U.S.: Satellite Imagery Shows Russians Shelling Eastern Ukraine

Just to add a little vid keeping things in context

originally posted by: intrptr
No, because to date there is no direct evidence. Show me forensics. A biot of rocket or shell fragment with date code and mil lot # would do nicely.

Because you can access Russian inventory records and confirm it, of course?

And even if they did provide a picture of the shells, the serial numbers, or even an image of the shells being fired, you'd still claim they were fake and we'd be back to this same old roundabout of nonsense...

I always find it quite bemusing that persons such as yourself take everything Russia says at face value, without any doubt, despite them not offering up any actual evidence, yet when the West does it with satellite imagery, taped conversations and the like, it's to be discarded as an obvious fraud?

What a peculiar world we live in...

originally posted by: stumason

What a peculiar world we live in...

That bit's quite true....the only bit.

Hilarious. The US makes comments and people say release the imagery. They release the imagery and now it's give me the model and serial number on a shell. If they do that it will be now prove that shell was fired. Always moving the goalposts.

a reply to: smurfy

God knows how I am going to provide a rebuttal to such an insightful and razor sharp point....

You have me defeated, sir.....

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

God knows how I am going to provide a rebuttal to such an insightful and razor sharp point....

You have me defeated, sir.....

Well I gave you a star for that...not that you need the fecking things
Anyway, as regards the latest offering of these pictures, I just looked at BBC news with their American correspondent, actually he is their man in America, and he is waving , "These grainy pictures" and looking very pissed off, and repeatedly being blued out in sound and vision. I don't think he is convinced at all, at all!

a reply to: smurfy

They do seem to multiply of their own accord - I think I have an infection....

Anyhoo, my main point was that we've had demands of proof from the pro-Russian lot and when provided, it is dismissed. But on the flip-side, Russia just throws out odd theories, denials and no evidence at all (aside from a radar track which didn't actually show anything at all) and this is taken as gold and even regurgitated over and over, even when debunked (the old SU-25 shot it down theory.....)

originally posted by: demus
It is interesting that despite the claim in the title: "imagery shows" you can read in these articles that "they say offer proof", "DNI claims", "is said to show"...

So if this is 100% reliable evidence why the reports don't just say that "it shows" Russians shelling Ukraine and that it is a proof of Russian involvement.???

I guess because it isn't and it is just one more propaganda bit that relies on ignorance of average citizen...

How exactly does the impartial tone of the article count against the veracity of the satellite imagery? That's one crappy argument you have there.

And you make this argument right after whinging about how the media "parrots the official line" - bizarre.

All I can say is: If you want irrefutable proof of one thing or the other, go over to Ukraine and find it. I mean none of us can deny that Putin took Crimea, so why is it that far of a stretch to assume that Putin might want the rest of Ukraine?
If your all worried about intervention, I hate to break it to you but the US has a treaty with Ukraine.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

God knows how I am going to provide a rebuttal to such an insightful and razor sharp point....

You have me defeated, sir.....

Well I gave you a star for that...not that you need the fecking things

Anyway, as regards the latest offering of these pictures, I just looked at BBC news with their American correspondent, actually he is their man in America, and he is waving , "These grainy pictures" and looking very pissed off, and repeatedly being blued out in sound and vision. I don't think he is convinced at all, at all!

of course grainy pictures that can be interpreted in different ways!

but should we be "convinced"?

shouldn't proof be proof?

if we are talking about "convincing", "persuading", "claiming" are we talking about proofs?

it is clear from Obama and other US officials that they are trying to persuade EU countries to embrace further sanctions for Russia; they are not trying to hide it - they say it openly.

what we see is just a one more case of "WMDs in Iraq", "Syrian chemical attack" and other similar episodes of government deception for temporary effect without any regard for the truth or the facts.

a reply to: demus

what we see is just a one more case of "WMDs in Iraq", "Syrian chemical attack" and other similar episodes of government deception for temporary effect without any regard for the truth or the facts.

Agreed. Despite what the experts on here all agree upon, I stopped believing anything my government tells us anymore.

A_N_Y_T_H_I_N_G

.

a reply to: intrptr

But you (and others) will happily believe every word from the Kremlin, why?

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: intrptr

But you (and others) will happily believe every word from the Kremlin, why?

who is talking about Kremlin?

it is US and it's allies who is constantly accusing Russia without any proof.

and when somebody point out that they don't have any proof and are waging propaganda war you guys throw in Kremlin and Putin...

it is Putin who said MH17 tragedy shouldn't be used for political purposes; I just didn't see the same or even close rhetoric from the other side - only BIG Screaming News TITLES about Russia being responsible for this or that in Ukraine but without any real proof,

even admitting they don't have any proof...

let me know if a US politician made more sense in light of different events:

This clip has a little different take on it .

here is a nice analysis of "proof" that are US satellite images:

hint - it's nothing, no proof of anything.

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

www.businessinsider.com...



Lol and some members here just lap it up

Dp

a reply to: sosobad

Lol and some members here just lap it up

Much like those who lap up the Russian media propaganda like a hot dog at a water bowl.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: sosobad

Lol and some members here just lap it up

Much like those who lap up the Russian media propaganda like a hot dog at a water bowl.

So you acknowledge that the American government is using propaganda against their own people, why wouldn't they be using it now? This phantom evidence that points to nothing.

Probably stupid question:

It is almost time of harvest. Crops on fields are often dry. Wouldn't salvo from such beast, as Grad MRL is, set fields ablaze?