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.

 

MH 17 from another perspective

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The US has been bluffing for a year about MH17. Their bluff has been called, and they cannot prove their claims.



And what about your own claims of cannon-fire? What about your claims of witnessing taken down footage of MH17 with an engine on fire on the BBC? Explain why the Russians don't question the DSB report in regards to air-to-air shootdown claims. The claims, just like your own, are ridiculous. Explain why the Russian Ministry of Defence muddied the waters with the ridiculous Su-25 claims and the claims of diverted flight path?

Bellingcat Link




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Cherry-picking one point, you came to another conclusion. The information was already there as he mentioned your point himself, I just didn't bother to quote that part. How can it be an epic fail then, care to elaborate?

Anyway, nobody said we ought to believe that crap. The Russians released their data before the investigation started as the DOD gave us a laughable graphic at that time, forgot about that as well? How was that not part of the investigation and thus top secret material?

DOD press conference graphic



Good question at 7:00 mins in the vid. Go for it!



Explain why the Russian Ministry of Defence muddied the waters with the ridiculous Su-25 claims and the claims of diverted flight path?


So you chose to believe everything the Bellingcat plays with? We don't know if the Russians muddied the waters as there is not a single clear drop of US intel to compare it with. Or to put it your way: which waters?

edit on 15-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: more



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

My claim of cannon fire is based ONLY upon what damage was observed in various photos on the internet and elsewhere.

I have seen aircraft damaged from gunfire, and the damage to MH17 looks very much like it. The Dutch are never going to admit that because they are trying to reinforce the NATO story of Russian BUK. I don't expect them to say it. On the contrary, I fully expected they would regurgitate the NATO story. I predicted that outcome a few weeks ago here at ATS.

I don't need the Russians to tell me how to think, and I don't need NATO to tell me how to think. Anybody that's ever seen an aircraft on the receiving end of gunfire knows what it looks like.

Maybe I'm wrong, but judging from the coverup by NATO, I'm probably right.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The graphic will be showing the location of the SBRIS data. Have you ever seen SBIRS data? I have and it is just a pinpoint on a map of a recorded plume event. The graphic just tidies it up. What on earth did you think a SBIRS event would show? I blame Hollywood for this and the claims of satellites reading number plates, etc.

The Russian Ministry of Defence presentation was simply a hit piece to muddy the waters. Explain why the Russians couldn't supply the actual radar data of this claimed Su-25? That is because the radar returns simply showed the returns from the break up of the Boeing 777.

Of course the Russians muddied the waters. With all their resources they couldn't even geo-locate the video of the buk on the truck. Even Russia Today quickly dropped the Russian MoD claim that it was filmed in Ukrainian Government controlled territory when it was found that it was filmed in Luhansk.

Why did the Russian Ministry of Defence alter the flight path of MH17 in their press conference? That most certainly muddied the waters as it led to every conspiracy theorist jumping on this mythical flight path deviation. It still continues today. The reality is the the Russia ICAO confirmed and agreed with the MH17 flight route and signed off on it as part of the preliminary report. There was no deviation from the flight path and it was the crew of MH17 themselves that requested a weather diversion. So why did the Russian Ministry of Defence muddy the waters with their version of the flight path?

The answer to that is that the Russian Ministry of Defence had to alter the flight path to fit their satellite presentation and their claims of the positons of the Ukrainian Buks. They got caught out manipulating the dates of some of the imagery. The Ukrainian Buks had to be deployed but they failed to take into consideration that one of the Buks they moved was actually a disabled Buk and had been for some time at the depot. So yet again they attempted to muddy the waters by lying about the dates of the presented satellite images.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

It looks nothing like cannon-fire. Think about it? Why is Almaz-Antey not highlighting all this cannon-fire damage in amongst the Buk warhead damage? Looks like doesn't mean it is. No you don't know what cannon-fire damage looks and you are just caught up in your own conspiracy beliefs. I get it though it is a mindset. So why are the Russians not going down the line of the cannon-fire any more? Your claims are as bad as your belief of seeing footage on TV of MH17 with its engine on fire. You are entirely wrong!



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




I have seen aircraft damaged from gunfire, and the damage to MH17 looks very much like it.


And yet it wasn't.

SO now we have Russia's own BUK manufacturer say it was a BUK, and now we have the final report that says it was a BUK but somehow it was shot with gunfire by a plane that could never fly that high...time to give up the cannon fire theory.



The Dutch are never going to admit that because they are trying to reinforce the NATO story of Russian BUK.


When did NATO get involved with Ukraine?

And Russia's own expert on the BUK said it was a BUK...what is unclear about that?



On the contrary, I fully expected they would regurgitate the NATO story. I predicted that outcome a few weeks ago here at ATS.


Again when did NATO get involved in this...just because the Netherlands are a NATO country it doesn't mean NATO is part of this...it amazes me when people seem to always forget that point.

And no you didn't.



I don't need the Russians to tell me how to think


And yet you push the same cannon fire theory that Russia has been trying to push since it happened...seems like they did.



Maybe I'm wrong, but judging from the coverup by NATO, I'm probably right.


Yes you are.

What cover up?

No your not.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo




It looks nothing like cannon-fire. Think about it? Why is Almaz-Antey not highlighting all this cannon-fire damage in amongst the Buk warhead damage?


Here you go this should help explain it for him.



But I do doubt it.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The Russians got caught out by lying about the dates of their presented satellite imagery. They got caught out due to the fact that one of the Buk TELARS at A1428 unit has been disabled for some time. The Buk had to be deployed as part of the Russian story so they lied about the date. In reality the disabled Buk TELAR had been there before MH17 was downed and was still there after. It never moved!

See following for original Russian MOD presented satellite image and the Digital Globe match ups to prove that the Russian MOD lied. And you say that they never muddied the waters?

Forum Link

Image link of disabled Buk TELAR at A1428



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The following is straight from the Russian Ministry of Defence satellite imagery presentation.

In order to get the Ukrainian Buks "deployed" on July 17th they had to lie. They got caught out "deploying" a disabled Ukrainian Buk by using older imagery and claiming that it was from July 17th. Naughty Russians and it certainly did muddy the waters. As you can see they had the Buk clearly labelled as Buk-M1. Ouch!

Image link

The text the naughty Russian used. Ouch! Of course it was absent as they lied about the date and used older imagery.


Here you can see a photo of the same area on July 17. Draw your attention that the antiaircraft system is absent on this photo.


Image link

Russian MOD sat presentation link

And just to re-enforce it again this is the Buk TELAR that they claimed was deployed on the 17th July! Ouch again!

Disabled Buk TELAR
edit on 15/10/2015 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Who on Ceres cares about a broken TELAR? Blaim Hollywood maybe? Again:



Of course the Russians muddied the waters


Which 'clear' waters are you talking about? You would seriously consider that 'HD latest Digital Globe 2010 data' with funny Clip-Arts could be actual evidence? Why?
And where exactly did you add any proof to your claim, that the Russians lied?

Are we still talking Bellingcat-games?

edit on 15-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Where is it ever claimed that the graphic is actual evidence? It is repeatedly stressed that it is based on classified information.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Who on Ceres cares about a broken TELAR? Blaim Hollywood maybe? Again:


Someone trying to use it.

Why blame Hollywood what do they have to do with it?



And where exactly did you add any proof to your claim, that the Russians lied?


Well when you change the wiki page of the SU 25 just to back a claim that has been shown to be false that would be a lie.



Are we still talking Bellingcat-games?


Unlike Russia's game?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Of course it isn't, but he used it as proof for 'his' theory and I'm curious to know why.
Context was this statement:



See following for original Russian MOD presented satellite image and the Digital Globe match ups to prove that the Russian MOD lied. And you say that they never muddied the waters?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Russia didn't fake anything yet, at least not that I'm aware of. Bellingcat did so, take a closer look here.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Russia didn't fake anything yet, at least not that I'm aware of.


You've never seen this picture?



You seem reasonably intelligent; what do you think the odds are that a spy satellite would be passing directly overhead at the exact moment that an air-to-air missile was exactly half way between the fighter and the plane? My theory is that the biggest change that happened when the KGB became the FSB is that they developed a sense of humor.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The thing is, I never saw that pic in the Rus. press-conference. Can you verify the source? You seem reasonably intelligent as well, which makes me wonder why you didn't mention how you stumbled upon that piece of pictueresque evidence in the first place.
edit on 15-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Please direct your comments to one of these two ongoing threads

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks







 
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join