reply to post by discl0sur3
I'm usually just a lurker on here and love the site, good and bad. I however, like one or two others, am shocked at the credence this video is being
given on a site which usually prides itself on dissecting available evidence to get to the truth. My interest in this topic was aroused by the recent
thread regarding alleged gunshots heard on video shot in the immediate aftermath of the crash. I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone else here,
but have several serious issues with this segment and felt compelled, for once, to post.
Firstly, a few quotes from Ms Burgermeister:
"Many people are questioning whether it was really an accident..."
"It has been speculated that members of a military group went among the survivors and were actually shooting them..."
"Witnesses have reported seeing military officials changing the lamps lighting up the runway shortly after the accident..."
"...fuelled speculation that the lamps were so placed as to mislead the pilot..."
"...colleagues of the Polish pilot say that he was fluent in Russian."
"...it has materialised that the plane attempted to land only one time..."
"A small group of individuals could have gone through killing the crew on board..."
"...many Polish people are now discussing on internet forums, on blogs and also here on the street in Poland..."
Is it just me, or is she seriously lacking any credible, verifiable sources here? Speculated by who? Who are these "many people"? If they're so
many, why couldn't she find at least one to interview for her piece? The two people interviewed added nothing to her argument whatsoever. Where is
her evidence that the plane only attempted one landing? According to this link
, this has
been stated by Tatyana Anodina, chairperson of the Russian Interstate Aviation Committee. Was the fact that the source of this info was Russian, and
hence contrary to the underlying tone of her report that Russia is in some way implicated in this, a reason to omit the source? And since when were
internet forums and blogs credible sources?
And then we get:
"When we take all these facts together, a likely scenario is that the pilot approaching Smolensk airport was given false information about the real
location of the runway and lured into landing in the woods..."
Facts? I don't even know where to start with that.
The title of the thread is also misleading in my opinion. "NEW EVIDENCE!" Sorry, I fail to see even one piece of evidence here, new or otherwise.
And finally, the motive is not "clearly explained in the last 3 minutes". It is hypothesised. There is a big difference.
As I said, I have an interest in this subject from the previous thread and am in no way asserting that there is nothing untoward about this incident.
However, this is lazy, sensationalist reporting of the worst kind and adds nothing to the search for truth.