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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Salander
The fuselage took cannon fire.
I was joking...
.but guarantee you get a pro Russian backer at some point who says that.
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!
originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Xcalibur254
Says the guy using Bellingcat, a known and proven hoaxer, as a source........
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.
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.....
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.....
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.
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.
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.