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 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Publicopinion wrote



Ehm... so your scientific evidence for that would be a... billboard without address? Awesome. That's a lot of text to obfuscate the fact, that you have indeed nothing at all.



Yet you fail to understand that the Russians Ministry of Defence couldn't identify the billboard where they state it was? Do you not find that puzzling? Explain why even Russian Today quickly dropped the story? Do you not think with all the Russian Intelligence resources they could identify the billboard and intersection in Krasnoarmeisk? Why after all this time have the Russians not identified the intersection and billboard in Krasnoarmeisk. Explain why no pro-Russian in Krasnoarmeisk has identified and photographed the billboard or interstection from the Buk on a Truck video. Surely it can't be that hard. Remember this is Russian Military Intelligence that we are talking about here. So why after all this time have the Russians not geo-located the position in Krasnoarmeisk as they informed the world of? Why did it take internet sleuths only a matter of weeks of identify the actual location in Luhansk? Explain why the Russian Military Intelligence have not been able to disprove these internet sleuths and researchers? Surely it can't be that hard to match up the location in Krasnoarmeisk with all the resources that the Russians have at their disposal. Explain why they and no pro-Russian can do this basic of tasks?

edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

To me it seems that the billboard is in the location the Ukraine says it is in, only it was shopped into the BUK transport vid, to make it look like it was shot at that location.



The sky is showing where the billboard should be obscuring it.



Here you can see the whole billboard




www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 16-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
This pic could be an original, maybe leaked or something. But as long as we have no concrete image analysis from pro's or a solid source for it's origin, we can only speculate about that.



Are you serious? Get a grip of yourself. This image was the worst fake ever produced. It doesn't even match the MH17 flight profile. Remember that the Russian ICAO signed off and agreed on the MH17 flight profile in the Dutch preliminary report. Explain why the Russian Ministry of Defence lied about the MH17 flight profile in their presentation and the Russian ICAO agreed with the Dutch Safety Board. Think about it? The Boeing 777 in that fake claimed 'satellite' image isn't even on the same flight path, so why did the Russian ICAO sign off on the preliminary report?

Yes the image of the fighter and Boeing 777 is fake and a poor one at that.

www.metabunk.org...



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

No it wasn't photoshopped into the location. Typical die-hard conspiracy theorist non-sense. I get it though it is a mindset. You desperately need to believe in this type of nonsense. I really do feel sorry for you!


edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
[post]a reply to: RogueWave

No it wasn't photoshopped into the location. Typical die-hard conspiracy theorist non-sense. I get it though it is a mindset. You desperately need to believe in this type of nonsense. I really do feel sorry for you!

You'll will be telling me next that the Buk on a Truck video at Zuhres was also photoshopped! Yet again I get that it is a mindset. I know that you can't help it and feel desperately sorry for you!


edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Yes bla bla, you completely ignored the evidence I just posted though.

You seem a little frantic btw......
edit on 16-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo




Surely it can't be that hard. Remember this is Russian Military Intelligence that we are talking about here.


Blaim the Russians I say, we're always short of good scapegoats. Yes, I'm completely lost at your strange talking-point regarding a fricken ... billboard. That's what you wanna talk about, the lack of shared Russian intel on the situation in Ukraine?

Ok, hypothetically spoken: even if the Russians have all this information and provide Bellingcat with further evidence, they would only paint a big crosshair in their face and provoke further attacks due to their meddling with someone elses affairs.
It's the Ukraine after all. Social media is the new Holy Grail to gather information, innit? I'm sure there is a lot to be found if Bellingcat would be interested in the truth and not driven by 'other' agenda.




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

www.metabunk.org...

Aha.



No it wasn't photoshopped into the location. Typical die-hard conspiracy theorist non-sense. I get it though it is a mindset. You desperately need to believe in this type of nonsense. I really do feel sorry for you!


*looks around*




Are you serious? Get a grip of yourself. This image was the worst fake ever produced.



This. Is. Awesome!
Star for you, brilliant!


edit on 16-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yet you fail to understand that it was social media where the Russians took the billboard position in Krasnoarmeisk from. They simply picked up and ran with it without double checking. Explain why such a claimed professional outfit with all their resources couldn't find the exact billboard and intersection in Krasnoarmeisk? Remember they informed the world of this fact and after all this time have never been able to verify their claims. Explain why it took internet sleuths a short time to find the exact location in Luhansk? Explain again why the massive intelligence assets of the Russian Military Intelligence and Russian Ministry of Defence got the geo-location so wrong?



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
One could easily calculate the area based on where the cockpit fell, then calculate a distance of 30 kilometer, 15 degrees to the north and 15 degrees to the south.
This because the BUK was not complete, only the launch vehicle was in that area but it has its own limited radar, it can operate without the other vehicles.
The range of the radar is about 60 to 70 kilometer (above 3km and higher), the radar guided missile has a range of 3 to 32 kilometer which means the BUK was not far away.
Based on the last locations of MH17 the BOOK must have been in or near Snizhne which is about 20 kilometers away.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

If you don't believe me then see following post. The social media post was where the Russian first picked up the info and simply ran with it. This is how they got themselves into a catalogue of errors and presented to the worlds media a complete pack of lies. Even Russia Today quickly stopped reporting it after the true location in Luhansk was found.

www.metabunk.org...-117195



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: earthling42

The US has infrared detecting satellites capable of detecting even the tiniest heat sources (are also being used with forest fires). They don't need that kind of guess work, but the report saying they could not detect where it came from shows it didn't came from the desired location (a Separatist controlled area), it's still even questionable it was actually a BUK...apparently they can't find witnesses who have seen the actual launch.

And besides, both parties where active around Snizhne. Just the day before there was a battle on a checkpoint just to the north-west of Snizhne, only a few kilometres away (just outside the area designated by the report), and to the South there was huge part of the Ukrainian army being cut off right at that time (still in the designated area).
edit on 16 10 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

A Buk missile is not easily spotted and i have my doubt that a satellite was able to spot it in such a short time span, considering the speed at which the Missile and aircraft were approaching each other over a distance of about 30 kilometer.

The BUK has been seen in DNR and LNR, not one but at least two BUK's were transported from LNR into Russia.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: earthling42

Peanuts

Those satellites have been made especially for the task to detect any rocket launch, and the launch of a BUK missile gives a very big heat signature.

Russia had exercises close to the border, but no one has seen any Russian material actually going into the Ukraine (only lots of propaganda about it by NATO, etc.)
edit on 16 10 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Let me get some things straight. That billboard image is not worth any further discussion, just an epic fail with regards to fakery. Thanks to RogueWave for the link to the other thread.
On a sidenode I chose to deny ignorance, sorry to break the believing-thingy for you. What brings me to your 'source' metabunk, which is none at all imho. You either put up or shut up here, that's the groove. You might choose to believe (pun intended) that you've already done so, I just happen to disagree.
Bellingcat got caught once with a fake, I wouldn't be surprised about more disinfo and lies either.

That being said... after pointing fingers at the Russians for the failure to make the homework for you: is there anything else than the usual crap, people at Bellingcat usually make up this time at the year?
Otherwise we could finally agree to disagree on the 'Russian-lie' as well. Nothing wrong with that either, we derailed this topic long enough...

 


a reply to: earthling42



And what is this:



Showed up in a quick search, looks like satellite feed though. But you do have a point as the weather was pretty bad that day. There were even thunderstorms mentioned in the report.

 


This whole thing keeps reminding me of the Nist-report. What about the witnesses for other planes? Or did they 'accidentally' didn't find their way into this cover-up as well? Couldn't find them there yet, thanks in advance for any answers.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Instead of speculating what's in the report try reading it. They discuss the Russian theory of a jet and go into great detail diproving it. They even discuss the request they made for the the radar data that Russia put on display. Unfortunately the Dutch were told the Russians forgot to save the hard data. Silly Russians hold a press conference and forget to hit save.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




try reading it



Believe it or not but I did so and started with the piece in which they did't care to find out who is responsible now. Ya know... the one-pager with map and funny red circle to mock about. Kinda lost my interest in reading more crap then.




They even discuss the request they made for the the radar data that Russia put on display



Wow! That raises an eyebrow indeed. How dumb do they think we are? I thought that data wouldn't be of use as it was an internal cover-up only? Did they discuss the lack of US intel as well?




Silly Russians hold a press conference and forget to hit save.



Silly investigators were offline with no access to youtube. Didn't pay their bills I guess?
edit on 17-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Silly investigators were offline with no access to youtube. Didn't pay their bills I guess?


The "it must be true, there's a YouTube video" type of investigation is thankfully not what has happened in this case.







 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join