It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Angry families of MH17 crash victims seek U.N. investigation

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
Russia ready to share evidence regarding MH17 crash with international investigation

The Ukrainian soldier who gave evidence on the crash of the Boeing passenger plane over eastern Ukraine is entitled to the witness protection program, IC spokesman Vladimir Markin said



MOSCOW, December 24. /TASS/. Russia’s Investigative Committee (IC) is prepared to share newly-discovered evidence regarding last summer’s Malaysian Boeing disaster in Ukraine with the international panel of inquiry, IC spokesman Vladimir Markin has told TASS.


Source



Why did Russia with-hold this evidence? Wasn't it supposed to turn over everything to the Dutch authorities when the investigation began? This smells fishy....




posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What about the witness who just came clean with his story ?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

What about the witness who just came clean with his story ?


I agree, that's extremely fishy too... At this point, the FSB seems intent on muddying the waters as much as possible, so that when the official investigation releases its conclusions, people will not be sure if they can be trusted. Of course, some people already believe that it can only be a "Nazi false flag."



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I only said nothing fishy about it, because the witness just could have come clean just now.

He has family still in the Ukraine and you don`t know when he came to Russia.
edit on 24 12 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

I only said nothing fishy about it, because the witness just could have come clean just now.

He has family still in the Ukraine and you don`t know when he came to Russia.


Or he could just be a Russian actor doing a Ukrainian accent.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

They are willing to hand over the information to the Dutch investigators, so they are probably pretty sure about it.

The Dutch investigators have already conducted lots of witnesses interrogations and are sure wanting to do the same with him if they are serious about finding it out.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

They are willing to hand over the information to the Dutch investigators, so they are probably pretty sure about it.

The Dutch investigators have already conducted lots of witnesses interrogations and are sure wanting to do the same with him if they are serious about finding it out.


Certainly... but what if his testimony contradicts other testimony? And in any event, can't you see that the Russians are hedging their bets here? If the evidence points to a surface missile, and there is no objective evidence for a jet, then the Russians can use this guy to claim it was a Ukrainian missile!



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

There should be way more evidence as this, the shrapnel on the wreckage should tell, just as possible fragments in the body of the pilots and chemical traces on the wreckage to support which witnesses are telling the truth.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

There should be way more evidence as this, the shrapnel on the wreckage should tell, just as possible fragments in the body of the pilots and chemical traces on the wreckage to support which witnesses are telling the truth.


You've been watching too much TV. You can send evidence to the lab and get your answers by the end of the commercial break there. In real life, it's not so simple. The wreckage was shot at by rebels, rained on and baked in the Sun. What little evidence that is left may have been tampered with by the Rebels, the Russians or even the Dutch.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



You've been watching too much TV


Yeah, I listened to the head investigator...sorry my bad, I won`t do it again.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001



You've been watching too much TV


Yeah, I listened to the head investigator...sorry my bad, I won`t do it again.


I have a feeling you really won't. He might say something that doesn't agree with your reality.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The Canadian investigator has ALREADY said some things that contradict your own 'official' reality.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: DJW001

The Canadian investigator has ALREADY said some things that contradict your own 'official' reality.



What "Canadian investigator?" Someone with access to the crash site, wreckage, eyewitnesses, flight recorder and satellite tracking data... or some guy on the internet?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

A Canadian investigator on the site, as interviewed by a female reporter for some news agency or the other. Sorry for the lack of specifics.

Michael Bociurkiw, with the group OSCE.

From hand written notes here, also interesting were the comments of Peter Haisenko, I think a former East German pilot.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I always find it interesting when Russia releases specific information while remaining non specific about where the info comes from.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Ah yes, the man who lied about being with the OSCE and a former Communist who had no access to the site but based his "investigation" on what he read on Russian web sites. Both were discredited months ago.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You are so quick to discard anyone and relaying your own "falsified vision"

Her is the interview that I think Salander had in mind.
www.cbc.ca...

I don't know how the story told by Mr. Bociurkiw correlates to the topic you are discussing, but evidently this guy is not someone who "made his investigation based on Russian web sites" I don't think he is either communist, but this fact is irrelevant to the issue. He may be communist or federalist or even Marsian but one thing is obvious he was an eyewitness of the crash site, probably among the first people outside locals.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: DJW001

You are so quick to discard anyone and relaying your own "falsified vision"

Her is the interview that I think Salander had in mind.
www.cbc.ca...

I don't know how the story told by Mr. Bociurkiw correlates to the topic you are discussing, but evidently this guy is not someone who "made his investigation based on Russian web sites" I don't think he is either communist, but this fact is irrelevant to the issue. He may be communist or federalist or even Marsian but one thing is obvious he was an eyewitness of the crash site, probably among the first people outside locals.


That is not the "OSCE spokesperson" I was referring to. How does what he say support the new alleged witness' story?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not among those "internet investigators" I don't follow details what was your discussion with Salander.
But Salander gave you the name of Bociurkiw and you replied thus




Ah yes, the man who lied about being with the OSCE and a former Communist who had no access to the site but based his "investigation" on what he read on Russian web sites. Both were discredited months ago.

It was a direct reply to what Salander said about whom he is thinking gave the interview.

Now, what you had in mind dismissing Salander I don't know and frankly I'm not interested, but you were wrong in insulting Salander.

This small incident just shows how "unbiased" you are.



edit on 26-12-2014 by kitzik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not among those "internet investigators" I don't follow details what was your discussion with Salander.
But Salander gave you the name of Bociurkiw and you replied thus




Ah yes, the man who lied about being with the OSCE and a former Communist who had no access to the site but based his "investigation" on what he read on Russian web sites. Both were discredited months ago.

It was a direct reply to what Salander said about whom he is thinking gave the interview.

Now, what you had in mind dismissing Salander I don't know and frankly I'm not interested, but you were wrong in insulting Salander.

This small incident just shows how "unbiased" you are.




My apologies to Salendar and yourself. I have not yet finished my morning coffee, and mistook Bociurkiw for Einars Graudin, a Russian propaganda puppet. I look forward to you making similar corrections to all parties on this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join