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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Russian radar data shows no missile attack on MH17 from rebel side, indicates Ukraine involvement

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Considering the amount of lies the Russian government has pushed on this topic I dont trust this latest push anymore than the other lies they tried to push.

Ironic though that Russia says this considering they showed us a military aircraft shooting it down while also saying it was shot down by a buk that only Ukraine has.

So the Russian radar can track what occurs so long as its not a Russian military asset.

Russia vetoed the tribunal proposal in the UN. This is coming back up now because in May of 2016 the Dutch stated the criminal investigation was in its final stretch and would present its case in a few months time. Sounds like Russia is once again trying to shirk responsibility.

So yeah.......




Russian Media Coverage
See also: Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis

Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage in most other countries and significantly changed over time.[280][281]

Over the few weeks preceding the crash separatist media celebrated acquisition of the "Buk" launchers and downing of numerous Ukrainian air force airplanes. On the evening following the crash, the lifenews.ru portal released a triumphant statement of the separatists saying that a "Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport plane" had been shot down by a missile and crashed.[282] ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti had also reported that an An-26 had been shot down by the militia (separatists) near Torez at around 16:00 local time.[283][284] Shortly after it became evident that the plane was a civilian one the separatist media denied any involvement in the crash and possession of anti-aircraft missiles.

The Russian government-funded[285] outlet RT initially said that the plane may have been shot down by Ukraine in a failed attempt to assassinate Vladimir Putin, in a plot which was organised by Ukraine's "Western backers".[286][287] Other theories propagated by Russian media include: that the Ukrainians shot down the plane in a botched attempt at mass murder of Russian citizens or by mistake (reported twice, in July[288] and in December[289]); that Ukrainian air traffic controllers purposefully redirected the flight to fly over the war zone; and that the Ukrainian government organised the attack on the plane to bring infamy upon the pro-Russian rebels.[290]

Large number of fakes and various conspiracy theories were distributed in Russian mass media in due course, their appearance usually coinciding with updates from the Dutch Safety Board.[291] For example, on 15 November 2014, Russia's Channel One reported on a supposedly leaked spy satellite photo which shows the plane being shot from behind by a Ukrainian fighter jet.[292][293] Many other Russian media reprinted the photo. The authenticity of the photo was questioned by online commentators.[294] The photo had been emailed to the Vice-President of the Russian Union of Engineers by a self-described aviation expert who had found it on a Russian online forum.[295] The aviation expert later apologised, saying that he was unhappy with how the information been used.[295]

According to the poll conducted by the Levada Center between 18 and 24 July 80% of Russians surveyed believed that the crash of MH17 was caused by the Ukrainian military. Only 3% of respondents to the poll blamed the disaster on pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.[296][297][298]

In July 2014, Sara Firth, who had worked as a correspondent with RT for the previous five years, resigned in protest at the channel's coverage of the crash, which she described as "lies".[299] RT said Firth had left to take another job.[300]

A number of low-profile independent Russian media have however questioned the official version and followed the DSB investigation. In July 2014, the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands").[301][302]

In January 2015 the Council of the European Union expressed concern over Russian statements questioning the investigation into the downing of flight MH 17 and emphasised that the investigation "is carried out by a fully independent expert team of international experts in full compliance with ICAO rules and regulations, and calls on all parties to fully cooperate with the investigation."[303]

edit on 26-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why didn't the good old USA release their data ? There are a lot of why questions to this case as well as other cases that the good old USA seems to be very silent on while at the same time very vocal of what their opinion is pertaining to what ever news event they are spinning .



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Probably because this is a criminal investigation. Why would the US want to potentially hurt the prosecution's by prematurely releasing evidence to the public? The JIT says that they have pinpointed the location the BUK was fired from. How do you know their ability to do so want in part thanks to data from the US?

Russia on the other hand has done everything in their power to prevent justice from being served. They vetoed the UN tribunal. Time and again they have presented misinformation. Time and again they have presented blatant falsehoods.

The US' actions have been ambiguous at worst. Russia's on the other hand have been malicious at best. So why do you continue to defend Russia while attacking the US?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The criminal investigation is all but wrapped up. Their set to release an interim report tomorrow that is, among other things, going to pinpoint the location of the BUK. They have stated that they don't want to accuse anyone though. At least not until a venue for the court proceedings is set.

So it sounds like they know who the culprits are. They just don't want to risk their case in anyway by making their names public too early.

Coincidentally, this new radar data was discovered shortly after it was announced when the interim report would be released. Even more coincidentally, the contents of said data was released the day before the interim report is released.
edit on 9/26/2016 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/26/2016 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




How do you know their ability to do so want in part thanks to data from the US?
Only because the US comes full double barrels blaring when they have someone dead to right . When they dont they like to fudge the data or just not give the data .....seems to be the way of the left .....if you are left then you never need to be right



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
... they like to fudge the data ...


This would also apply to the Russians. While the US has been consistent on what occurred the Russians cant make the same claim. Russia has presented discredited theory after discredited theory and the latest one is no different.

Russia conveniently finding "lost / misplaced" memory cards that contain the exact data for the region on the exact day this occurred several years after the incident and its released just prior to the release of the criminal investigation.

really??

That "luck" may work for what could laughingly be referred to as the Russian justice system / Stalin jurisprudence but it doesnt work with the west's jurisprudence.
edit on 26-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Xcalibur254




How do you know their ability to do so want in part thanks to data from the US?
Only because the US comes full double barrels blaring when they have someone dead to right . When they dont they like to fudge the data or just not give the data .....seems to be the way of the left .....if you are left then you never need to be right


It in this case the US has been trying to stay out if this as much as possible. The US really doesn't want to get involved in Ukraine. Much easier to just throw on sanctions and walk away than deal with the issue. That's why they didn't release the launch confirmation publicly no need. You let them handle it and thr obama administration doesn't have to commit anything other than a couple of crash investigators.
edit on 9/26/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

While the JIT haven't released the report yet, it looks like some details have been making their way around. Including:


The JIT’s findings are based on US satellite data, and multiple sightings of the Buk as it trundled through rebel-held areas. In a Russian-language video investigators urged witnesses who may have seen it to come forward.


Source

So it's like I said, the US did what they were supposed to do. They gave their evidence over to the investigators. They didn't flood the media with multiple theories based around false information and outright hoaxes like a certain other country.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Thinking more on this I have to wonder. How dumb does Russia think people are? A radar isn't going to detect the missile's launch. It's not going to detect it until it's already in the air. So if this radar can supposedly detect missiles, like Russia wants us to believe, why didn't it detect any missile regardless of point of origin?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Interesting thing is when the people you are backing admits to them having a BUK operational in the area it pretty much trumps all...

mobile.reuters.com...

Also why would the Ukrainian military use a BUK at that time the separatists didn't have anything to fly...although they were getting their buts handed to them from airstrikes by the Ukrainian military...so who really had the need for a BUK system at that time?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

This should tell you the answer...remember this?



That was their proof.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




Throughout this whole ordeal those defending Russia have claimed that any radar data released by the US is suspect because it took them so long to release it. Giving them plenty of time to fabricate anything they want. Will those same people call this radar data suspect?


What radar data did the US release again?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Also why would the Ukrainian military use a BUK at that time the separatists didn't have anything to fly...although they were getting their buts handed to them from airstrikes by the Ukrainian military...so who really had the need for a BUK system at that time?


Maybe they needed a BUK there so they could blame the Russians. I am sure this is the first time you hear this possibility.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




That was their proof.


They presented this as proof in an official international investigation or meeting? The Kremlin?
edit on 27-9-2016 by VanDenEviL because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




It in this case the US has been trying to stay out if this as much as possible. The US really doesn't want to get involved in Ukraine.


Besides installing a government to their liking, you mean?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL

Nothing publicly. They did however give everything they had to the JIT. And if early rumors are too be believed that data puts the BUK squarely in separatist held territory.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I suppose the argument is that it was a deliberate false flag attack intended to incriminate the rebels and their Russian allies - but, as so often in such cases, they forgot to leave the necessary paper trail resulting in years of speculation and argument .....

I always consider human fallibility over conspiracy and have felt all along that it was a tragic mistake (the rebels geuinely thought they were targetting a military aircraft) which was then quickly covered up due to the inevitable recriminations were the truth revealed. The Russians then - rather ineptly - attempted to further muddy the waters and hoped no-one would be able to prove anything.

Of course, Strelkov - who was obstensively in charge of the rebels at the time (and was the first to break the news that they had shot an aircraft down, before discovering it was a civillian airliner) has long since disappeared and I doubt anyone will ever be brought to justice.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I see.

So what's the difference with the Russians and how they kept their evidence to themselves?

And these rumors, really? What a surprise.

What's the difference?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL

You really don't see the difference? Since day one the US has said that it was a BUK, it was fired from separatist held territory, we have proof, and we are going to give that proof to investigators. Not once had this narrative changed. The investigators have said that they received data from the US and that data helped pinpoint the location of the offending BUK.

Russia on the other hand has jumped from theory to theory. When one narrative was debunked they jumped to another. So far they haven't presented any "evidence" that isn't laughably bad. Just look at this newest story they're telling. They just so happened to discover lost radar data that proves their current narrative just days before the JIT released their findings. And then when they release this data it's from a radar that wouldn't have been able to detect a SAM. Oh yeah it also completely contradicts radar data they released in 2014 that "proved" MH17 was shot down by an Su-25.

At those point one can only accept one of two possibilities in regards to the Russian government. Either they are the most inept government on the planet or, more likely, they know who is responsible for shooting down MH17 and they are trying to protect that party. Personally I'm going with the obstruction of justice angle.

Then again this is the same country whose military were filling hospitals to capacity due to training related injuries. They definitely weren't sustained fighting an illegal war in Ukraine. So if they want us to believe their military is that dumb maybe it isn't hard to think their leadership is also that dumb.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




The investigators have said that they received data from the US and that data helped pinpoint the location of the offending BUK.


Can we look at this data?




And then when they release this data it's from a radar that wouldn't have been able to detect a SAM.


I thought I just read that it couldn't detect the launch? I think they can calculate the location of the launch site going on the data from when and where they first picked it up on radar.




Oh yeah it also completely contradicts radar data they released in 2014 that "proved" MH17 was shot down by an Su-25.


Not 100% sure if I remember correctly but I thought they presented radar images showing a Su25 in the vicinity of MH17 and that was all they claimed in relation to the radar images.




They just so happened to discover lost radar data that proves their current narrative just days before the JIT released their findings.


So again, it is cool for the US to keep their information a secret, but the Russians can't. Off course they kept it a secret and announced it at this moment.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join