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.

 

MH17 - The Open Source Evidence

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




If you are refering to that BUK pic I think you are refering to then it was shopped if I recall correctly.


I was joking...but guarantee you get a pro Russian backer at some point who says that.




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


Let's talk about scientific evidence before we take anecdotal Fakebook-crap seriously.Der Spiegel took as much distance as possible as they realized the mistake to run a Bellingcat-fake.

Now you know why I wouldn't consider Bellingcat (and social-media information in general) automatically a decent source. Bellingcat either lied or they were dishonest once, why should anybody take them serious now?

Also, I think the people in this thread didn't intent to attack Bellingcat personally but rather their methods and body of work/ opinions. We should never, and I mean never, swallow "social media open source evidence" (haha) unconditionally.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Funny you should say that as Webster Tarpley had a rally in NY and was interviewed by Press TV and someone else but was told that RT's policy does not allow them to do pro-Russian pieces so take that and put it in your pipe and have a great day .



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
I would be surprised if the report from the Dutchs doesn't take into consideration plane debris analysis like the report of Bellingcat.


Maybe we are heading to a surprise :

Moscow asks UN aviation agency to intervene into MH17 probe report



Russia has appealed to the head of the UN aviation agency to intervene in the investigation into the MH17 crash in Ukraine to prevent the Dutch experts in charge from ignoring the findings of their Russian counterparts, according to a new media report.

The Deputy Chief of Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency, Oleg Storchevoy, sent a letter to Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, the head of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), after becoming acquainted with a draft of the final report by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is heading the probe. This was revealed by Malaysian newspaper the New Straits Times on Sunday.

The letter, received by the ICAO on September 16, states that the DSB ignored “comprehensive information” provided by the Russian side and relating to the downing of the Boeing 777 over war-torn Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the media report said. In the letter, Storchevoy said that, in conducting its investigation, the DSB had violated the principle of “sequence of conclusions,” one of the most fundamental rules when conducting probes into air crashes.

He went on to explain that, instead of conducting its investigation in a logical order, by first examining the damage to the airplane and then, based on this analysis, drawing conclusions as to its cause and source, the DSB had begun with an assumed hypothesis, and worked backward to demonstrate that the evidence met the criteria necessary to prove their preconceived conclusion.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think that from the start this event has been spun as anti-Russian propaganda. Actually, understanding human nature and dirty politics, I KNOW this event was staged for anti-Russian propaganda. There may have been some other subliminal messages, but its main purpose was to frame the Russians. The fuselage took cannon fire.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
The fuselage took cannon fire.



So why is the manufacturers of the Buk (Almaz Antey) not highlighting this "cannon-fire"? Surely they would acknowledge in their investigation that in addition to the Buk warhead damage that they also can see "cannon-fire" damage? No the fuselage did not take cannon fire damage!
edit on 12/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So in other words the report says exactly what the West had been saying the whole time. MH-17 was downed by a BUK in rebel held territory. I see this as just another plot by the Russians to muddy the waters and breed suspicion. The investigation could have gone 100% by the books but this letter further cements in the minds of Russia's supporters that a cover up is going on. It's the exact same thing they've been doing throughout this entire investigation.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




I was joking...


Yes you were "joking".Only the "joke" is not valid cause the pics ARE photoshopped.




.but guarantee you get a pro Russian backer at some point who says that.


I actually reviewed the op's source and backed up my claim. I see you didn't touch it, only responded with some empty words.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Says the guy using Bellingcat, a known and proven hoaxer, as a source........



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Salander
The fuselage took cannon fire.



So why is the manufacturers of the Buk (Almaz Antey) not highlighting this "cannon-fire"? Surely they would acknowledge in their investigation that in addition to the Buk warhead damage that they also can see "cannon-fire" damage? No the fuselage did not take cannon fire damage!


I'm guessing Almaz did not get to visit the crash site.

Further, they are now saying, according to today's RT, that what they saw suggested an early model of the BUK, not its latest model, -A1 designation I believe. Also from RT is a video showing a detonation of the BUK in proximity to an IL 86.

Cannon fire to the cockpit is what the early pictures showed. Possible air 2 air missile up the tailpipe.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Says the guy using Bellingcat, a known and proven hoaxer, as a source........


Interesting. Please provide evidence that Bellingcat is a hoaxer.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander


Further, they are now saying, according to today's RT, that what they saw suggested an early model of the BUK, not its latest model, -A1 designation I believe. Also from RT is a video showing a detonation of the BUK in proximity to an IL 86.

Cannon fire to the cockpit is what the early pictures showed. Possible air 2 air missile up the tailpipe.


I see that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It was cannon fire that shot it down, but anyway, the missile that downed it was out of date.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Dutch premier Mark Rutte would rather 'not speculate about the culprits' as stated in his latest press conference :

Rutte: Lessen trekken uit OVV-rapport MH17
Article in Dutch.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I showed that he is using photoshopped pictures. His analysis of the Russian satelite images was also proven to be completely wrong, by the inventor of image analysis software he used. I posted this in this thread.....



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: DJW001

I showed that he is using photoshopped pictures. His analysis of the Russian satelite images was also proven to be completely wrong, by the inventor of image analysis software he used. I posted this in this thread.....


The Russian "satellite photo" was a palpable fake.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: DJW001

I showed that he is using photoshopped pictures. His analysis of the Russian satelite images was also proven to be completely wrong, by the inventor of image analysis software he used. I posted this in this thread.....


I did you the favor of double checking your claim. You provided no source.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Says the guy using Bellingcat, a known and proven hoaxer, as a source........


Interesting. Please provide evidence that Bellingcat is a hoaxer.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think most sane people take Der Spiegel more seriously than internet-gossip.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Says the guy using Bellingcat, a known and proven hoaxer, as a source........


Interesting. Please provide evidence that Bellingcat is a hoaxer.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think most sane people take Der Spiegel more seriously than internet-gossip.


Since when is "the investigation is not conclusive" the same thing as "a proven hoax?"



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



Because that became apparent when we continue the theme worked - as we always do it to one thing really to get to the bottom. According to first reports, we conducted an interview with the picture forensic scientist Jens Kriese, who criticized the Bellingcat report and the conclusion came: The analysis of satellite images will not lead to the conclusion that Moscow is lying. The interview that we published yesterday morning on our home page, allows you to get a more nuanced picture of the theme.
Self-critically we must hold: This professional skepticism in dealing with the source material, the questioning of the source we should bring more expressed already in previous articles. We learn from it and take in front of us, so to heed in future cases. Because we want to inform you, dear readers, so sincere and transparent as possible about the world events. And of course we stay tuned on MH17 topic.

www.spiegel.de...

They jumped to Bellingcats conclusion and were deeply sorry for that in the aftermath.

A propaganda-lie is just a lie after all, not an inconclusive investigation. But if that's all you have to say about this, I would guess your research is not conclusive at all.


edit on 13-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
russia-insider.com...

If the Russian source is not good enough, the maker of the tool made tweets that are still there.







 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join