Malaysian 777 Passenger Airline Shot Down Over Eastern Ukraine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: dragonridr


It wasn't small arms fire, it was cannon fire from an airborne platform.

So Russia is lying then? They said it was a BUK.

Jfc who bumped this thread?!?!

I have a co-worker on a plane heading in that area and seeing this about gave me a stroke.

This is why we don't bump threads that are 4 years old. Good grief. Your "much needed input" half a decade later better be worth my still pounding heart.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Honest analysis requires that ANY party can be lying, no question.

But many factors enter into analysis, including the propensity of either party to deceive. And of course the facts, including the fact of suppression of evidence, in the court of public opinion.

Why would Russia want to lie when they were the ones being framed?

a reply to: Salander

And yet, you keep claiming that the Almaz-Antay analysis, saying it definitely was a BUK surface to air missile that brought the flight down is wrong. So, either the Russian company that made the missiles is lying, or your analysis is wrong.

a reply to: Zaphod58


No, there are several possible scenarios.

A-A's conclusion was predicated on the presumption that a BUK brought it down. That presumption could have been wrong.

A-A was not lying, they made a mistake.

or others could be misrepresenting A-A's work as to its presumptions.

My position is that there are no facts to support the BUK conclusion, in that nobody could provide a photo of its launch or ascent, in this age of very sophisticated imagery satellites, and that the evidence so quickly taken down contradicted the BUK theory in many ways. That is why the material was so quickly taken down.

The removal of photographic evidence from the internet is a common practice in this age of Snowden and Sonnenfeld.

a reply to: Salander

There was no misrepresentation. The conclusion was posted in Russian media with the presentation.

They didn't start with the conclusion it was a BUK, they performed their own investigation and came to that conclusion, per their presentation.

They did their own tests, using their own missiles and a fuselage section and analyzed the damage pattern and matched it to the pictures of MH17.

But of course, they were mistaken.

a reply to: Zaphod58


They were not allowed to examine all of the evidence associated with this incident. Their point that older systems were no longer in the Soviet inventory was probably correct, but irrelevant.

As is the case with so many events, for analysis it can be divided into 2 components: the shootdown itself, and the cover-up that came after, the suppression of video and other evidence.

There is a reason for the cover-up, and it speaks volumes. If the case for a BUK is so solid, why can't it stand on its own? Why must evidence be suppressed?

The answer is obvious--there is something to hide. Besides Kiev keeping the radar and ATC records hidden away, there is something more to hide.

Think like an investigator. Recognize the role of propaganda and wonder why.

a reply to: Salander

The cover up was on the part of the Donbassholes, who had days to tamper with the evidence. Aren't you supposed to be focusing on the Skripal assassination now?

a reply to: DJW001


No sir, the cover-up is conducted by the US and probably NATO. Likely Israel is somehow involved too.

The cover-up began with Kiev changing routing and altitude for the flight, and keeping those records away from public examination.

The cover-up began with the US providing NOTHING AT ALL to support its claims. It continued with BBC quickly withdrawing the evidence that plainly contradicted the official MSM narrative.

It continued with all Bellingcat's psychobabble and misinformation. And on, and on, just like the Energizer Bunny.

a reply to: Salander

OK sure. Once again you're the smartest and bestest investigator out there and smarter than everyone else.

a reply to: Salander


How is the weather in St Petersburg today?

a reply to: oldcarpy


Probably better than it is in Washington DC.

a reply to: Salander

The one piece of evidence that got me leaning that way was how it was an Israel news agency that first had the full western official story within an hour or two of the incident. I was online and on ATS that day as the news / grapevine lit up about it all.

I have not seen much evidence / perspectives since then, but there is a stink to it all.

a reply to: kwakakev

The one piece of evidence that got me leaning that way was how it was an Israel news agency that first had the full western official story within an hour or two of the incident. I was online and on ATS that day as the news / grapevine lit up about it all.

Israel is several hours ahead of Western Europe and North America. Their journalists were already wide awake and following the story. What they reported were facts that were unfolding, not "the official story." The "official story" coming out of the Kremlin kept changing in a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.

a reply to: Salander

No sir, the cover-up is conducted by the US and probably NATO. Likely Israel is somehow involved too.

Do you get a bonus for implied Anti-Semitism?

a reply to: kwakakev


I was exposed to the event by US mainstream media. As a regular watcher of the evening news, I could see quickly this was a huge propaganda effort in play. All the quotes and statements were from "anonymous sources" within State and DoD.

While Russia provided radar records of theirs within a week or so, the US never once provided any facts or evidence to support their claims.

And the way the BBC footage was so quickly withdrawn made it clear a cover-up was also in play.

a reply to: Salander

Russia's "proof" was debunked within an hour. And that goes for every time they changed their story and presented "proof" that contradicted their previous narrative.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


You mean it was "debunked" by the same folks who have refused to present any evidence to support their claims?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcalibur254


You mean it was "debunked" by the same folks who have refused to present any evidence to support their claims?

No evidence here?

a reply to: Salander

Russia debunked themselves with their own words. For example, one of the last narratives they presented included a radar return. Russia themselves said that the radar was in standby mode. That radar would not have picked up what they claimed it did if it was in standby mode.