) Anonymous witnesses.
    3) Evidence from classified US sources.
    Westerbeke: “What we have said is we have gotten access from the Americans to all relevant material they have available and that it contains a significant portion of state secrets. We were given access to the material through the MIVD and through a special officer of the district prosecutor’s office. In combination with that we have received a report from the US with conclusions based on that material. We can use that report in a criminal case, it is a part of the case and therefore constitutes evidence. Especially in combination with the possibility that the officer who has seen the underlying material can make a statement. It remains a state secret and is therefore not declassified, but we can now fully use it in the research. [1u3min50s]
    […] As far as the question about the state of confidential information is concerned, it will be some kind of a legal response, it is also a bit complicated… It can be used as evidence, but in an indirect way, the way it has been agreed on for now. Namely, through a statement that will be given by the national officer anti-terrorism. The latter can then declare in court. However, that does not mean that the underlying material becomes available for the court itself or for the legal defense of any suspects.” [1u15min47s]
    Thus, the circle can be closed this way. The United States in the background determines what evidence will or will not be used and which material remains unverifiable for third parties, lawyers of the suspects and even for the judges.
    To be continued.

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Ukraine's security chief Andriy Parubiy resigns
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/08/07/Ukraines-security-ch ief-Andriy-Parubiy-resigns/7591407426709/

    Ukraine's security chief, Andriy Parubiy, has submitted his resignation. The NSDC head noted that he "will continue to assist the front, primarily volunteer battalions."
    By JC Finley Follow @JC_Finley Contact the Author | Aug. 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

    KIEV, Ukraine, Aug. 7 (UPI) -- The secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Andriy Parubiy, submitted his resignation on Thursday.

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko accepted the resignation of the country's security chief and thanked Parubiy for his work "in the darkest days of the existence of our country."

    "Every day Andriy Parubiy in his work focused on improving the defense of our country."
    Upon handing in his resignation, Parubiy thanked the president and his NSDC staff for their work "and extremely important decisions that helped us to survive."

    It is unclear why Parubiy has chosen to step down. On his Facebook page, Parubiy wrote, "I believe it is unacceptable to comment on my resignation in a time of war," adding that "I will continue to assist the front, primarily volunteer battalions."

    Parubiy's resignation comes as the Ukrainian military is fighting to regain control of the pro-Russian rebel stronghold of Donetsk in restive eastern Ukraine.



    maxresdefault (1).jpg
     Description:
     Filesize:  228.3 KB
     Viewed:  50 Time(s)

    maxresdefault (1).jpg



    maxresdefault (1).jpg
     Description:
     Filesize:  181.89 KB
     Viewed:  50 Time(s)

    maxresdefault (1).jpg



    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    A New Twist in the Investigation into the Shooting Down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-new-twist-in-the-investigation-into-the -shooting-down-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17/5607457

    By Oriental Review Global Research, September 05, 2017

    In late August Russia handed over decoded radar data to the Netherlands from the aerial zone where Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014. These materials had initially been provided in their original, i.e., non-decoded form, along with the software needed to decode them.

    However, the Dutch investigators, despite being armed with the latest in modern technology as well as the assistance of their British colleagues, were not able to decode the recordings, and in the end they asked Russian experts to do it. In three years this has been the only time they have asked to collaborate. Never before had the commission accepted any Russian offers of assistance.

    The decoded recordings clearly showed that the missile had been fired from the zone controlled by the Ukrainian military. And this is not some fabricated story concocted by journalists, but documented, technical information.

    Estimated distance to Flight MH-17 from the Ukrainian-controlled BUK launcher in Zaroshchenskoe at the moment of attack lies within the operational range, unlike one presumably operated by the Donbass militia.

    Estimated distance to Flight MH-17 from the Ukrainian-controlled BUK launcher in Zaroshchenskoe at the moment of attack (less than 30km) lies within the operational range, unlike one, presumably operated by the Donbass militia.

    However, every sign seems to indicate that the decoded information obtained from Russia will not be included in the case file, but will instead face the fate of so much other data that does not fit neatly into the preferred version of the investigation. It will probably just fall into a black hole, which is what happened to the photos of the tragedy that were taken by American spy satellites.

    In the meantime however, it will not be easy for the investigators to stick to their prescribed approach to the investigation. Independent experts are conscientiously suggesting new avenues of inquiry that could help move the process along.

    For example, since all of the Ukrainian army’s existing launch sites for its Buk-M1 missile-defense system can be accounted for and examined by the commission, it would be a simple enough matter to establish whether at least one of them was used to fire the missile. An inspection of the 60 existing launch sites within this system is both physically possible and could provide some surprising information. The launch of a Buk-M1 missile leaves indelible “burns” on the ramp that cannot be concealed, even under a new coat of paint. Although that would seem to be a very simple suggestion, it’s a significant one.


    Kees van der Pijl

    Kees van der Pijl, a Dutch professor in the Department of International Relations at the University of Sussex and the president of the NGO The Committee of Vigilance Against Resurgent Fascism, recently finished writing a book titled “The Launch: Flight MH17, Ukraine and New Cold War” (Der Abschuss: Flug MH17, die Ukraine und der neue Kalte Krieg). The German-language version of the book will go on sale later this month, and the English original and Portuguese translation will be available by the end of the year.

    Professor van der Pijl examines the tragedy from a geopolitical perspective and asks: who benefited most from this disaster? And he answers: the US, which subsequently imposed sanctions against Russia, undermining its gas industry and checking its growing role on the international stage.

    Specifically, the professor cites the following arguments:

    One day before the tragedy, the BRICS nations signed an agreement to establish their own bank, which the US saw as a rival to the IMF and World Bank.
    Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel had settled on a new conceptual framework for resolving the crisis in Ukraine – without US input – and real progress was being made.
    In addition, once the Boeing 777 was downed, American gas companies were suddenly able to find the traction to kick-start their work in Europe and force Russia out of the EU market. Moscow was forced to abandon the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, and relations with the government in Kiev, which subsequently became a pawn in the games played by the West, definitively soured.
    Not a single European or American media outlet has reacted to the announcement of the book’s publication and its path onto the shelves of bookstores is unlikely to be an easy one. However, times are changing, and many people are taking an interest in and flocking to Professor van der Pijl’s blog, Der Abschuss Flug MH17, which provides information about the publication of the book as well as links to his sources.



    Using the materials available to them, the authors of the blog intend to shed light on the absurd inconsistencies evident during the investigation, as well as the investigators’ stubborn reluctance to answer awkward questions. Some known examples are:

    How could Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who announced the tragedy 15 minutes after it occurred, have known that the Boeing 777 had been shot down by a Russian Buk missile?
    Why does the investigative commission not take into account the results of the experimental destruction of a retired passenger airliner by the company Almaz Antey, while also refusing to take part in a second experiment?
    What prompted Ukrainian dispatchers to alter MH17’s flight path right before tragedy struck?
    We shall soon see whether officials will block the distribution of the book and what the consequences of that might be. But events could take an interesting turn. As a result of Professor van der Pijl’s efforts, we will learn the price of not only the work of the Dutch commission investigating the tragic fate of flight MH17, but the European democracy and European justice as well…

    The publication is based on Dmitry Sedov’s article by Strategic Culture Foundation (in Russian), adapted and translated by Oriental Review.

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    BBC Report (Subsequently Deleted): Ukrainian Fighter Shot Down MH17
    By wmw_admin on July 31, 2014

    Courtesy Peter Myers — July 31, 2014
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=101739

    Transcript of the original BBC Video Report

    MH17 wreckage
    MH17 wreckage clearly shows signs of blast. Click to enlarge
    Olga Ivshina, BBC: The black boxes from the crashed Boeing are finally being transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?

    The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.

    The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

    Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

    Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

    Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

    Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

    Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from the direction of Russia.

    Vitaliy Naida, Department of Counterintelligence of SBU [Ukrainian Security Service]: This was a BUK M1 system from which the aircraft was shot down. It came to Ukraine early in the morning on the 17th of July. It was delivered by a tow truck to the city of Donetsk. After that, it was redeployed from Donetsk, as part of a column of military equipment, to the area of the city of Torez, to the area of Snezhnoye, to the area of Pervomaisk.

    Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile. We attempted to verify these photographs and information at the location.

    One of the photographs showed a landscape not far from the city of Torez, on which smoke could be seen coming from the presumed location of the missile’s launch. We attempted to find this location, and it appears that we were successful.

    We are now on the outskirts of the city of Torez. Behind me, approximately five kilometres away, is the city of Snezhnoye. And the landscape here matches the landscape that we can see on the photograph published by the Ukrainian Security Service.

    To find the place from which the smoke was allegedly coming from, we adopted as markers these three poplars and the group of trees. Presumably, this is the place that can be seen on the photograph published by the SBU. And here are our markers: the three solitary poplars and the small group of trees in the distance.

    The smoke that can be seen on the photograph came from somewhere over there [pointing behind her], behind my back. The SBU believes that this is a trace coming from the launch of a “BUK” missile.

    However, it must be noted that there are here, approximately in the same place, the Saur-Mogila memorial, near which the fighting continues almost unabated, and a coalmine. It turns out that the smoke with the same degree of probability could have been coming from any of these locations.

    Having circled around the nearby fields, we were unable to find any traces of a missile launch. Nor did the local inhabitants that we encountered see any “BUK” either.

    At the ruins of an apartment building in the city of Snezhnoye, the topic of the jet fighters that may have been escorting civilian aircraft comes up again. A bomb dropped from above took away the lives of eleven civilians here.

    Sergey Godovanets, Commander of the Militia of the city of Snezhnoye: They use these civilian aircraft to hide behind them. It is only now that they stopped flying over us – but, usually, civilian aircraft would always fly above us. And they hide [behind them]. [The experience in] Slavyansk had demonstrated that they would fly out from behind a civilian aircraft, bomb away, and then hide, once again, behind the civilian aircraft and fly away.

    Olga Ivshina, BBC: The commander of the local militia emphasizes that they have no weaponry capable of shooting down a jet fighter [flying] at a significant height. However, he says that if such weaponry were to appear, they would have tried to.

    Sergey Godovanets: If we know that it is not a civilian aircraft, but a military one, then – yes.

    Olga Ivshina, BBC: So, could the Boeing have been shot down by the militias that had mistaken it for a military aircraft? There is as yet no unequivocal confirmation of either this or any other version [of what took place]. The international experts are just beginning their work with the information obtained from the crashed airliner. It now appears that it is difficult to overstate the importance of this investigation. Olga Ivshina, BBC.

    The Catastrophe of #MH17:

    #BBC in the Search of the “BUK” – The Video Report Deleted by BBC

    Translation by: Valentina Lisitsa
    http://slavyangrad.wordpress.com

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    A New Twist in the Investigation into Flight MH17
    Written by ORIENTAL REVIEW on 04/09/2017
    https://orientalreview.org/2017/09/04/new-twist-investigation-flight-m h17/

    In late August Russia handed over decoded radar data to the Netherlands from the aerial zone where Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014. These materials had initially been provided in their original, i.e., non-decoded form, along with the software needed to decode them.

    However, the Dutch investigators, despite being armed with the latest in modern technology as well as the assistance of their British colleagues, were not able to decode the recordings, and in the end they asked Russian experts to do it. In three years this has been the only time they have asked to collaborate. Never before had the commission accepted any Russian offers of assistance.

    The decoded recordings clearly showed that the missile had been fired from the zone controlled by the Ukrainian military. And this is not some fabricated story concocted by journalists, but documented, technical information.

    Estimated distance to Flight MH-17 from the Ukrainian-controlled BUK launcher in Zaroshchenskoe at the moment of attack lies within the operational range, unlike one presumably operated by the Donbass militia.
    Estimated distance to Flight MH-17 from the Ukrainian-controlled BUK launcher in Zaroshchenskoe at the moment of attack (less than 30km) lies within the operational range, unlike one, presumably operated by the Donbass militia.
    However, every sign seems to indicate that the decoded information obtained from Russia will not be included in the case file, but will instead face the fate of so much other data that does not fit neatly into the preferred version of the investigation. It will probably just fall into a black hole, which is what happened to the photos of the tragedy that were taken by American spy satellites.

    In the meantime however, it will not be easy for the investigators to stick to their prescribed approach to the investigation. Independent experts are conscientiously suggesting new avenues of inquiry that could help move the process along.

    For example, since all of the Ukrainian army’s existing launch sites for its Buk-M1 missile-defense system can be accounted for and examined by the commission, it would be a simple enough matter to establish whether at least one of them was used to fire the missile. An inspection of the 60 existing launch sites within this system is both physically possible and could provide some surprising information. The launch of a Buk-M1 missile leaves indelible “burns” on the ramp that cannot be concealed, even under a new coat of paint. Although that would seem to be a very simple suggestion, it’s a significant one.

    Kees van der Pijl, a Dutch professor in the Department of International Relations at the University of Sussex and the president of the NGO The Committee of Vigilance Against Resurgent Fascism, recently finished writing a book titled “The Launch: Flight MH17, Ukraine and New Cold War” (Der Abschuss: Flug MH17, die Ukraine und der neue Kalte Krieg). The German-language version of the book will go on sale later this month, and the English original and Portuguese translation will be available by the end of the year.

    Professor van der Pijl examines the tragedy from a geopolitical perspective and asks: who benefited most from this disaster? And he answers: the US, which subsequently imposed sanctions against Russia, undermining its gas industry and checking its growing role on the international stage.

    Specifically, the professor cites the following arguments:

    – One day before the tragedy, the BRICS nations signed an agreement to establish their own bank, which the US saw as a rival to the IMF and World Bank.

    – Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel had settled on a new conceptual framework for resolving the crisis in Ukraine – without US input – and real progress was being made.

    – In addition, once the Boeing 777 was downed, American gas companies were suddenly able to find the traction to kick-start their work in Europe and force Russia out of the EU market. Moscow was forced to abandon the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, and relations with the government in Kiev, which subsequently became a pawn in the games played by the West, definitively soured.


    Not a single European or American media outlet has reacted to the announcement of the book’s publication and its path onto the shelves of bookstores is unlikely to be an easy one. However, times are changing, and many people are taking an interest in and flocking to Professor van der Pijl’s blog, Der Abschuss Flug MH17, which provides information about the publication of the book as well as links to his sources.

    Using the materials available to them, the authors of the blog intend to shed light on the absurd inconsistencies evident during the investigation, as well as the investigators’ stubborn reluctance to answer awkward questions. Some known examples are:

    – How could Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who announced the tragedy 15 minutes after it occured, have known that the Boeing 777 had been shot down by a Russian Buk missile?

    – Why does the investigative commission not take into account the results of the experimental destruction of a retired passenger airliner by the company Almaz Antey, while also refusing to take part in a second experiment?

    – What prompted Ukrainian dispatchers to alter MH17’s flight path right before tragedy struck?

    We shall soon see whether officials will block the distribution of the book and what the consequences of that might be. But events could take an interesting turn. As a result of Professor van der Pijl’s efforts, we will learn the price of not only the work of the Dutch commission investigating the tragic fate of flight MH17, but the European democracy and European justice as well…

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    Whitehall_Bin_Men
    Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
    Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


    Joined: 13 Jan 2007
    Posts: 2202
    Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

    PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Ukrainian pilot Vladyslav Voloshyn, blamed for MH17 'kills himself'
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/19/ukrainian-pilot-blamed-mh1 7-kills/

    Roland Oliphant, moscow 19 MARCH 2018 • 8:11PM

    A Ukrainian pilot falsely accused by Russia of shooting down the MH17 airliner has reportedly taken his own life.

    Capt Vladyslav Voloshyn, an SU-25 attack jet pilot, shot himself at home in the southern Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv on Monday, local media reported.

    Voloshyn, 29, had been working at Mykolaiv airport since he retired from the airforce. He previously flew 33 combat missions in an SU-25 during the war between Ukrainian and Russian and separatist forces in Donbas in 2014.

    Russian media and officials had accused him of shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

    The Boeing 777 was en route from Amterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was blown out of the sky over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, with the loss of all 298 people on board.

    A Telegraph investigation backed claims the jet was shot down by a surface to air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists
    A Telegraph investigation backed claims the jet was shot down by a surface to air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists

    A Dutch led investigation has concluded that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists - a conclusion backed by an independent investigation carried out by the Telegraph.

    The claims that Voloshyn downed the jet with his own aircraft was one of a number of alternative explanations put forward by the Kremlin and its sympathisers.

    The accusations were taken up by Russia's Investigative Committee after Komsomolskaya Pravda, a pro-Kremlin tabloid, published an interview with a former Ukrainian airforce mechanic called Yevgeny Agapov who claimed Voloshyn had been on a mission when MH17 was downed and returned to base looking shaken.

    An image from the final report into the investigation of the explosion on Boeing 777 flight MH17
    An image from the final report into the investigation of the explosion on Boeing 777 flight MH17 CREDIT: DUTCH SAFETY BOARD/PA
    He always denied the allegation, saying he was the victim of a smear campaign.


    Ukrainian police said they are treating his death as suicide but that it was being investigated under the premeditated murder article of the country's criminal code.

    Volshyn's wife said she called an ambulance after hearing gunshots at their home, but paramedics were unable to save him.

    The Kremlin continues to publicly deny culpability for shooting down MH17, despite overwhelming evidence that the Buk missile used came from Russia.

    _________________
    --
    'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
    http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
    http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
    Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
    Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Ukraine conducted special operation to destroy Flight MH17 of Malaysia Airlines
    http://www.pravdareport.com/hotspots/disasters/29-06-2017/138059-boein g_crash_ukraine-0/

    The Sovershenno Secretno newspaper (Top Secret) continues its investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing over the Donbass. The newspaper has published another portion of documents that establish Kiev's guilt in the tragedy.

    Ukraine conducted special operation to destroy Flight MH17 of Malaysia

    Newspaper journalists have obtained a map, namely a secret flight plan, that was made and personally signed the day before the flight, on July 16, 2014, by the pilot of the 299th tactical aviation brigade, Captain Vladislav Voloshin. The plan was also approved by commander of the A4104 military unit, Colonel Gennady Dubovik.

    Ukraine persistently claims that there was no military aircraft flying in the area the day when the tragedy occurred. Yet, the newly published documents prove that Ukrainian officials lie.

    Pravda.Ru held a brief interview with Sergei Sokolov, editor-in-chief of the Sovershenno Secretno newspaper.

    "This time, the material is very extensive, there are scanned copies of documents and transcripts of conversations with pilots of the Ukrainian aviation. It became known that Ukraine was using its warplanes on the tragic day. What does the newly discovered information say?"

    "These documents show that there were orders given to use combat aircraft. Conversations with servicemen of the Chuguev Airborne Division testified that there were sorties made. We try to be objective in this, but we know that the version promoted by the international commission in the Netherlands prevails. According to that version, it was a Russian Buk missile system that shot the plane down. We believe that this version of the investigation is biased and not credible, because the documents that we publish testify that there are other facts that need to be taken into account and carefully analyzed by the international commission in the Netherlands."

    "How was all this information obtained?"

    "Strictly speaking, when we received audio recordings of conversations with servicemen of the Chuguevsky airborne unit, it became clear that an unknown person talked to them and made those recordings. In general, it goes about a special operation to document facts of the crimes committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine."

    "Do you think that the destruction of the Boeing of Malaysia Airlines was a well-planned operation?"

    "Judging from the documents that we have published, the SBU of Ukraine speaks about the destruction of the facts of the special operation. Such a conclusion is possible."

    "What can you say about those who ordered the destruction of the passenger aircraft?"

    "If it goes about a state-run special operation, it is clear that this was the Ukrainian administration. In our article, we pointed out a strange coincidence. On the eve of the tragedy, two top officials of the Ukrainian administration visited the air force unit in Chuguev: Yatsenyuk, who then served as the Prime Minister of Ukraine, and Parubiy. They also visited the tactical aviation brigade in Nikolayev. Strictly speaking, this is a coincidence, but we have published a photo, on which Yatsenyuk walks near SU-25 flight 08. It is the fighter jet, which Captain Voloshin could pilot, according to the flight map."

    "Is there any hope that your materials will show influence on the course of the investigation in the Netherlands?"

    "I would very much like to believe so, because it really hurts me to see people applauding to unprofessional Bellingcat reports with photoshopped images."


    See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/hotspots/disasters/29-06-2017/138059-boein g_crash_ukraine-0/




    Ukrainian pilot blamed for MH17 'kills himself'
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/19/ukrainian-pilot-blamed-mh1 7-kills/

    Capt Vladyslav Voloshyn was blamed for the crash by Russian media and officials
    Roland Oliphant 19 MARCH 2018 • 8:11PM
    A Ukrainian pilot falsely accused by Russia of shooting down the MH17 airliner has reportedly taken his own life.

    Capt Vladyslav Voloshyn, an SU-25 attack jet pilot, shot himself at home in the southern Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv on Monday, local media reported.

    Voloshyn, 29, had been working at Mykolaiv airport since he retired from the airforce. He previously flew 33 combat missions in an SU-25 during the war between Ukrainian and Russian and separatist forces in Donbas in 2014.

    Russian media and officials had accused him of shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

    The Boeing 777 was en route from Amterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was blown out of the sky over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, with the loss of all 298 people on board.

    A Telegraph investigation backed claims the jet was shot down by a surface to air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists

    A Dutch led investigation has concluded that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists - a conclusion backed by an independent investigation carried out by the Telegraph.

    The claims that Voloshyn downed the jet with his own aircraft was one of a number of alternative explanations put forward by the Kremlin and its sympathisers.

    The accusations were taken up by Russia's Investigative Committee after Komsomolskaya Pravda, a pro-Kremlin tabloid, published an interview with a former Ukrainian airforce mechanic called Yevgeny Agapov who claimed Voloshyn had been on a mission when MH17 was downed and returned to base looking shaken.

    An image from the final report into the investigation of the explosion on Boeing 777 flight MH17

    He always denied the allegation, saying he was the victim of a smear campaign.

    Ukrainian police said they are treating his death as suicide but that it was being investigated under the premeditated murder article of the country's criminal code.

    Volshyn's wife said she called an ambulance after hearing gunshots at their home, but paramedics were unable to save him.

    The Kremlin continues to publicly deny culpability for shooting down MH17, despite overwhelming evidence that the Buk missile used came from Russia.

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    TonyGosling
    Editor
    Editor


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005
    Posts: 15956
    Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

    PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    MH17: The Buk videos are fake
    February 23, 2016
    Sergey Mastepanov
    http://energia.su/mh17/buk_vids/fake_buk_vids.html

    Introduction
    There are only four photos and three videos of the alleged separatists’ Russian Buk launcher. Most of them were uploaded to the social media within hours after MH17 was shot down, others were published elsewhere within days. A website called Bellingcat uses them as evidence of Russia’s and separatists’ culpability in the MH17 case. The photos were examined in my previous article. This article is about the videos (Picture 1).
    Picture 1
    PICTURE 1The three known videos of the alleged separatists' Russian Buk recorded in Ukrainian cities. From left-to-right: in Zuhres, Snizhne, Luhansk.
    It is possible to not only fake certain photos, but to also fake certain videos with the help of software. Just because the source of the material is a social media site, it does not mean that the material is authentic by default nor that the uploader doesn’t serve someone’s interests. Social media can be used to anonymously spread disinformation, fake photos and videos. It also allows certain entities to upload their own fake material, to show it later at a press conference and claim that its source is social media.
    In order to determine the authenticity of a video uploaded to the internet, it is helpful to first check the account’s activity and creation date and to find out if it is possible to reach the author. If the account is new, anonymous, has no activity, doesn’t respond to messages, then the account was made for only one purpose — to anonymously spread the video and to not answer any questions. Of course, the video itself is more important. Since fake videos are usually made under time constraints, it is sometimes possible to spot inconsistencies, for example, with the weather or to see specific video artifacts. Finally, it is helpful to know certain photo and video manipulation software, how to create fake videos, and to know the software’s limits: what fakes can be made relatively easy and what is near impossible (without the help from Hollywood).
    If you look to the right and read the table of contents, you will notice that the article is divided into three main sections. Each section is dedicated to a specific video and has subsections explaining where on YouTube you can download the video with the highest resolution, what are the coordinates of the area shown in the video, the video’s history (who was the first to upload it, what title it had, when it was removed, who provided the coordinates, who showed it at a press conference, etc.), and what is wrong with the video. The last subsection (“How to fake”) shows the relevant video, but into which a new vehicle was added. It was done to show how it is possible to add vehicles into these videos. It also roughly explains the process.
    It is recommended that the article be read from start to finish, because some subsections rely on information presented earlier.
    Note that you can save the videos from this article by right-clicking on them and choosing “Save video” (you might need to play the video first). You can then watch them with software, such as “VLC media player.”
    Summary
    All three videos have problems suggesting that the vehicles, including the Buk launcher, were added into the videos with the help of photo and video manipulation software, such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe After Effects. The vehicles in the videos are most likely just photoshopped images. The videos have common characteristics: the vehicles have low picture quality and are blurry, they are shown at a far distance (excluding the Luhansk video), at a limited angle, you cannot see the wheels spinning of any vehicles, and in two videos, the truck with the Buk are visible only for about four seconds. Two videos were uploaded by anonymous accounts that have no other videos, one of which was created on the day of the incident. The third video was uploaded by Ukrainian officials. Evidence exists of deliberate deception by Ukrainian officials concerning the location of the area shown in the Luhansk video.
    Snizhne video. The copy at the highest resolution (1088 x 1920) shows a video artifact when the Buk is moving behind the tree, which looks like something that can appear due to an error in the fake video-making process in After Effects, rather than because of some video compression. The video was uploaded to YouTube by an anonymous account within a few hours after MH17 was shot down. The account was created on the same day and has no other activity. The video’s title said that this is the weapon that shot down MH17, as well as the place (Snizhne), and the date (July 17, 2014). The uploader removed the video within a few hours. The head of the Security Service of Ukraine showed the video the next day at a press conference.
    Zuhres video. In the video, the wind is blowing from the south, but in Zuhres, on the day when this video was allegedly recorded at (July 17, 2014), the wind was blowing from the east or northeast. In the stabilized version of the video, the truck and the Buk look like mostly just an image moving from one location to another. The video was uploaded on July 17, 2014 on YouTube, had no description, and had “IMG 0647” as title. The uploader added the description between July 23 and July 27, 2014, which said, “coordinates of this and other videos: [link].” The account is anonymous and has no other videos. Between July 17 and July 22, 2014, a Twitter user named 3Andryu sent a message to a blogger named Ukraine@War that had the link to the Zuhres video and details, such as the coordinates, the date and time the video was recorded at. The tweet was retweeted by another user to Bellingcat on July 22. There doesn’t seem to be any copies of this video uploaded to YouTube before July 21, 2014, which means that the public was not aware of the video until around July 22, 2014. On July 19, 2014, Ukrainian spokesman showed a cropped screenshot from the Zuhres video at a press conference before the video was publicized, but not the video. He also did not say that it was Zuhres and showed a tank and a truck loaded with people that look like they are a part of the Zuhres video, but the Zuhres video does not show these vehicles. The video uploader removed the video from YouTube in March 2015. Twitter account named 3Andryu or his tweet with the video’s details were deleted by August 28, 2014.
    Luhansk video. The video is of low quality and is blurry, just like the truck with the Buk. You cannot even see the wheels spinning. It shows the vehicles at a limited angle for only four seconds. It is possible to create the animation of the truck and the Buk as seen in the video with just having one photoshopped photo of the truck and the Buk. The Buk has its back covered, but is clearly advertising the missing missile. Based on the truck’s direction and the road shown in the video, the truck would have to come from the west of Luhansk via road M04, but according to Kiev’s own military map shown at a press conference on July 18, 2014, Kiev's forces were right by Luhansk city, to the west and to the north of it. Since according to Ukrainian officials, this Buk was in Snizhne the day before and was being transferred to Russia after it shot down MH17, moving it from Snizhne to Russia via a major city of Luhansk makes no logical sense, as this is not the safest nor the quickest route. It was uploaded on July 18, 2014 to YouTube by Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs and was allegedly recorded by Ukrainian surveillance team on the same day. The day before, Ukrainian spokesman said during a press conference, which was held about 30 minutes after MH17 was shot down, that they know that separatists have Buk and that they even have a video of [it] recorded in Luhansk, but there are no other publicly known videos of Buk in Luhansk except this one. Ukrainian officials have claimed that the video was recorded in Krasnodon, not in Luhansk city. On July 18–19, disinformation appeared on the Russian internet concerning the location of the video, claiming that the city is Krasnoarmeysk. The coordinates of the area shown in the video (Luhansk city) were revealed by Ukrainian official in a Facebook comment on July 22, just a day after Russia’s MoD briefing.
    Zuhres video
    The video shows a moving truck carrying a Buk launcher for about four seconds in Zuhres, Ukraine (Video 1).

    0:00

    VIDEO 1A video of a Buk launcher in Zuhres, Ukraine allegedly filmed on July 17, 2014 and uploaded on the same day.
    Where to download
    The highest resolution of this video is available at 1920 x 1080 (1080p), at 29.97 frames per second.
    The original YouTube video was deleted. Most of the re-uploaded versions only have 720p resolution or lower, but a blogger named Ukraine@War has downloaded the 1080p version when it was available and uploaded it to his YouTube channel on July 3, 2015.
    Location
    Google Maps iconZuhres, Ukraine (Picture 2).
    Picture 2
    PICTURE 2(a) the location of Zuhres on the map; (b) a satellite image of the area in Zuhres that we see in the video; (c) a photo by Max van der Werff taken in Zuhres.
    History
    The earliest known source is this deleted YouTube video. A link to the YouTube video with the same video ID can be found, for example, on Bellingcat’s and on Ukraine@War’s pages.
    If you go to archive.org and enter the link of this deleted video, you will see that the Internet Archive website took a snapshot of the video's YouTube page on July 23, 2014 (Picture 3, top half). The snapshot tells us that the video was uploaded on July 17, 2014, it had “IMG 0647” as title, it had no description, and it was uploaded by someone named “Adrei And” (Picture 3, bottom half).
    Picture 3
    PICTURE 3Top: screenshots from the Internet Archive website showing available snapshots of original Zuhres video’s YouTube page. Bottom: a part of a page from a snapshot dated July 23, 2014.
    The Internet Archive also made two snapshots on July 27, 2014. If you click on either one, you will notice that now the video has a description (Picture 4).
    Picture 4
    PICTURE 4A part of a snapshot of the Zuhres video’s YouTube page dated July 27, 2014.
    The description, written in Russian, translates into “Coordinates of this and other videos” and links to: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-into- ukraine.html
    What this all means is that the video was uploaded on July 17, 2014. When the Internet Archive took a snapshot of the page on July 23, 2014, the video didn’t have a description. The video uploader added the description to the video somewhere between July 23, 2014 and July 27, 2014.
    Searching YouTube for “Zuhres Buk” (or the Russian and Ukrainian equivalents — "Зугрес Бук" or "Зугрэс Бук") shows earliest Zuhres video copies dated July 22, 2014. It is just a day after Russia’s Ministry of Defense briefing on MH17 and about 5 days after MH17 crashed. This means that the public was mostly unaware of either this video or its location or both until July 22, 2014, because, most likely, someone would have re-uploaded it before July 22 with a more meaningful title. I’m also not aware of any other sources of the Zuhres video with any other title that would have a date of July 17-20.
    On July 19, 2014, Ukrainian spokesman showed a screenshot from the Zuhres video during a briefing (Picture 5).
    Picture 5
    PICTURE 5A screenshot from a video of a press conference by Ukraine showing a cropped still from the Zuhres video and other vehicles that are not part of the Zuhres video, but which look like they are.
    The same picture is present on Ukrainian SBU web page.
    The text at the top says in Ukrainian: “Buk-M1 in the terrorists’ column (Donetsk Oblast [province]).”
    During the briefing, at 3:03, the spokesman, when talking about the photos shown in Picture 5, says in English: “These are pictures. They were taken on the way of that column. You see there is a tank, terrorists have, then a military vehicle […] and also there was, in that column there was a tug vehicle with this Buk-M1 system.”
    So, on July 19, “Ukraine Crisis Media Center” showed a screenshot from the Zuhres video of a truck carrying Buk, but for some reason, they didn’t show the Zuhres video itself (and the public was mostly unaware of it until July 22), and they didn’t say that the location was Zuhres. They showed photos of another truck carrying people and showed a tank, the backgrounds of which make the pictures look like they belong to the Zuhres video, but the Zuhres video itself doesn’t show these vehicles.
    There is a screenshot of a Twitter post in Arnold Greidanus’ article “What you see is all there is” (Picture 6).
    Picture 6
    PICTURE 6A screenshot of @3Andryu’s tweet sent to blogger Ukraine@War (@djp3tros).
    The name of the author of the tweet shown above, Anrei A (“Анрей А”), is similar to Adrei And, the uploader of the Zuhres video (Picture 3). The Twitter account name is @3Andryu (Andryi, Andrei, etc., is a real name). According to the screenshot, @3Andryu sent a message to @djp3tros (aka @DajeyPetros, aka Ukraine@War, aka Putin@War) that contained not only the same link to the now deleted Zuhres video, but also the exact coordinates, the date and time it was allegedly filmed at (Zuhres, 17.07.14 at 08:40 UTC (11:40 EEST)). The time of this tweet is July 18, 00:06 UTC (03:06 EEST).
    The reason why @3Andryu sent a message to @djp3tros (aka Ukraine@War) was probably because of the blogger’s popularity at that time regarding Ukraine and MH17 (for example, Ukraine@War’s tweet about Snizhne video got about 2500 retweets). (Bellingcat was just founded at that time.)
    @3Andryu knew about the Zuhres video and some intimate details, such as the location, the date and time the video was allegedly filmed at before the video had a description, which was added on July 23 or later. Therefore, it is possible that @3Andryu is the same person as the uploader of the YouTube video or has a connection to him.
    Even though it is hard to confirm the authenticity of the screenshot shown in Picture 6 through open sources (especially the date and time of this tweet), because, for example, Twitter account named @3Andryu no longer exists, there are retweets of that same message that are still online: on July 22, 2014, a Twitter account named @yqxo retweeted @3Andryu’s message to @Brown_Moses (aka @EliotHiggins, aka Bellingcat) (Picture 7).
    Picture 7
    PICTURE 7A screenshot of a retweet by @yqxo of @3Andryu’s message to Bellingcat (@Brown_Moses, aka @EliotHiggins).
    When was @3Andryu’s account or his tweet with the information about the Zuhres video deleted? In Bellingcat’s article named “Origin of the Separatists’ Buk: A Bellingcat Investigation,” there is the following text and a link that points to some now-deleted @3Andryu’s tweet (Picture Cool:
    Picture 8
    PICTURE 8A screenshot from Bellingcat’s article that links to @3Andryu’s deleted tweet about the Zuhres video.
    Since the link points to Twitter account “3Andryu” and Bellingcat’s article claims that the tweet is about the Zuhres video and says the same time (“11:40am”) that we see on the screenshot of @3Andryu’s tweet (Picture 6), we can assume that the article points to the same @3Andryu’s deleted tweet with the details about the Zuhres video. The Internet Archive has one snapshot of that tweet dated August 28, 2014. The snapshot tells us that the page no longer exists. This means that @3Andryu’s tweet with the information about the Zuhres video or the Twitter account itself was deleted by August 28, 2014.
    When was the original Zuhres video deleted from YouTube? The Internet Archive made a snapshot of the YouTube page with the Zuhres video on March 4, 2015 and on March 31, 2015. On March 4, the video was still available, but the snapshot dated March 31 says, “This video has been removed by the user.” Therefore, the uploader removed the video somewhere between March 4, 2015 and March 31, 2015.
    If you visit the page of a YouTube account that uploaded the Zuhres video (“Adrei And”), you will see that the account was created on September 27, 2013. As of December 2015, it has no videos.
    The Zuhres video has a shady history. To summarize:
    On July 17, 2014, a YouTube account named Adrei And uploaded the Zuhres video, but the video had insignificant title (“IMG 0647”) and no description. The YouTube account practically had and has no activity.
    Practically nobody knew about the Zuhres video until July 22, 2014, the day after Russia’s Ministry of Defense briefing on MH17. The earliest YouTube videos that had “Zuhres Buk” keywords (or the Russian and Ukrainian equivalents) in the title that I’ve seen are dated July 22, 2014.
    On July 19, 2014, Ukrainian spokesman showed a screenshot from the Zuhres video (first video frame, zoomed-in), didn’t say that it was the city of Zuhres, didn’t show the video itself, but instead said that the Buk was a part of a “terrorist column” and showed photos of a tank and another truck that look like they belong to the Zuhres video, but the Zuhres video doesn’t have those two vehicles (this doesn’t mean that those vehicles are a part of some other video).
    Between July 17, 2014 and July 22, 2014, a Twitter account named @3Andryu sent a tweet to a blogger Ukraine@War with not only the YouTube link to the Zuhres video, but also the coordinates, the date, and the exact time the video was allegedly made at, and before the video had a description. On July 22, 2014, someone retweeted @3Andryu’s message to Bellingcat (which was founded just a week before). The Twitter account @3Andryu or his tweet with the details about the Zuhres video was deleted by August 28, 2014.
    Somewhere between July 23, 2014 and July 27, 2014, Adrei And, the original Zuhres video uploader, added a description to the Zuhres video, which said: “Coordinates of this and other videos: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-into- ukraine.html.
    YouTube account Adrei And that uploaded the original Zuhres video removed the video in March 2015.
    Problems
    As was mentioned in the History section, the account that uploaded the Zuhres video doesn’t have much activity and currently has no videos. Why did he or she remove the video in March 2015? Why on July 19, 2014, Ukrainian spokesman showed a screenshot from the Zuhres video of the truck and the Buk, but didn’t show the video itself nor say that the area is Zuhres? Why Kiev showed an image of a truck packed with “terrorists” and a tank that look like they are a part of the same Zuhres video and the same military column, but the Zuhres video doesn’t show these vehicles and there are no other such videos showing these vehicles? Why the Zuhres video was not publicized until July 22 (there are no earlier Zuhres copies on YouTube), and how did Kiev find this video? Why the video had a strange title and no description, and why the original uploader of the Zuhres video added the description to the video on July 23, which said, “coordinates of this and other videos: [link]?” To me it looks like Kiev wanted to link separatists with this truck and Buk by showing those three screenshots of the vehicles and making it look like these three vehicles are a part of the same military column. One reason they showed these screenshots of vehicles and not the Zuhres video itself is because the video doesn’t show the truck with separatists and tank, as it is much easier to just create a fake, low quality photo with the needed background and a specific truck loaded with people than to add it to the video.
    In the video, based on trees’ movement and the bird being “blown off at takeoff,” you can tell that the wind is blowing from the south (Video 2).

    0:00

    VIDEO 2The marked areas suggest that the wind is blowing from the south.
    But a weather website suggests that on July 17, 2014, in Zuhres, the wind was either blowing from the east or northeast the whole day. And at the time the video was allegedly taken at (08:00–09:00 UTC (11:00–12:00 EEST), July 17), the wind was blowing from the east and had a strength of about 3–5 m/s (Picture 9).
    Picture 9
    PICTURE 9A screenshot from a weather website showing the direction and speed of the wind on July 17, 2014 in Zuhres.
    This was noted by a user named Ole in the comments section of Hector Reban’s article. For other weather sources of that day and other details concerning the Zuhres video, read the “Zuhres” section of Arnold Greidanus’ article.
    The wind inconsistency suggests that the video or a part of the video was not filmed on July 17, 2014. But according to the @3Andryu’s tweet sent to Ukraine@War and retweeted to Bellingcat, and most importantly, according to the “western narrative” (the official Joint Investigation Team’s “Call for witness” video, Bellingcat’s articles and the media that quotes him), the Zuhres video was filmed on July 17, 2014. They close their eyes on this wind inconsistency.
    Let’s look at the video.
    We can only see the truck with the Buk for about four seconds. These vehicles are at a far distance, the angle of the truck and the Buk doesn’t change much, and, just like the video itself, the vehicles are blurry. These facts make it easier to fake such videos.
    If you look at the moving truck with the Buk a couple of times in full screen mode in this stabilized version (Video 3) or in Video 2, it looks as if the truck with the Buk is just a photo moving from one location to another.

    0:00

    VIDEO 3A stabilized Zuhres video.
    How to fake
    This section will show how the truck with the Buk (and other vehicles) could have been added to the Zuhres video with the help of Photoshop and a video editing software. First, it will show the Zuhres video, where a new military vehicle was added (Video 4). Then it will explain the process.

    0:00

    VIDEO 4A modified Zuhres video with an added Kornet-D vehicle.
    The military vehicle is called Kornet-D. It was taken from a YouTube video and inserted into the stabilized version of the Zuhres video. Only the following screenshot was used (Picture 10):
    Picture 10
    PICTURE 10A screenshot from a YouTube video showing Kornet-D.
    First, the background was erased with Photoshop. The back of the vehicle was also made brighter, so that it would look more realistic once it is inside the Zuhres video (Picture 11).
    Picture 11
    PICTURE 11Kornet-D from Picture 10 with erased background.
    Then transformation, color correction, blur, and other effects both in Photoshop and in the video editing software called Adobe After Effects were applied, turning this big picture of Kornet-D into what you see in the modified Zuhres video (Picture 12).
    Picture 12
    PICTURE 12How Kornet-D looks in the modified Zuhres video.
    All the mentioned effects are applied automatically: you can still edit the big version of the vehicle (Picture 11) in Photoshop, but in the video editing software, you see it as this small version with all chosen effects automatically re-applied to it. This feature will be useful to create a certain animation using one technique later on.
    With Adobe After Effects, it is easy to make a video animation, where an object, such as this Kornet-D vehicle, is moving from one place to another over a period of time. You pick a start location, the end, and the software calculates all the movement in-between these positions and creates a smooth animation. The software is not limited to just moving objects. You can use the same method to animate many things. For example, the added Kornet-D gets slightly smaller the further it moves. Again, you just set the starting size, then how big or small you want the object to be at specific time of the video, and the software calculates the correct size in-between, so that the object’s size would change gradually. It is like having your own animator.
    Now we can make our vehicle move from one place to another, but how to make it appear as if it is moving behind the poles, bushes, and the building? There are at least a couple of ways. But in this case, a technique called layers was used, which After Effects software supports. The first layer will be the original video (Picture 13, b). The second layer will be the image of the added vehicle (Picture 13, c). And the third layer will be on top of the other two and will have all those specific poles, bushes, and buildings extracted from the original video that need to partially or completely hide the added vehicle (Picture 13, d). We stack these layers on top of each other to get the needed result (Picture 13, a, e).
    Picture 13
    PICTURE 13(a) three image layers stacked on top of each other in particular order; (b) layer 1 – the original video; (c) layer 2 – image of a vehicle, which needs to be added; (d) layer 3 – part of a building cut from the original video; (e) the end result.
    In the original Zuhres video, in the stabilized version (Video 3), or in Video 2, you may have noticed that the truck and the Buk is not just a static photo that is moving. Compare how they look in the beginning of the video (Picture 14, a) with how they look when the truck is about to move behind the building (Picture 14, b).
    Picture 14
    PICTURE 14(a) how the vehicles look at the start of the video; (b) how they look at a later stage.
    You can see, for example, that the red trailer's holder at the back moved closer to the Buk, and there are some other subtle animations.
    If you look at the version of the Zuhres video with the added Kornet-D vehicle, you will notice that it is also not just one static photo moving. Compare how the vehicle looks at the start of the video (Picture 15, a) with how it looks later (Picture 15, b).
    Picture 15
    PICTURE 15(a) how Kornet-D looks initially in the modified Zuhres video; (b) how it looks later.
    You can see that the wheels at the back have a gap now, as does the missile compartment on the roof. The vehicle itself is at a slightly different angle. And all this transformation happens somewhat smoothly.
    How to create such animation? How it was done in this case is, seven more versions of Kornet-D were made in Photoshop (Picture 16) based on Picture 11.
    Picture 16
    PICTURE 16Eight slightly different and downscaled versions of Kornet-D, which were used to make a small animation.
    The Kornet-D’s image in the video just gets replaced with these slightly different versions (with increasing gaps between the wheels, etc.) at certain points of time. The video editing software was also configured to smoothly shrink the image of Kornet-D the further it moves.
    Notice how imperfect, for example, the seventh version looks in Photoshop at its original size (Picture 17).
    Picture 17
    PICTURE 17The seventh version of Kornet-D’s image at a normal size.
    And how after downsizing this image, blurring, and applying other effects (which were set just for the first photo and which are automatically applied to other versions of the vehicle), you don’t see most of these flaws in the video (Picture 15, b).
    There is another way how to create certain animations from just a photo. It will be shown in the section dedicated to Luhansk video.
    To simulate distortions made by a window (you can see similar effects in the original video, too), “glass,” or “lens,” effect was added, for example, at the following spot (Picture 1Cool:
    Picture 18
    PICTURE 18An arrow pointing at the place in the modified Zuhres video, where a “glass” effect was added.
    In the original Zuhres video, you can see that the camera is shaking. This effect can be added, too (Video 5).

    0:00

    VIDEO 5A modified Zuhres video with Kornet-D that now has a camera motion effect.
    As for how to simulate this camera movement, you just make the video software’s “virtual camera” smaller and then move the camera in various directions as needed (Picture 19).
    Picture 19
    PICTURE 19The rectangle represents a virtual camera, which is smaller than the actual video. Video editing software will only output what is inside this camera. In order to make the camera motion effect, you need to move the virtual camera in various directions.
    Some parts of the video that are close to the border will be cut out, but they are usually not critical.
    How hard was it to insert Kornet-D vehicle into the Zuhres video, and how long did it take? In this case, it was easy. I already had some of the skills that are required to accomplish this: Photoshop basics and some experience in creating fake photos. But I knew practically nothing about the video editing software such as Adobe After Effects. I watched a 10-hour video course to learn After Effects basics. Then it took me a couple of days to insert the vehicle as seen in Video 4.
    Snizhne video
    The video shows a Buk launcher in Snizhne, Ukraine (Video 6).

    0:00

    VIDEO 6A video of a Buk launcher in Snizhne, Ukraine allegedly filmed on July 17, 2014 and uploaded on the same day after MH17 crashed.
    Since the video has a high vertical resolution, you will not be able to view it at a normal size without special display or software. But the following video is its cropped version and will fit into a standard display (Video 7):

    0:00

    VIDEO 7A cropped version of the Snizhne video.
    Where to download
    The highest resolution of this video is available at 1088 x 1920, at 15 frames per second.
    The original YouTube video was deleted. Most of the re-uploaded versions only have 360p or 720p resolution. Luckily, a blogger named Ukraine@War has downloaded the highest resolution version with the right software and parameters during the period when the video was still available. He uploaded it to his YouTube channel on July 14, 2015 after Arnold Greidanus asked him where he got a still from a video, which was of a much higher quality than one could find in any Snizhne video copy available at that time on the internet.
    “Free YouTube Download” software was used to download this video at 1088 x 1920 resolution (not to be confused with 1920 x 1080) from Ukraine@War’s channel (Picture 20).
    Picture 20
    PICTURE 20The software and parameter that was used to download the highest resolution version of the Snizhne video.
    Location
    Google Maps iconSnizhne, Ukraine (Picture 21).
    Picture 21
    PICTURE 21(a) the location of Snizhne on the map; (b) a satellite image of the same road as seen in the video; (c) a photo by Max van der Werff taken in Snizhne.
    History
    The original video was uploaded to YouTube on July 17, 2014. The video at that link no longer exists. The Internet Archive made a snapshot of that page on July 18, 2014, which says that the video has been removed by the user. This means that the video was removed by the uploader within a day.
    In order to determine the title of this deleted video, you can either search the internet for pages that mention the same video ID or use youtubeinmp3.com website and enter the video ID there. That site tells us that the video had the following title, thumbnail, and length (Picture 22):
    Picture 22
    PICTURE 22youtubeinmp3.com website showing the title and other information of the original Snizhne video.
    Translated from Russian, it means: “The murder weapon of Malaysians. Snizhne 17 07 2014.”
    The mentioned deleted YouTube video has to be the primary source, because: (a) its title matches the one Ukraine@War used in his re-uploaded version of the same video (in the description of the video, Ukraine@War mentions that he used the original title, and he is one of the few who properly downloaded the video when it was available and who had this video at the best quality); (b) the same link is in the description of a low quality version of Snizhne video uploaded on July 17, 2014 by “Brown Moses” (now known as Bellingcat); (c) Arnold Greidanus came to conclusion that this is the first source through his research; (d) the Internet Archive confirms that the video at that link was removed by July 18, 2014.
    Since the video’s title said that this is the “murder weapon of Malaysians,” we can assume that the video was uploaded after MH17 was shot down (but on the same day — July 17, 2014).
    In his article, Arnold Greidanus has found that one of the earliest posts on the internet that links to the Snizhne video was made at 17:33 UTC (20:33 EEST) on July 17 (Picture 23).
    Picture 23
    PICTURE 23A screenshot of a post from a social media site that links to the original Snizhne video.
    He also found a tweet made at 18:37 UTC (21:37 EEST) on July 17 that refers to the same video link and says that the video was removed. Therefore, the original Snizhne video stayed online only for about a few hours before the uploader removed it.
    Arnold found the account that uploaded the Snizhne video by contacting the owner of a certain video site, who had downloaded the Snizhne video when it was online and who had saved both the original link and the link to the uploader’s account. The Snizhne video’s uploader is someone under a pseudonym of Balodya Familyev (Балодя Фамильев; Balodya is not a real name, but it is close to Valodya, and Familyev means something along the lines of “of last name”). The account is still active, but has no content. It was created on July 17, 2014, on the same day when he or she uploaded the Snizhne video (Picture 24).
    Picture 24
    PICTURE 24The creation date of the account that uploaded the Snizhne video.
    The following Brown Moses’ (now known as Bellingcat) post also suggests that the account that uploaded the Snizhne video was new (Picture 25):
    Picture 25
    PICTURE 25A screenshot of Bellingcat’s post from social media made on July 19, 2014 saying that Snizhne video uploader’s account was new.
    For more details, such as possible first post on the internet linking to the Snizhne video, as well as information on what person might have had something to do with this video, read “The BUK Convoy – Snizhne” section of Arnold Greidanus’ article.
    On July 18, 2014, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who was the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine at that time, showed the cropped Snizhne video during his briefing (Picture 26).
    Picture 26
    PICTURE 26The head of the Security Service of Ukraine showing the Snizhne video during a press conference on July 18, 2014.
    Problems
    As was written in the History section, Snizhne video was uploaded by an anonymous account that was created on the day of the incident. The account has no other videos and no other activities. The uploader removed the video within hours. Why would a new anonymous account remove this video or remove it so fast? To me it looks as if someone wanted to either hide the fact that it was uploaded by a new account (to minimize the amount of people noticing this fact) or the video is fake, and the author(s) noticed that the video at the highest resolution clearly shows that it is fake or didn’t expect YouTube to allow to download videos at such high resolution (1088 x 1920).
    Based on the video’s title (“The murder weapon of Malaysians. Snizhne 17 07 2014”), the uploader already tells us — just about three hours after MH17 crashed — that it was not an accident or a bomb, not Ukrainian jets, which were actively used in those days, not one of the 60 or so operational Buk launchers, S-300 systems, inherited by Ukraine from the USSR, some of which were ready to shoot down any Russian military airplanes violating Ukrainian air space, but that this specific Buk launcher, allegedly recorded earlier that day in Snizhne, shot down MH17. Why did the uploader use such title? He or she could not have known what has happened to MH17. At minimum, this means that the uploader is neither neutral nor on separatists’ side, as Snizhne was allegedly controlled by separatists at that time. It means that he or she took part in the information war and already blamed separatists for downing MH17 within hours after it crashed.
    Let’s inspect the best available version of the Snizhne video, the one at 1088 x 1920 resolution uploaded by Ukraine@War.
    Just like the Zuhres video's, Snizhne video's characteristics make it easy to insert vehicles: the Buk is at a far distance, it has low picture quality and is blurry, as is the video itself, and the Buk is shown at a limited angle.
    If you zoom in and look at the Buk as it moves behind the tree, you will notice that in the video frame #72, it looks as if part of a tree is missing, as if someone cut it out with scissors (Picture 27).
    Picture 27
    PICTURE 27Left: cropped and zoomed-in video frame #72 from the Snizhne video showing an artifact. Right: same as left, but with a marked area of the artifact.
    Compare how the area marked by the orange line in Picture 27 looks in video frames before and after video frame #72 (Video Cool.

    0:00

    VIDEO 8A video showing cropped and zoomed-in video frames #53–87 from Snizhne video in slow motion, then at a normal speed.
    This area in frame #72 suggests that the video is fake, because it looks like a mistake was made during the video-making process.
    In order to understand how such a mistake is possible, you need to roughly understand how a vehicle can be inserted into such videos. The “How to fake” subsection in the Zuhres section explained how approximately it is done when it mentioned the use of layers. The mistake is in the third layer: part of a tree was not properly extracted from the original video in this video frame (the third layer are the trees, poles, and other objects extracted from the original video through which the added image of the vehicle passes that have to partially or completely hide the vehicle as it moves).
    In the next subsection, you will see the Snizhne video with an added TOS-1 military vehicle. But as an example of how such mistakes are possible in the video editing software, here is a picture of TOS-1 behind a decently extracted tree (Picture 28, a) and an example where part of a tree (layer 3) was not properly extracted (Picture 28, b):
    Picture 28
    PICTURE 28A picture showing how a mistake is possible in the video editing software. (a) TOS-1 vehicle behind a decently extracted tree; (b) same as “a,” but a part of a tree is missing.
    Someone with experience in inserting vehicles into this type of videos might notice the use of a few video editing tricks.
    At the start of the video, the Buk launcher looks as shown in Picture 29, a, b, c until it moves behind a tree (all images in Picture 29 were made at 200% video zoom level). When it moves out of a tree, it looks as shown in Picture 29, d, e.
    Picture 29
    PICTURE 29How the Buk looks at certain points in the video. (a, b, c) at the start of the video, before it is hidden behind the tree; (d, e) right after it comes out of the tree.
    It not only got smaller, but its angle has changed.
    Did we see the smooth transition of this Buk turning from how it looked before the tree to how it looks after? Everything happened under the cover. The trick here is to use one version of Buk’s image in the first phase (before it moves behind a tree; Picture 29, b, c) and then to simply replace the Buk’s image with a new, relatively much different one (Picture 29, d) while it is covered by the tree. This way we don’t need to create the smooth transition, which would be difficult to make in this case.
    Snizhne video stops abruptly the moment the Buk launcher is about to move up the hill and to significantly change the angle. This is a good place to stop the video, because it would be difficult to create an animation of such movement with just having a photo of a Buk.
    How to fake
    Snizhne video with an added TOS-1 military vehicle (Video 9):

    0:00

    VIDEO 9A modified Snizhne video with an added TOS-1 vehicle.
    Typically, when making such fake videos, the main background video should not have any camera movements. Effects such as this severe camera shakiness and distortions are added (for example, for realism and to make it less obvious that the vehicle is just a slightly animated photo) after adding the vehicles. This makes the job easier and the end result better. But as you see in this example, it is still possible to add vehicles into such videos with severe shakiness and even without stabilizing it first.
    The vehicle was added using similar methods as explained in the Zuhres section. A photo showing TOS-1 vehicle at a suitable angle was found on the internet and then it was used as a base to make the following two versions in Photoshop (Picture 30):
    Picture 30
    PICTURE 30Left: a photo of a TOS-1 vehicle found on the internet. Right: TOS-1 photo was used as a base to make other variants of the same vehicle in Photoshop, which were then added to the video.
    And in the video, with the help of additional effects, they end up looking like this (Picture 31):
    Picture 31
    PICTURE 31Screenshots from the modified Snizhne video showing how images of TOS-1 from Picture 30 end up looking in the video.
    The image of TOS-1 was just replaced with another one when it was hidden behind the tree.
    Of course, in the original Snizhne video, it is not just two static Buk photos that are moving. The Buk has minor animations and its angle changes slightly at certain points. In order to achieve this, you can not only use the techniques explained in the Zuhres example and later in the Luhansk example (where you can cut the vehicle into parts and animate them), but you can use things like poles in the Snizhne video to glue two slightly different images of the Buk together or you can switch certain parts of the Buk (e.g., the right-bottom half) while it is covered by the leafs.
    Luhansk video
    The video shows a truck carrying a Buk launcher with a missing rocket in Luhansk, Ukraine (Video 10).

    0:00

    VIDEO 10A video of a Buk launcher in Luhansk, Ukraine allegedly filmed on July 18, 2014 and uploaded on the same day.
    Where to download
    The highest resolution of this video is 1280 x 720, at 50 frames per second.
    The original source of the video is still online.
    All of the YouTube copies of this video that I’ve seen have 25 frames per second. But you can download the 50 FPS version from the original source with the following software and parameter (Picture 32):
    Picture 32
    PICTURE 32The software and parameter that was used to download the video version that has 50 frames per second.
    Location
    Google Maps iconLuhansk, Ukraine (Picture 33).
    Picture 33
    PICTURE 33(a) the location of Luhansk city on the map; (b) a satellite image of the same road as seen in the video; (c) a photo found on the internet forum.
    History
    On July 17, 2014, at 14:00 UTC (17:00 EEST), minutes after MH17 crashed, Kiev held a press conference (video). At 21:03 into the video, a journalist tells the spokesman Andriy Lysenko that there is information in social media that a Buk system was spotted near Snizhne and asks him to comment on this. Lysenko says that it is a serious system and that they have this information. Then at 21:55, a journalist asks the spokesman, “I want you to clarify, do you confirm that the Buk is there somewhere?” The spokesman says, “We have information that systems that can hit airplanes at high altitudes came into Ukraine. Buk system is among them. There was such information. And even on the video [it] was shown there when a column was moving through Luhansk. We all know.”
    On July 18, 2014, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs published an article on the government’s site. They showed screenshots from the Luhansk video, the video itself, and mostly cited what the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov wrote that day in his Facebook post. Here is the full translation of the short article:
    CRIMINALS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIDE TRACES OF THE CRIME AFTER THE TRAGEDY — ARSEN AVAKOV (PHOTO, VIDEO)

    18.07.2014 | 14:10

    Ukrainian Secret Service [SBU / СБУ] and Ministry of Internal Affairs [MIA / МВД] already has gathered and are gathering more and more irrefutable facts and evidence, which point at the terrorist organization DNR / LNR [Donetsk and Luhansk People’s republics] and their patrons as the authors of this tragedy.

    Minister of Internal Affairs has said that today, on July 18, at 4:50 in the morning, covert surveillance units of Ukrainian MIA have recorded a truck with a loaded track-mounted missile system.

    Luhansk screenshot 1
    The vehicles were moving in the direction through Krasnodon towards the border with the Russian Federation. On the video tape, uncovered missiles can be seen. Two missiles were in place, but the middle one was not visible.

    Luhansk screenshot 2
    “Analysis of this and other information is ongoing. Presumably, this is the same “Buk” missile system, which yesterday fired at the civilian aircraft Amsterdam – Kuala Lumpur,” noted Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs.

    According to him, criminals are trying to hide traces of this horrific crime.

    “They will fail. SBU and Ukrainian MIA have gathered and are gathering more and more irrefutable facts and evidence, which point at the terrorist organization DNR / LNR and their Russian, Putin’s patrons as the authors of this tragedy,“ highlighted Arsen Avakov.

    He also assured that at the end of the investigation, MIA will publish full report about the information.

    “This fragment I think should be published immediately,” noted head of MIA.

    Luhansk video
    Translation of http://www.npu.gov.ua/uk/publish/article/1103327
    Both the mentioned article and Avakov’s post link to a YouTube video. It is the Luhansk video uploaded by Ukrainian MIA’s YouTube account. Video’s title translates to: “Militants are moving “Buk” missile system towards border with RF.” According to “YouTube DataViewer,” the video was uploaded on July 18, 2014, at 10:21:11 UTC (13:21:11 EEST).
    On the same day, “Ukrainian multimedia platform for broadcasting” has released an article, which looks like the translation of the one that was just translated. In it, they clearly write that in the video, the truck with the Buk is moving via Krasnodon.
    Avakov’s advisor Anton Gerashchenko has made a post on FB in German, in which he showed the same video and said that it was filmed near Krasnodon.
    On July 18, at 22:37:40 UTC (July 19, 01:37:40 EEST), a copy of the Luhansk video was uploaded to YouTube with a lengthy description and a title in Russian, which translates to: “Junta is moving Buk, which it used to shoot down Boeing, through the city of Krasnoarmeysk” (Picture 34).
    Picture 34
    PICTURE 34A screenshot from a YouTube page of Luhansk video’s copy uploaded on July 18, 2014.
    The description states that this is a repost from VK social media site and says: “A video is being distributed in Ukrainian social media, which allegedly shows that rebels are moving Buk, which launched [a missile], towards RF. But on the video is the city of Krasnoarmeysk, billboard is visible with advertisement of auto saloon on Dnepropetrovskaya 34. Since May 11 and until this day the city is under control of junta’s troops, conducting ATO!”
    Then the description says that on the photo and video with the truck there is a shop Stroydom with address Krasnoarmeysk, Gorkogo 49, that this Buk was on the territory belonging to junta, that everything is clear as day, that Ukrainian army shot down Boeing with this exact Buk, that in order for this video not to become a compromising evidence, Ukrainians say that it is rebels that are moving it, they are liars, and provides some sarcastic examples: Odessans burned themselves [referring to Odessa massacre on May 2], people of Luhansk have exploded an air-conditioner [referring to June 2 air strike in Luhansk city, when Kiev officials said that the area wasn’t bombed by Su-25, but that “the rebel’s anti-aircraft missile reacted to the air-conditioner and exploded”], DNR is shelling their own cities, etc.
    If you search the internet for certain words taken from this video’s description, you will find many posts dated July 18–20, 2014 with the exact or similar text (mentioning billboard, Krasnoarmeysk, Dnepropetrovskaya 34, etc.) on Russian social media sites, blogs, and even on some news sites. For example, this VK page has almost the same description, the same video title, but also more other pro-Russian, anti-Kiev sentences.
    On July 19, Ukrainian spokesman showed a picture during a briefing that had both a screenshot from the Luhansk video and a screenshot of another truck and Buk (Picture 35).
    Picture 35
    PICTURE 35A picture that was shown during a press conference by Kiev on July 19, 2014. Top: a screenshot from the Luhansk video. Bottom: a photo of Ukrainian Buk “312” filmed in March 2014.
    The spokesman said that these were Russian Buks in Ukraine and that Russia ordered the “terrorists” to move them back to Russia after shooting down MH17. The picture of the bottom-left Buk was quickly debunked by Russian bloggers. Even I remember seeing that video of Ukrainian Buk “312” in March 2014.
    According to the Internet Archive, Picture 35 was also on Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) site on July 21, 2014, but a snapshot of the same page from July 23, 2014 no longer shows it.
    On July 19, Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov added a comment to his Facebook post, which translates to: “Taras, footage was made in Luhansk. With GPS coordinates. There is the name of the street and specific place – I’m just not providing” (Picture 36).
    Picture 36
    PICTURE 36A comment by Avakov on Facebook made on July 19, 2014.
    Even though Avakov said in this comment (hidden among dozens or hundreds of other comments to his main post) that the place is Luhansk, there is Luhansk province and Luhansk city. Krasnodon is in Luhansk province. So, “Luhansk” could have been interpreted as either Luhansk city or Luhansk province, because his main post and all other Ukrainian sources said Krasnodon and didn’t say anything about Luhansk.
    On July 21, at the end of Russia’s Ministry of Defense briefing, the spokesman repeated what was being said on July 19–20 in the Russian blogosphere, Russian social media sites, and in some news by saying that the place is Krasnoarmeysk (not Krasnodon, as Ukrainian officials were claiming) because of the billboard. The address that the MoD mentioned (Krasnoarmeysk, Dnepropetrovskaya 34) and that was spread on the Russian internet before the briefing, does or did have the same or similar company as shown on the billboard, and there was probably no such company in Krasnodon. The MoD knew this wasn’t Krasnodon, but didn’t know the location, and repeated the popular version regarding Krasnoarmeysk either due to a mistake after doing basic checks (there was a lot of other data to analyze over that weekend) or most likely, this was their way of saying that Ukrainian officials, the source of the video, are bluffing regarding Krasnodon.
    On July 22, Avakov added another comment to his Facebook post, which translates to: “To stop empty talk – coordinates of the footage: Coordinates of the place where the military vehicles were recorded: 48.545760°, 39.264622°” (Picture 37).
    Picture 37
    PICTURE 37A comment by Avakov on Facebook made on July 22, 2014.
    This is when and how some bloggers have found out where exactly the video was recorded at. The coordinates show a place in the city of Luhansk. Based on other photos of this area that I’ve seen, it does look like the area matches the one in the video (at least the intersection, the cables, and the billboard), and I haven’t seen any alternatives. However, this is not Krasnodon, as the authors of the video were claiming until this point.
    There are Western articles that are still saying that this video is showing Buk in Krasnodon. For example, Daily Mail (Picture 38, a) and Paris Match (Picture 38, b).
    Picture 38
    PICTURE 38Western articles saying that Luhansk video was filmed in Krasnodon. (a) text from Daily Mail article; (b) text from Paris Match article.
    Paris Match even said that they have on record Ukrainian source saying Krasnodon is the picture’s [screenshot from Luhansk video] location (Picture 39).
    Picture 39
    PICTURE 39A representative from Paris Match replying to someone who asked why Paris Match wrote “Krasnodon” in their article.
    In this section, many links were taken from Arnold Greidanus’ article “Re-examining the Luhansk video,” which also has other details.
    Problems
    According to Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, they recorded the Luhansk video themselves on July 18. As was mentioned in the History section, why did Lysenko say during a press conference on July 17 and minutes after MH17 disaster that they know that separatists have Buk and that the video showed [it] when a column was moving through Luhansk? If there is some other video with Buk in Luhansk, where is it? Was this video showing Buk and a missing missile actually made before July 18, Lysenko knew about the video, and he made a Freudian slip?
    The distance between the city of Luhansk and Krasnodon is about 50 km (Picture 40). Krasnodon is closer to the Russian border.
    Picture 40
    PICTURE 40Distance between Luhansk city and Krasnodon.
    Why didn’t Ukrainian officials say right from the start that the Buk shown in the video was filmed in Luhansk city? Why did they say that it was Krasnodon? Why the true location, the coordinates pointing to Luhansk city were published by Avakov in a comment on Facebook, hidden among hundreds of other ones, just a day after Russia’s Ministry of Defense briefing? Since it were Ukrainian “secret agents” who recorded the video, they knew the exact location. This looks like a deliberate deception. They probably did not want Russia to know the true location until after Russia’s major briefing aimed at international and domestic audiences. And there are good reasons why. One of which could be because the day before the video was allegedly made, Ukrainian spokesman made a blunder by saying that Ukraine has a video showing [Buk] in a military column filmed in Luhansk.
    As was mentioned in the History section, during a press conference, Kiev’s spokesman showed a photo of their own Buk filmed in March 2014 and said that this is separatists’ Buk filmed after MH17 was shot down. If they showed this photo as a mistake, how can such a mistake be possible? If they did it knowingly, I don’t think they are that stupid to show a photo from not only a relatively well-known event (of Ukrainian Buk stuck in March; there were multiple videos), but also a photo that shows Buk’s number — “312,” and where one of the missiles has a red tip (meaning, most likely, that the missile is used for training). The only logical explanation I have is, Kiev wanted to be “caught,” they wanted Russians on the internet and Russia’s intelligence to think — at least before Russia’s July 21 briefing — that since Kiev is showing their own Buk in one case, it is more likely that the Luhansk video is also showing Ukrainian Buk filmed in Kiev-controlled territory. They even put a screenshot from Luhansk video and a photo of Buk “312” on the same picture (Picture 35). Since they showed the photo of this Buk “312” and lied about the location of the Buk in the Luhansk video, it is logical to assume that on July 18–19, it was Kiev who also planted disinformation on the Russian internet regarding Krasnoarmeysk. The point of all of this is probably to make Russia not focus much on the Luhansk video, to make them think until the main briefing that Kiev is bluffing regarding Krasnodon (which was the case) and that in the Luhansk video, just like in the case with Buk “312,” it is another Ukrainian Buk filmed somewhere in Kiev-controlled territory.
    In the video, the truck is moving from northwest to southeast (Picture 41, a). If you look at the map of the area (Picture 41, b, c), the most logical and closest road that the vehicle used to enter the city (when taking into account that the same Buk was allegedly in Snizhne, southwest of Luhansk city the day before) is road M04 — west of Luhansk.
    Picture 41
    PICTURE 41Pictures showing the location of the truck as seen in the Luhansk video (represented by balloons), the truck’s direction and its most probable route.
    However, even according to Kiev’s own map, which they showed on July 18, 2014 in a press conference (Picture 42), territories painted blue and yellow of Donetsk and Luhansk regions were already under Kiev’s control at that time, and Ukrainian forces were right by Luhansk city, to the north and to the west of it.
    Picture 42
    PICTURE 42A military map shown by Kiev's spokesman during a press conference on July 18, 2014. According to the map, territories marked blue and yellow are under Kiev’s control.
    According to the authors of the Luhansk video, Moscow ordered the Buk to be sent to Russia and that this same Buk with a missing missile shot down MH17 the previous day. It would have to be moved from Snizhne, near which it allegedly launched a missile at MH17, to the Russian border in the east, because all other border crossings were under Kiev’s control (again, according to Kiev’s own map). However, the movement through Luhansk city makes no sense, as the following map with one of the possible escape routes from Snizhne to Russia shows (Picture 43):
    Picture 43
    PICTURE 43One of the possible routes from Snizhne to Russia. It shows that you don’t need to move through Luhansk city.
    The truck with the Buk would have to travel from Snizhne to Luhansk city, from Luhansk to Russia. This would be around 160 km (Picture 44). But there are no other photos or videos from either dash cams or city cameras allegedly made after MH17 was shot down showing the Buk launcher except this Luhansk video.
    Picture 44
    PICTURE 44A picture showing the distance and the route that the truck with the Buk would have to take in order to get from Snizhne to the Russian border through Luhansk city.
    Let’s look at the video.
    The video shows the Buk launcher with a missing missile, but the Buk’s back is covered. Since the video was allegedly made about twelve hours after MH17 crashed, the driver is aware of what happened. Let’s pretend that you are one of the separatists and you shot down MH17 by accident. Would you then take this strange and dangerous route, cover the Buk’s back, but not the missiles, and parade the Buk with a missing missile in a major city, such as Luhansk? I don’t think so.
    The video and the vehicles are of low picture quality and are blurry (Picture 45). You can’t see neither the numbers on the number plates (Picture 45, a), nor the big telephone number on the yellow plate of the truck, which should be there according to the Paris Match photos (Picture 45, b). You can’t even see the wheels of the truck spinning when the truck is moving.
    Picture 45
    PICTURE 45Screenshots from the Luhansk video showing the truck’s poor picture quality, how blurry it is, and how you can’t read the numbers on the number plate (a) and on the yellow sign (b).
    One explanation regarding the numbers is motion blur, but the truck is not a racing car to be moving too fast, and this video is running at 50 frames per second, meaning the camera was making 50 pictures per second. I think the numbers in this case should be visible, especially when taking into account that it was allegedly recorded by Ukrainian "surveillance team."
    You can only see the truck with the Buk for about four seconds (not hidden behind the trees and bushes) and only at the following area (Picture 46):
    Picture 46
    PICTURE 46A screenshot from the Luhansk video showing the small area where the truck is fully visible.
    Other parts of the road are hidden behind the trees, and the vehicles in the video are at a certain limited angle. This is convenient in case we want to add a truck with the Buk to the video using similar methods that were shown in Zuhres and Snizhne sections, where the added vehicles are actually just photoshopped photos.
    How to fake
    The following example is far from perfect for a number of reasons, but I think it is good enough to make a point (Video 11):

    0:00

    VIDEO 11A modified Luhansk video with an added truck.
    The truck that was added is actually a screenshot of a (not so great, but free) 3D model found on the internet, further modified with Photoshop. I wanted to use a screenshot from a 3D model in this example, because it is my opinion that the truck with the blue line exists only as a 3D model, and that the model was used to make all the known photo and video materials that show it, including the "joker" video and two other known photos, where the truck is without Buk (one of which has a very high resolution). One advantage of using a 3D model instead of a real photo of a unique truck in fake materials is that there are less certain risks. For example, what if we are making a story about some separatists' Buk and creating a fake video with it at one location, but then some camera films this unique truck at that time being elsewhere? Another advantage is that you can easily get a screenshot of the truck at any needed angle at any time to make more materials if needed.
    Of course, in the Luhansk video, even though you can’t see the wheels spinning, it is not just a static photo of the truck and the Buk moving. The vehicles’ angle changes slightly over time and there are other small animations of the areas, for example, marked in Picture 47.
    Picture 47
    PICTURE 47Some of the areas of the truck and the Buk that change over time in the video.
    In the Zuhres example, in order to create a small animation, seven other versions of Kornet-D vehicle were made that are at a slightly different angle, but it would be difficult to use that method in this case. However, there is another way. The following video shows what animation you can create in After Effects and Photoshop when you only have one photo as a source material (Video 12):

    0:00

    VIDEO 12A video showing what animation you can create in After Effects with just one photo.
    Video 12 mimics some of the animation of the truck and the Buk as seen in the Luhansk video. You can see that the angle of the vehicle slightly changes over time. And the only material that was used to create this animation is one photo — the first video frame of Video 12.
    How it was done: First, the whole image was cut into separate pieces: the truck, the Buk, the missile, parts of cover, etc. Then they were combined in the video software to form the whole image. This gave extra control over certain parts of the vehicles (for example, this allows to create an animation, where part of the truck's cabin is moving behind the Buk). Then on top of the standard video software effects, such as movement and rotation, an effect called “Mesh Warp” was used, which allows you to shrink or stretch parts of images over time.

    _________________
    www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
    www.rethink911.org
    www.patriotsquestion911.com
    www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
    www.mediafor911truth.org
    www.pilotsfor911truth.org
    www.mp911truth.org
    www.ae911truth.org
    www.rl911truth.org
    www.stj911.org
    www.v911t.org
    www.thisweek.org.uk
    www.abolishwar.org.uk
    www.elementary.org.uk
    www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
    http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
    "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
    https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News All times are GMT
    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Page 6 of 6

     
    Jump to:  
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum
    You can attach files in this forum
    You can download files in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group