Truyền thông chính qui và nhà nước Úc tay sai HƯ CẤU BẰNG CHỨNG về vụ máy bay MH-17 dối trá dân chúng để đổ vấy cho Nga Putin theo chiến dịch của Mỹ/Do Thái.
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Trong tuần qua, sau những hung hăng tố cáo của tên thủ tướng nổi tiếng ấm ớ Tony Abobot chống Putin, chương trình 60 phút của đài số 9, đã làm một “cuộc điều tra tại chỗ” trong “đất Ukraine” với hình ảnh “tang chứng, dấu vết” và qui tội thẳng thừng cho Nga và cá nhân PUTIN. Điểm trẻ con nhất là phần cuối khi kết án, tên “ký giả” Úc này để hình chân dung PUTIN đã được SỬA để khuôn mặt PUTIN nhìn vẻ thật ngây ngô trơ trẽn.

Tên “ký giả hạng hai” Úc Michael Usher của “60 Phút” gian mà không ngoan, nên đã hớ hênh và không chỉ bị một số người Úc viết bài chất vấn mà còn bị ký giả điều tra Robert Parry vạch ra những gian manh trong “chứng cớ” của chương trình 60 phút.

Gian trá vặt dễ thấy nhất là hắn đã hư cấu “tấm biển quả cáo” ở hai địa điểm khác nhau vào làm một! Chúng ta biết tờ quảng cáo không là duy nhất chỉ có một. Tấm quảng cáo in hàng loạt và giống nhau 100%, chỉ có địa điểm treo là khác nhau. (Xem hình- chú ý quang cảnh lùm cây khác nhau chung quanh “biển quảng cáo”)

Tấm biển “NGA” được trưng bày do chính ký giả Úc tự thú nằm hai địa điểm khác nhau khi hắn cố tình chiếu cận cảnh ở đoạn đầu để che dấu, nhưng trongđoạn sau lại “vô tình” để lộ ra rõ rệt.

Điểm thứ hai, theo ký giả điều tra Robert Parry, ký giả Úc của 60 phút cho chiếu một đoạn “xe hỏa tiễn trống không- lý luận rằng vì hỏa tiễn đã bắn” đi về hướng ĐÔNG, nghĩa là về phía Nga, nhưng không chiếu XE HỎA TIỄN đi về hướng TÂY, nghĩa là vào Ukraine từ NGA ? Và ngay cả dấu vết xe cũng chỉ là “VỀ” chứ không có dấu vết “ĐẾN”.
Đó là chưa nói toàn bộ VỆ TINH ÂU MỸ và DO THÁI khi bị các ký giả Âu Mỹ chất vấn đều KHÔNG DÁM ĐƯA RA một KHÔNG ẢNH VỆ TINH NÀO, và cho đến nay vẫn không KẾT LUẬN gì dù đã nắm hết cả HỘP ĐEN và toàn bộ các TANG VẬT của chiếc máy bay bất hạnh MH 17.
Điều này cho thấy VỤ HƯ CẤU này được trao phó cho chương trình “hàng tuần” 60 phút của Úc chỉ nhằm mục tiêu duy nhất là LỪA dân chúng Úc. Khích động căm thù chủ chiến theo chủ trương của Mỹ và tạo “uy tín” cho tên thủ tướng có tật ăn nói ấm ớ Tony Abbot.
Ít nhất từ sau vụ 911, chúng ta đã trải qua không biết bao nhiêu vụ báo chí chính qui nhận lệnh đăng tin hư cấu cho nhà nước, hầu như TẤT CẢ! Điển hình ghê tởm trơ trẽn nhất và vẫn đang kéo dài đến nay là vụ Iraq vụ khí toàn diệt, và vụ ám sát Osama Bin Laden.
Trong 15 năm qua, con số người đập vỡ TV từ bỏ hẳn bọn truyền thông chính qui cứ tăng dần, cũng như con số các ký giả điều tra còn nhận thức cũng đã nối nhau từ bỏ làm việc với các công ty truyền thông chính qui đã thành tay sai nhà nước, nhóm Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedge của NYT v.v chưa kể một số còn lại LÀM ĐÚNG CHỨC NĂNG CHẤT VẤN THÔNG BÁO SỰ KIỆN bị mất việc như James Risen hoặc như ký giả Scott McIntyre SBS Úc vừa qua.

Tại Canada, tên thủ tướng tay sai Mỹ/DoThái đang vận động thông qua “đạo luật” qui tất cả những ai biểu tình lập hội chống tội ác Do Thái là “tội phạm gây căm thù” đồng hành khủng bố!!!
Tùy mỗi quí vị nhận thức suy tư -suy xét những thông tin cho chính mình. Để kẻ gian lừa mình nhiều lần thì lỗi không còn ở kẻ gian nữa mà từ chính mình vô trách nhiệm với bản thân.

Ai bắn MH 17 chưa rõ, nhưng rõ ràng 300 nhân mạng vô tội bị bọn nhà nước- quân đội tàn sát và đang dùng cái chết thảm của họ làm trái banh chính trị quyền lực cổ võ chiến tranh căm thù, và chính chúng ta nhẫn tâm đồng lõa bằng sự im lặng hoặc a dua bày đàn.

Nhân Chủ
20-05-2015
=================
NGUỒN THAM KHẢO
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/18/fake-evidence-blaming-russia-for-mh-17/
Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?
May 18, 2015
Exclusive: Pointing the finger of blame at Russian President Putin for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down last July, an Australian news show claims to have found the spot where the Russian BUK missile battery made its getaway, but the images don’t match, raising questions of journalistic fakery, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
An Australian television show claims to have solved the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down mystery – the Russians did it! – but the program appears to have faked a key piece of evidence and there remain many of the same doubts as before, along with the dog-not-barking question of why the U.S. government has withheld its intelligence data.
The basic point of the Australian “60 Minutes” program was that photographs on social media show what some believe to be a BUK anti-aircraft launcher aboard a truck traveling eastward on July 17, 2014, the day of the shoot-down, into what was generally considered rebel-controlled territory of eastern Ukraine, south and east of Donetsk, the capital of one of the ethnic Russian rebellious provinces.

A screen shot from a video of a suspected BUK missile battery traveling on a road in eastern Ukraine after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (As shown in Australia’s “60 Minutes” program.)
Citing one image, the program’s narrator says the “launcher is heading east further into rebel territory,” south and east of Donetsk.
However, in mid-July, the ethnic Russian rebels were reeling under a Ukrainian military offensive to the north of Donetsk. Despite shifting their forces into the battle zone, they had lost Sloviansk, Druzhkivka, Kostyantynivka and Kramatorsk. In other words, the lines of control were fluid and chaotic in mid-July 2014 with the possibility that an unmarked Ukrainian government truck, maybe carrying a concealed anti-aircraft battery, could have moved into the titular rebel zone, especially in the lightly defended south.
Another problem with the Australian TV account is that the video and photographic images show the truck heading eastward toward Russia, but there are no earlier images of the truck moving westward from Russia into eastern Ukraine. If the mysterious truck was supposedly so obvious on the day of the shoot-down, why wasn’t it obvious earlier?
For the Australian TV account to be true – blaming the Russians – the launcher would have to have crossed from Russia into Ukraine, traveled somewhere west of Donetsk, before turning around and heading eastward back toward Russia, yet the trail seems to begin only with photos on July 17 showing the truck headed east.
Indeed, I was told shortly after the MH-17 crash, which killed 298 people including Australians, that one of the problems that U.S. intelligence analysts were having in pinning the blame on the Russians was that they could not find evidence that the Russians had delivered a BUK missile system to the rebels who – until then – were known only to have short-range Manpads incapable of reaching MH-17 flying at around 33,000 feet.
Another part of the Australian TV narrative stretched credulity. If the Russians had somehow snuck a BUK missile system into eastern Ukraine without U.S. intelligence knowing and were moving it back toward Russia, why would the crew stop en route to shoot down a civilian airliner before continuing on the way?
There was no military value in destroying a civilian airliner and it was obvious – in the Western media hysteria then surrounding Ukraine – that Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, would be blamed.
What I was told by a source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts was that at least some of them – after reviewing electronic intercepts, overhead satellite images and other intelligence – had reached the conclusion that the shoot-down was a provocation, or a false-flag operation, carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military operating under one of the hard-line oligarchs.
However, it was not clear to me whether that was the opinion of just a few U.S. analysts or whether that had become the consensus. When I sought an updated briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in March, I was told that the U.S. intelligence community had not updated or refined its analysis of the shoot-down since five days after the event, a claim that was not credible given the significance of the MH-17 case to tensions between nuclear powers, United States and Russia.
In reality, Western intelligence services have been hard at work trying to determine who was responsible for the shoot-down. Last October, Der Spiegel reported that the German intelligence service, the BND, had concluded that Russia was not the source of the missile battery – that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base – but the BND still blamed the rebels for firing it. The BND also concluded that photos supplied by the Ukrainian government about the MH-17 tragedy “have been manipulated,” Der Spiegel reported.
And, the BND disputed Russian government claims that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to MH-17, the magazine said, reporting on the BND’s briefing to a parliamentary committee on Oct. 8, 2014. But none of the BND’s evidence was made public — and I was subsequently told by a European official that the evidence was not as conclusive as the magazine article depicted. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case.”]
Possible TV Fakery
There also appears to have been some fakery involved in the Australian documentary. In several instances, as the film crew traveled to eastern Ukraine to seek out scenes from July 17 video showing the truck possibly carrying BUK missiles, images of those sites – then and now – were overlaid to show how closely the scenes matched.
However, for one crucial scene – the image of an alleged “getaway” BUK launcher lacking one missile and supposedly heading back to Russia after the shoot-down – the documentary broke with that pattern. The program showed the earlier video of the truck moving past a billboard and then claiming – based on information from blogger Eliot Higgins – that the TV crew had located the same billboard in Luhansk, a rebel-held city near the Russian border.
This was the documentary’s slam-dunk moment, the final proof that the Russians and particular Vladimir Putin were guilty in the deaths of 298 innocent people. However, in this case, there was no overlay of the two scenes, just Australian correspondent Michael Usher pointing to a billboard and saying it was the same one as in the video.
But the scenes look nothing at all alike if you put them side by side. While Usher is standing in an open field, the earlier video shows an overgrown area. Indeed, almost nothing looks the same, which might explain why the film crew didn’t try to do an overlay this time.

A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery passes after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)
This discrepancy is important because the Russian government placed the scene of the “getaway” BUK launcher in the town of Krasnoarmiis’k, northwest of Donetsk and then under Ukrainian government control. Usher dismissed that Russian claim as a lie before asserting that his team had located the scene with the billboard in Luhansk.
The significance of the Australian news show’s sleight of hand is that if the BUK launcher was making its “getaway” through government-controlled territory, not through Luhansk on its way back to Russia, much of the Russia-did-it scenario collapses. It also means the Australian audience was grossly misled.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
===
2-  You Be the Judge

An Australian news show bristled at being caught broadcasting misleading images designed to prove Russian President Putin was responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 last July. The program says it simply opted for “a wide shot” to give its audience the fuller “layout,” reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

May 20, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Consortium News” – The Australian news show “60 Minutes” has angrily responded to my noting discrepancies between the footage that it used to claim it found the spot in eastern Ukraine where a BUK missile launcher passed after the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down last July and the video taken that day.
Earlier in the “60 Minutes” broadcast, the show made a point of overlaying other video from last July 17 with its own footage to demonstrate that it had found the precise locations passed by a truck suspected of hauling the missile battery eastward before the shoot-down. But the program deviated from that pattern regarding the most important video, which the program claimed proved that Russia had provided the missile that shot down MH-17 and that missile battery was making its getaway through Luhansk.


Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)
On that crucial point, the program separated the original video of a BUK anti-aircraft missile battery, apparently taken the night after the shoot-down, from the scene in which correspondent Michael Usher claims to have located the same site in Luhansk.
The separation of the two scenes made it difficult for viewers to note the many discrepancies. Indeed, almost nothing in the two scenes matched. In my article about these differences, I posted the two images from the TV show side by side so readers could decide for themselves.


A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery passes after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program) In the “60 Minutes” program, Usher offered no explanation for why the pattern of using overlays was broken in this one instance. Nor did the program make any effort to explain the multiple discrepancies in the two images.
In reacting to my article, however, the show issued a statement saying that – in deciding where locations were – it relied on calculations by blogger Eliot Higgins “done from his house in Leicester,” England. The show then explained the discrepancies between the earlier video, as posted on social media, and the show’s footage in Luhansk, Ukraine, this way:
“We opted to do our piece to camera as a wide shot showing the whole road system so the audience could get the layout and see which way the Buk was heading. The background in our piece to camera looks different to the original Buk video simply because it was shot from a different angle. The original video was obviously shot from one of the apartments behind, through the trees — which in in summer were in full leaf.”
So, the show is acknowledging that it intentionally deviated from the previous pattern of using overlays to demonstrate how precisely its team had located earlier scenes in question. But it’s simply not true that by offering this “wide shot showing the whole road system” that the audience would “get the layout and see which way the Buk was heading.”
All you see is Usher standing on open ground gesturing to a billboard. How any Australian viewer would get a deeper understanding of the geography of Luhansk from this “wide shot” is a mystery. And you don’t get much sense of “the whole road system” either. In other words, the explanation sounds more like an excuse or a cover-up.
Given the pattern of the rest of the show, wouldn’t it have made more sense to try to recreate the angle of the original video to prove the actual location – as best you could – rather than opting for a different angle and simply relying on Usher to make an assertion? There’s an old saying in journalism, “show, don’t tell,” but this was a classic case of telling, not showing.
And this was not some minor point. This was proof cited by the program to say Russian officials were lying when they placed the scene of the “getaway” BUK launcher in the town of Krasnoarmiis’k, northwest of Donetsk and then under Ukrainian government control. Usher dismissed that Russian claim as a lie and cited the billboard scene in Luhansk as the final proof that Russian President Vladimir Putin was responsible for killing 298 people aboard MH-17.
If the show wanted to truly nail down this significant point and was really interested in giving its viewers “the layout” of the scene in Luhansk, wouldn’t it also have made sense to have footage of the apartments where the original video was supposedly shot? That would have provided some explanation for the obvious discrepancies in the two images. Instead, the show simply broke the two video scenes up in a way so a casual viewer wouldn’t be able to detect the discrepancies.
The Australian show also takes issue with me writing that Usher appeared to be standing in “an open field.” The show protests that “he is on a patch of grass by the road” – although it sure looks like an open field in the “wide shot” giving us “the layout.”
The show further protests my characterization of the scene in the original video as “overgrown,” saying “it was simply shot through trees in the foreground.” But note the trees and bushes along the right of the image and in the background. Beyond the positioning of this overgrowth, there appears to be almost nothing comparable between the two images, including the positioning and shapes of the billboards.
Yet, instead of grappling with these differences or trying to recreate the angle of the original video as closely as possible, the show opts for some meaningless “wide shot,” makes it difficult for anyone watching the show to compare the two scenes that flash by fairly quickly, and simply asserts as flat fact something that is still dubious – that Usher and his team had located the right spot.
That strikes me as journalistically negligent if not willfully misleading. But look at the images. You be the judge.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
==
NHẬN ĐỊNH ĐỘC GIẢ:

· 1 hour ago
“60 Minutes” is broadcast by channel 9, which has a distinct conservative bias. I have never watched the program and did not watch this episode. Here is part of a document a wrote for some friends addressing the issue.
PART 1
On August 8, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium signed a non-disclosure agreement pertaining to data obtained during the investigation into the causes of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17. The agreement states:
In the framework of the 4-country agreement signed on 8 August between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified. … .Any one of the signatories has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation.
Why! What is it about this event in which almost 300 innocent souls died requires the results to remain classified? I personally smell a rat. When I awoke that morning in July, I heard on the news PM, Tony Abbot, blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West’s hymnbook in a standard setting the narrative scenario. The main story was Russia provided the rebels in eastern Ukraine a BUK missile system that was used to shoot down the plane purposely or in error. I found this brief description of a BUK system in an interesting analysis of the incident.
To understand what happened to MH17 we first need to understand the capabilities of the BUK M1surface to air missile system. The keyword here is system. The BUK consists of a number of independent components which operate in unison but which are typically situated at a distance from one another. The networked components provide medium range defence against aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles. The core system components consist of a primary search and target acquisition radar, a central command post, and one or more Transport Erector Launchers with Acquisition Radars which are known by the acronym TELARs. The primary search radar scans the airspace out to a range of 140 km in each direction. MH17 was travelling at 900 km per hour, or 1 km every 4 seconds. At this speed, MH17 would transit the area surveyed by the search radar in less than 9.5 minutes. The amount of time available for decision making is therefore seen to be severely constrained. Data from the search and acquisition radar is forwarded to the command vehicle. The command vehicle will be situated at a safe distance from the radar transmitter as any device emanating electronic signals will quickly become a battlefield target. The command vehicle is responsible for target identification, friend or foe determination, and the decision to engage. The operator in the command vehicle selects of the targets revealed by radar and assigns one or more missiles to intercept the designated target.
Obviously, the system is complicated requiring several different component systems to initiate a launch. The news media presented photographs at the time of a BUK system with a missile missing, supposedly returning to Russia from rebel territory. Unfortunately, for the propagandist making this claim, there was a billboard in the background advertising a car dealership located within western Ukraine far from the rebel territory as claimed. In addition, the operation of the system requires extensive training, so even if the rebels captured an intact system their ability to use it is questionable. When a BUK missile is launched, it tracks the target then explodes above target spreading shrapnel downward destroying the targets systems leaving holes spread over the target from the cloud of shrapnel as evidence of its use. It also leaves a contrail that would last for over five minutes observable for many miles from the launch site. I tried for days to find any eyewitness account that reported seeing a contrail without success. There was one report on mainstream media allegedly showing a contrail from satellite, but it could have been from any missile launch anywhere. I discounted this report since there was simply no proof it was from the BUK missile supposedly downing the plane.
There was a report in the Telegraph in London claiming to find the rebel launch site near Snizhne in rebel territory referenced here in a verbatim transcript of the report’s conclusions.
No evidence has been offered to show that the rebels captured a complete BUK M1 system. What evidence does exist suggests rebel capture of a single TELAR from a Ukrainian military facility in Donetsk. There is no evidence that this captured system was in working condition. Most military forces are trained to destroy, or disable, equipment about to fall into enemy hands. It is therefore highly likely the TELAR captured by the rebels was inoperative (my note-Not same report with billboard mentioned above). This explains why it was immediately moved east rather than being deployed to protect Donetsk from air attack. There is no evidence to suggest the rebels acquired a BUK search radar unit, or a BUK command post vehicle. Lacking search radar capability, a BUK TELAR deployed at the Telegraph’s reported position south of Snizhne would have a maximum radar search radius of 42 km. Its radar would be unable to see any aircraft beyond this distance. MH17 was struck by a missile when it was more than 50 km from the Telegraph’s Snizhne position. At 33,000 feet, MH17 would not have been visible to the naked eye. The aircraft would not have been audible. The question which needs to be asked is “How did the rebels manage to identify a potential target outside the acquisition range of a BUK TELAR radar, and beyond the limits of visual range?” … the range of the BUK missile is limited to a 35 km radius. If it was an older system…the missile range would have been limited to 30 km. The damage evident from debris field images does not match the damage expected to be caused by a missile impact from directly ahead, or from slightly to port. Finally, if a missile had been fired from a position close to Snizhne, it is likely the citizens of Snizhne would have observed and photographed either the missile launch, or the missile emplacement. The fact of the captured BUK’s passage east has been well documented. Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail? Why is it that neither the BBC, nor the Telegraph reporters, both of whom undertook extensive surveys of Snizhne, and the area south of Snizhne, were unable to locate a single local eyewitness to the alleged missile launch events?
My conclusions on this incident are based on my view as a Physicist and my desire to know the Truth from any hard evidence available. You may all have differing ideas on this incident, but for what it is worth here are my conclusions:
1.There is no credible evidence Russia provided the rebels with or they had a functioning BUK system or the ability to operate the system competently. Therefore, the rebels did not have the means or ability to shoot down MH17 with a BUK missile.
2.The air traffic control tapes of this incident from Kiev were immediately confiscated by the Ukrainian authorities and have never been made public. Also, I have found no public report of these tapes being provided to the investigators. A Spanish controller in the control tower at the time claimed the flight was shadowed by two Ukrainian SU25 jets. He has since disappeared with no word on his whereabouts. My suspicion without any hard evidence is the Ukraine has something to hide.
3.The only military in the area of the interception of MH17 with operational BUK systems was the Ukrainian military. Only they had the ability to down MH17, if indeed a BUK system was employed. Since one or two fighter, jets were possibly shadowing MH17 as reported by the Spanish controller and Russian radar data, then this points the finger directly at Ukraine.
4.The coverage of the disappearance of MH370 continued for weeks after the incident from mainstream media in the US as well as here in Australia. Coverage of MH17 stopped abruptly less than two weeks later, which I find rather suggestive since most big news stories die a slow death, not end abruptly. If MH370 was of such public interest, then why not MH17?
5.Why did Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium agree to a non disclosure agreement concerning MH17? When governments keep secrets, especially, in a case such as MH17, there is usually something they do not want the public to know. I suspect there are facts concerning the downing of MH17 that would be far too embarrassing and the Truth about MH17 may never be known, at least, publicly.
In a recent interview, the PM Tony Abbot told reporters
“I am going to be saying to Mr Putin [that] Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment,” he said in remarks quoted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Tony continues to push the narrative without presenting any hard evidence. It would also seem a less than diplomatic method to address the issue.
Whatever the Truth of this incident, the reality is almost 300 souls died needlessly, because of a war that was pointless and should never have occurred.
==

Nhận Định của ký giả Úc Greg Maybury Perth Western Australia
The MH-17 Propaganda War

When called to account for an apparent inaccuracy in a broadcast pinning the MH-17 shoot-down on Russian President Putin, Australia’s “60 Minutes” responded with insults and dissembling. But that behavior has been typical of the propaganda wars around the Ukraine crisis.

By Greg Maybury

May 22, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Consortium News” – The following anecdote may or may not be apocryphal, but either way given the geopolitical zeitgeist, the “moral” of the “fable” is a telling one. The story goes that during the 1980s a group of American journalists were hosting a visit to the U.S. of one of their Soviet counterparts. After proudly showing their visitor the “ropes” as to how it all works stateside, most of them expected their guest to express unbridled envy at the professional liberties they enjoyed in the Land of the Free Press. Later, whilst comparing notes about how they respectively went about plying their trade, the Russian scribe was indeed compelled to express his unabashed “admiration” to his hosts – but it was for the “superior quality” of American “propaganda.”
Now it’s fair to say his hosts were taken aback by what was at best a backhanded compliment. After some collegial argy-bargy about the stereotypes customarily associated with Western “press freedom” versus those of the controlled media in the Soviet system, one of the Americans called on their Russian colleague to explain himself. In fractured English, he replied with the following:
“It’s very simple. In Soviet Union, we don’t believe our propaganda. In United States, you actually believe yours!”
Many people familiar with this relatively obscure yarn might this week have once more been reminded of its enduring pertinence in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 eras with the airing last week on “60 Minutes” Australia of a report claiming to have solved the mystery of the Malaysian Airlines MH-17 shoot-down disaster last July 17 over eastern Ukraine.
This would especially have been the case with those of us who’ve had singular difficulty with the official Western position on who was actually responsible for the incident, one to which the “60 Minutes” segment seemed to go out of its way to give its seal of approval.
Along with reviving a major international story that for almost six months now has all but gone missing in media action, the “60 Minutes” crew ostensibly have added fuel to the fire that still attends the broader Ukraine situation, along with that of the resultant standoff between Russia and America and its Western allies, over what is happening in that country. In this context the introductory anecdote (above) takes on additional resonance.
I will return to the actual “60 Minutes” segment shortly along with some reactions to it. However, given the long dormant status of the story, it is necessary to revisit some of the key aspects of this international tragedy, one in which Australia lost 38 people, second only to the Netherlands, which lost 193 nationals.
The significance of the MH-17 story cannot be underestimated, despite – or indeed because of – its extended absence from the news cycle. This, not least because of the large number of family members and friends both in Australia and worldwide of those who perished and who themselves are still, some 10 months later, looking for answers and some closure. Moreover, the very fact this incident took place within the supercharged geopolitical atmosphere that is the Ukraine crisis, one even more charged now than it was then, is also of considerable importance.
From the outset, Western governments and politicians from across the political spectrum – led by the nose by the neoconservative cabals in Washington and dutifully buttressed by their propaganda shills in the corporate or mainstream media (MSM) – relentlessly sought to assign blame to Russia for the shoot-down. This was a textbook media case study reinforcing the old adage about never letting the facts get in the way of a good story. In the course of doing so, they recklessly inflamed an already intense standoff between the two countries over the Ukraine crisis, one that it has to be emphasized, is largely of America’s own making.
Despite official denials from Washington, this “crisis” we now know was custom-designed and purpose-built by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and her posse of “regime changers” in the State Department, dutifully backed up by their neoconservative cronies (including Nuland’s husband Robert Kagan), to say little of the “liberal interventionists” in the Obama administration and in the broader Official Washington community.
As for what actually happened to MH-17 and who was responsible, Washington and the MSM in the West continued to maintain their rage for Russia despite being unable to provide concrete evidence of their claims, all the while singularly failing to provide news consumers and the general public with the full story, at least to the extent it was known.
If nothing else (and with this story there is plenty “else”), the MH-17 fallout was emblematic of the MSM’s long, well (if not fully) documented, and not so illustrious history of venal complicity in blindly validating Western governments’ approved narratives, along with sanctioning their official agendas and, whether through sins of omission or commission, suppressing their secret ones.
This is not conspiracy theory; it’s conspiracy reality. In fact it remains one of the key reasons why the generic MSM brand is in such decline among discerning news consumers seeking timely truths and authentic realities about the world in which we live and the forces which shape it.
For those folks highly skeptical, even dismissive, of the official narrative of the events leading up to and attending the MH-17 disaster, it was and has always been a “put up or shut up” proposition. This is something even the “60 Minutes” folks would have known from the start. And although we can say those promulgating this official narrative were unable to “put up” (albeit not for the want of trying), they eventually did “shut up.”.
The Blame Game
It seems then the politicians and their praetorian guard-dogs in the MSM were unable to sustain the breathlessly hysterical, one-sided “blame game” they collectively indulged in with respect to Russia, all the while reserving particular animus for its President Vladimir Putin. The “blame game” then was called off, though it was always something of a “shell-game” in disguise.
The hypocrisy was breathtaking in its scope, duration and intensity. Indeed, so “hysterical” was the backlash, Western leaders appeared to be outdoing themselves in carrying the can for Washington, with arguably Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott leading the pack by earlier threatening to “shirt-front” the Russian president over the issue during his official visit to this country last November for the 2014 G20 meeting in Brisbane.
Coming from a national leader on the world stage, this unprecedented, petulant outburst was something to behold. But such was the fervor of the times regarding MH-17 especially, and more broadly, the anti-Russian mood that prevailed earlier in the year over Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine in the aftermath of the U.S.’s prefabricated coup d’état.
Yet even putting aside the reality, Abbott was doubtless playing to local audiences given the number of Aussies killed in the shoot-down (to say nothing of his rock-bottom domestic political stocks at the time), it was clear from this moment the anti-Russian mood across the West at least within official circles – if the effective G20 snubbing of Putin was any indication – had indeed reached a crescendo if it hadn’t taken on a life of its own.
The MH-17 incident proved to be a powerful lightning rod through which the bear baiting could effectively be channeled by all and sundry. It was the gift that kept on giving for the neoconservatives and their interventionist confreres, along with those American allies wanting to ingratiate themselves with the Beltway Bandits on both banks of the Potomac.
Then, after the G20 in Brisbane, the collective Western umbrage died out. The intensity and duration of the ongoing anti-Russian feeding frenzy was completely at odds with the abruptness with which the MH-17 matter disappeared from the news cycle. The silence on MH-17 might have been deafening, yet it spoke volumes at the same time, and still does. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Danger of an MH-17 ‘Cold Case’” and “US Intel Stands Pat on MH-17 Shoot-down.”]
That said, in retrospect it seems it was only a matter of time before someone somewhere sought to revive the story complete with the “Putin did it” narrative. Cue here “60 Minutes” Australia!
The Dogs Not Barking
Now we can only surmise that this recent revelation purporting to be the definitive account of what actually happened to, and who was responsible for, the MH-17 shoot-down was the end result of a decision by the “60 Minutes” folks to boldly go where their colleagues in other MSM outlets feared to tread, fears based one suspects on the old adage that it’s better to let sleeping media dogs lie after all.
Moreover, one suspects this may have been an attempt by “60 Minutes” at brand “rehab,” since for those of us with a more nuanced view of how the MSM really works have known for some time said “brand” has become somewhat shop-soiled over the years. And given “60 Minutes” status as a flagship MSM name – whether in Australia or in the U.S. – going down this path was always going to attract people’s attention. For this reason alone it was fraught with peril, so they just had to get this one right!
Which is to say, this was the only way they could go if they were attempting to revive the MH-17 story. Considering the basic laws governing the media news-cycle, efforts to do so had to be accompanied by some groundbreaking new insights, or at least the next best thing. And one can only wonder what the “next best thing” might have looked like short of finding the “smoking gun” (or should we say, “smoking BUK”) and identifying the persons who fired it. This was especially the case given the hammering the same media gave the issue from the outset.
But in declaring unequivocally they had indeed done all this, in the process correspondent Michael Usher and his intrepid “60 Minutes” team of investigators may have not only opened up a can of worms, they might also have bitten off more than they can chew and dug themselves into an even deeper hole in one fell swoop. They are going to look awfully silly if they aren’t able to sustain the narrative they have assembled from their investigations.
The proof will be in the pudding going forward one imagines, the “pudding” in this case being largely whether the general public in Australia or anywhere else accepts their conclusions, and whether other MSM outlets pick up on the story and continue to run with it. And as of this writing, there appear few signs their MSM confreres – either in Australia or in the U.S. – are chomping at the bit to do so.
With this in mind, if Robert Parry of Consortium News has anything to do with it, rather than gaining any ongoing traction, the story as it stands will be stopped in its tracks. Although his profile Down Under may not be high, Parry is one of America’s most respected investigative journalists working in the alternative, independent media space. He’s also someone who has taken a very strong interest in the MH-17 incident, and in the broader situation in the Ukraine. After viewing the “60 Minutes” report, he was to put it mildly less than impressed with Usher and Co.’s “findings.”
Now because readers can decide for themselves by viewing the various links herein and doing their own research if so inclined, there’s little point rehashing the minutiae of the “60 Minutes” revelations or providing a blow-by-blow account of Parry’s own responses. It is however worth noting some of the key points.
The Video Mismatch
To begin with, Parry suggests that “60 Minutes” might have “faked” a key piece of evidence in arriving at its conclusion – in claiming that it had located the spot where a video was taken after the MH-17 shoot-down and showing what appears to be a BUK launcher making a getaway. The “60 Minutes” team claimed the spot was in rebel-controlled Luhansk and the launcher was fleeing back to Russian territory. However, Parry noted that the scene in the earlier video didn’t match the site shown by “60 Minutes.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?”]
Further, Parry pointed to one of the main bones of contention for those of us who have had great difficulty accepting the official position, that being “the dog-not-barking question of why the U.S. government has withheld its intelligence data.” This is a not unimportant consideration by any means and one to which we’ll return.
Not unexpectedly the “60 Minutes” folks in response took considerable umbrage at Parry’s suggestion they were engaging in journalistic “sleight-of-hand” in the way they had framed their narrative and presented their “ground-breaking new insights.” One member of the investigative team tweeted that Parry had made a “huge and embarrassing mistake” – but didn’t say what it was.
However it was the segment’s producer Stephen Rice who adopted an especially righteous stance. Describing Parry’s claims as “nonsense, and demonstrably wrong,” he then went for the journalistic jugular by declaring Parry’s piece “an amateurish attempt to discredit our story, embarrassing even for him.” Now the loaded phrase “even for him” is a measure of Rice’s “umbrage” to be sure, and suggests that for reasons about which we can only speculate he had little regard for Parry’s journalistic integrity even prior to his outburst.
There was certainly a whiff of the “methinks he doth protest too much” about it. Yet one is left wondering if Rice is so convinced they got their story right and that the facts speak for themselves, whether this decidedly nasty additive at the end of his salvo was actually necessary, or for that matter was becoming of any self-respecting journalist.
But they left themselves wide open to Parry’s follow-up response, again noting that the two images – one from the night of July 17 and the other from the “60 Minutes” show – simply don’t match up and that all the hostile rhetoric won’t change that fact. Parry again published the side-by-side images with an invitation to readers to decide for themselves. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “You Be the Judge.”]
And in respect to any further consideration of who the real culprits were and as to what actually happened to MH-17 – the sole focus of the “60 Minutes” story – the significance of the “question” regarding why U.S. intelligence data has been withheld cannot be overstated. With this in mind, in the course of their investigation, why didn’t the “60 Minutes” folks seek out someone from the U.S. Government to provide corroboration or otherwise from their own intelligence data as to the veracity of their findings?
Or to put it in even simpler terms, why didn’t “60 Minutes” ask the U.S. Government point-blank why they have thus far refused to release all the satellite imagery and related intelligence data on the MH-17 shoot-down that by most objective accounts would put the matter to rest once and for all? We might safely surmise herein this is because of the same reason there is still much evidence yet to see the light of day regarding the JFK Thing, or the 9/11 Thing, or the Iran/Contra Thing or any number of other memorable “Things” for which full explanations and revelations from the U.S. government remain outstanding.
More Revelation, Less Accusation
Taking then a broader view, there are a myriad range of other issues and angles to be considered for anyone revisiting the whole MH-17 tragedy: the geopolitical milieu in which the MH-17 incident took place and the narrative framework in which its story continues to play out – the ongoing Ukraine crisis created by Washington; the West’s diplomatic marginalization of Russia coupled with the economic sanctions; the incessant saber-rattling and continuing encroachment by NATO around Russia’s borders; the resentment and suspicion that America through its belligerent foreign policy machinations is fomenting with nations such as Iran, China and others – all has the potential to determine the fate of nations and the geopolitical landscape for years to come. And not it needs be said, in a good way. And that’s without considering the “nuke” factor!
In this context then, the MH-17 disaster in realpolitik terms may not even matter that much anymore. This may explain why the story disappeared so quickly from the media radar. In reality and again with the benefit of some rear-view-mirror gazing, the MH-17 tragedy was always a geopolitical football from the beginning, and in that sense it has long since served its purpose.
To underscore this and at the same time point to some of those myriad issues and angles regarding the MH-17 shoot-down that have all been swept under the carpet – including it should be noted by our intrepid “60 Minutes” journalistic “gumshoes” – the documentary by Peter Vlemmix is a must watch.
To be sure, there are “plenty” of other folks who have questioned and indeed openly challenged the rationale for the official response from Western politicians and the MSM. But Vlemmix’s film is as good a place to begin for those looking to gain a more complete – and more dispassionate – perspective. And for those wishing to explore an alternative summary of the evidentiary minutiae specifically addressed by “60 Minutes,” the link herein is also highly recommended.
Further, it may also be instructive to consider the following. Over three months ago and well after the MH-17 story disappeared from the radar, I personally sent to Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop an email presenting her with a number of queries regarding the Australian government’s official position on MH-17 at that point. These are some of the questions I asked the Minister then, and they remain pertinent now:
What countries are currently involved in [the MH-17] investigation, and what specific role is Australia playing? At what stage is the investigation itself and when does the Minister expect that it will be completed and a report available?
Can the minister confirm or deny speculation/reports that the findings of the investigation will not be released? If they are not to be released as has been reported, can the Minister please explain why this is the case?
If it is found the Ukrainian separatists were responsible – which seems to be the official position of most stakeholders – will this change the position of the countries involved as to whether the findings indeed will be released if at this stage there is – as reported – no plans to do so?
If the report is not to be released, will the relatives of the victims be privy to the findings, regardless of the outcome of said findings? If not, why not? If so, what conditions might be placed on them re: confidentiality if indeed the report is not going to be released in full un-redacted? Will they still be able to seek compensation from those responsible, regardless of who that is?
If it is found that the Russian separatists were not in fact responsible for this disaster, will the Australian government lift the sanctions imposed on the Russian government in the wake of the disaster? Will the Australian Prime Minister also apologise to the Russian president for both the imposition of the sanctions, and the manner in which he was treated during the Brisbane G20?
If in fact it is found that the Ukrainian regime was responsible, will the Australian government seek compensation for victims and reimbursement for the cost of the recovery operation and investigation? Will it seek an official apology from and/or impose economic sanctions on the Ukraine regime in response? Will the relevant members of the Ukrainian regime face possible criminal charges in international courts?
Now there was no response from the Minister’s office despite a follow-up query, which for most may not be surprising. And we can only speculate as to whether I might have received a reply had I been a “60 Minutes” investigative reporter. For others, especially after all the brouhaha surrounding MH-17, the no-reply might also be something of a fashion statement.
But the point herein is this: As with all incidents useful to Western governments, the MH-17 tragedy had served its purpose. There was no political dividend in continuing to flog the proverbial dead horse.
The Perpetual Siren Call of Realpolitik
As brutal as it sounds, the Australian government’s priority was not finding closure for the victims’ families, determining the real cause of the tragedy, or ensuring as far as is possible those responsible faced justice, and it would appear that the Netherlands is no different in this respect.
In response to the additional controversy over the release of a report on the investigation and as to who would actually get to see it, the Dutch Prime Minister’s office issued a statement late November 2014 that said the following, which wasn’t much in words, but spoke volumes in meaning: “….the benefits of disclosing information about the MH17 investigation were outweighed by the risk of damage to the Dutch state’s relations to other states and world bodies.”
Although no one has yet coughed up hard-core evidence against the Kremlin (including it would seem most key figures in the U.S. intelligence community), the Western powers led by Washington have flagrantly exploited the disaster in order to bolster their propaganda campaign against Russia. This is, after all, the Washington Way. Within the geopolitical realm though and in the final analysis, the perpetual siren call of realpolitik dictates that there are more often than not bigger fish to fry.
Moreover, with the possible exception of the consideration the Russian separatists did shoot down the airliner deliberately and did so at the Kremlin’s instigation (a scenario that no one takes seriously), regardless of what happened and who was responsible for the disaster, the Americans themselves have to shoulder most if not all the blame for this lamentable, avoidable tragedy. Their track record of “regime change” is one that is well documented, with the commensurate blowback from such interventions constituting a narrative deep, wide and long enough to justify its own unique classification and index number within the Dewey library catalogue system.
In this context then the MH-17 tragedy appears to be the direct outcome of another of those interventions, collateral damage as a direct consequence of playing the Great Game in the relentless pursuit of empire. For that matter, Ukraine itself may also be destined to take a back seat in the Great Game going forward. This observation was underscored by Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times recently, wherein he reports on an apparent thaw in the U.S.–Russia relationship, one instigated by America.
As for the “60 Minutes” folks, they may or may not have had the best intentions in their fearless efforts to uncover the truth. And they may or may not have covered all the bases and considered all the relevant facts, evidence and issues in delivering their final verdict. If they haven’t then, this would not be the first time by any stretch one of the MSM’s flagship brands has been caught short and found wanting in any or all of the above criteria.
As far as the “60 Minutes” brand itself is concerned, in this respect we only have to recall “Rathergate”. This referred to the Dan Rather imbroglio in 2004 resulting from revelations about George W. Bush’s National Guard duty in the lead-up to the presidential election of that year, “revelations” which were based in part on questionable documents. The botched story it should be remembered culminated in the veteran newsman’s downfall, along with the firing of several lesser known colleagues.
In concluding then, for the moment and for the sake of argument, let’s give the “60 Minutes” crew the benefit of the doubt. They may have approached their investigation with an open mind from the start and then even genuinely believed when they went to air the program they were on the right track. Yet such was the nature of this story that that in the final analysis was never going to be enough. Their findings had to be more than convincing, even more than conclusive; they had to be bulletproof.
For his part Robert Parry has raised sufficient doubts, enough to render their findings significantly less than conclusive if not indeed less than credible. It is difficult then to accept that this high-wire adventure in investigative journalism had less to do with arriving at a truth or reality that most of us could get our heads around. It was more about reinforcing an official narrative – one that has never been explained or evidenced satisfactorily by those who were best positioned, and upon whom it was always incumbent, to do so – and more to do with journalistic one-upmanship, MSM grandstanding and brand refurbishment.
And judging by the singular lack of interest from other MSM outlets in taking up the “60 Minutes” story, even their own colleagues apparently aren’t that convinced they in fact, did get it right. Until and unless this happens, Messrs Usher and Rice and their crew it seems will have two options, neither of which one imagines would be very palatable for Brand “60 Minutes.” They can dig in their heels, “maintain the rage” on their Pat Malone, or stop “mentioning the war.”
Doubtless though, it will be fascinating to see which path they take going forward. Tick, tock!… Tick tock!.. Tick tock!…
Greg Maybury is a freelance writer based in Perth, Western Australia.
Ý KIẾN CỦA NHỮNG NGƯỜI HÀ LAN

Wouter de Kruijk
I live in Holland and all our Media clearly want to blame Russia. I am not a Putin fan but I asked myself who would Benefit from shooting an Airliner, esspecially if they were able to blame it on the Russians. Kiev cant win this War on its own and it is DESPARATE for Western support, and demonising the Russians is excellent for creating support. And in the Western media we are hardly ever told Ukraine had the same BUK systems in Eastern Ukraine as Russia. So if it was an accident both parties could have done it, if it was on purpose the Ukraine is the Logical suspect. As someone said here : Qui bono. Its a cynical world, God bless.
Beantwoorden ·

· 6 mei om 11:30

Yasmine Den Riet
We all are convinced that all relatives require a well-founded reason of this horrible tragedy that happened on july 17th 2014. I am not charmed about the fact that we only should use 1 scenario that a BUK has destroyed the MH17 tourists aircraft. BUK missiles are used in a war zone, that’s for sure. The fragments surely looks like evidence however…. so far I did not see any tests on a plane with a BUK missile. When can we expect the testresults? What happens whenever a BUK missile enters into the aircraft? How does a BUK missile damages the plane? I suppose nothing is expensive enough to get the truth ! The argument of Haisenko, an experienced German pilot (video) has given me totally different understanding about a possible reason why MH17 went down. By their test results. I am not talking about who’s to blame, I only want to be sure that Dutch Investigation Team consider testing’s on a plane (with a BUK missile) as a very serious matter that we owe to all families and friends. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoIw3jBV4g and http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-sSo when can we expect the testresults? hooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/
Beantwoorden ·
· 30 maart om 12:33

Øyvind Randers-Pehrson · Populaire reageerder · 145 volgers
The only way a BUK missile could have reached the plane without any contrail visible from the ground was if it was fired off from very far away, already having reached it’s destined height, which again would mean that it would have had to have had the extra radar vehicle to track the target. The Donbass separatists BUK platform had no such extra radar vehicle and the time window for them to register the plane, track it, decide and fire was less than 2 minutes for the height that MH17 was travelling at, the on-board radar of the BUK launcher itself only has a 32 km range. the plane was travelling at more than 900 km per hour. Do the math.
Which leads to the last plausible possibility: the Ukraine Kiev forces had for some mysterious reason deployed no less than EIGHT such BUK systems against an enemy they KNEW had ZERO air-force… Meer weergeven
Beantwoorden ·
· 31 · Bewerkt · 19 maart om 10:18


Anton Lem · Populaire reageerder · Rotterdam
Didn’t stop them from shooting down 5 SU-25s, 1 SU-24 and 2 MIG-29s.
Beantwoorden ·
· 11 · Bewerkt · 19 maart om 10:54

Alexander N. White · Populaire reageerder
Anton Lem If you followed the situation over the Ukrainian crisis, you would know that rebels used MANPADS to shoot down the aircrafts.
Beantwoorden ·
· 14 · 19 maart om 11:13

Anton Lem · Populaire reageerder · Rotterdam
Alexander N. White Yeah, or maybe a sniper rifle. Or perhaps a slingshot. They only used their SAM vehicles to go on fishing trips, obviously. It’s also perfect for grocery shopping. Great luggage space!
Beantwoorden ·

· 19 · Bewerkt · 19 maart om 11:27
27 meer weergeven

Rob Dekker · Populaire reageerder
As a Dutchman, I am appalled by the posts questioning the evidence presented here by Akkermans and RTL. Objections without a single thread of evidence.
For the doubters here : if you don’t like this evidence presented, that MH17 was taken down by a BUK missile system, but you have no evidence to the contrary, then simply shut up.
Beantwoorden ·
· 18 · 20 maart om 0:58


Alex Plotnikov · Chief Marketing Officer bij MageCloud
Yeah, Putin-apologists are pretty rampant in this thread. Everytime there’s new evidence, they just try to turn away the attention and deny. Like the time when Putin said that there are no Russian troops in Crimea and there were people, who actually defended that point, while the evidence were overwhelming.
Beantwoorden ·
· 8 · 20 maart om 5:54

Carl-Robert Johnsen · Sjøvegan Videregående Skole
Alex Plotnikov They were just on holiday… DUH…
Beantwoorden ·
· 9 · 20 maart om 6:25

Alex Plotnikov · Chief Marketing Officer bij MageCloud
Carl-Robert Johnsen Those are some great workplace conditions. Imagine working in a Porsche dealership and being able to take a Porsche with you on your vacation, like Russian soldiers are allowed to do with their tanks, howitzers and AA systems. Man, what a life! 🙂
Beantwoorden ·

· 7 · 20 maart om 6:27
2 meer weergeven

Dmitry Sirotkin · СевНТУ (бывш. СГТУ, СПИ)
Putin… Fucking murderer.
Beantwoorden ·
· 12 · 19 maart om 12:05


Leo EuroBand Australia · Populaire reageerder · Kapelmeister (Musical Performer in my own Band) bij Self employed
90 cents short of a Dollar or what…????
Beantwoorden ·
· 3 · 19 maart om 19:25

Medved Krymsky · Sebastopol
The letter Ц and Putin immediately killer? 4 months any piece or part can throw in the wreckage. Lies on lies.
Beantwoorden ·
· 3 · 20 maart om 14:32

Dmitry Sirotkin · СевНТУ (бывш. СГТУ, СПИ)
Медведь Крымский Севастополь, как забавно… Еще ровно год назад я стоял на площади Нахимова, снимал это видео: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPpMhJpqTfU , радовался со всеми…
Но раз уж речь зашла об evidence. По осколку можно узнать сплав из которого был изготовлен снаряд и уже потом говорить о том, что это за ракета была и даже возможно где он был изготовлен. А не только по присутствию буквы “Ц” на осколке.
Beantwoorden ·

· 1 · 21 maart om 6:07

Ahto Andron · Werkt bij Servemet
What about the videos, where the BUK escaped with 1 missle missing to russia. And russian forces cut many pieces from the plane, why? Many tweets came from the separates, “we hit a plane!!”, there deleted shortly after.
Beantwoorden ·
· 11 · Bewerkt · 20 maart om 1:08


Eva Maria Baumann · Populaire reageerder · Bangkok
@Ahto Andron You mean the images (and also the video clip with the “smoking gun”) which were supplied to Western media by the SBU IMMEDIATELY almost only minutes after the incident?
http://www.ssu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129116&cat_id=35317
(Note: This article from 7/19th is a follow-up of the original article from 7/17th – basically matching in content – which was taken down later)
Which means they were taken BEFORE?
Beantwoorden ·
· 1 · Bewerkt · 20 maart om 1:16

Jurek Kolasa · Populaire reageerder
Eva Maria Baumann – Bellingcat group has verified the great majority of the evidence pertaining to this. You should study it before posting outdated opinions.
Beantwoorden ·
· 7 · 20 maart om 13:30

Eva Maria Baumann · Populaire reageerder · Bangkok
@Jurek Kolasa Ah, “Belling Cat” alias “Moses Brown” alias “Elliot Higgins”, an “independent blogger” – that is unofficial MI5/6 propaganda operative acting “neutral”, remember “Assad gassed children” or “There is no Al-Qaeda in Syria”, “Assad invented ISIS to discredit the activists for freedom, democracy and human rights” some time ago?
Beantwoorden ·

· 4 · Bewerkt · 20 maart om 13:49
3 meer weergeven

Rob Dekker · Populaire reageerder
Øyvind Randers-Pehrson,
Whatever your views about capitalism or world politics are, it does not give you the right to deny evidence that is not to your liking, nor does it give you the right to invent evidence where it does not exist.
For example Øyvind Randers-Pehrson said : “The only way a BUK missile could have reached the plane without any contrail visible from the ground was if it was fired off from very far away”
For starters, there IS a contrail visible, and two pictures have been made of it.
RTL actually did an excellent post on that, which you completely ignore.
Secondly, the picture WAS taken from very far away (about 10km), so your argument does not even have any factual basis either.
And that was just the first sentence.
Beantwoorden ·
· 7 · 20 maart om 0:47


Øyvind Randers-Pehrson · Populaire reageerder · 145 volgers
Listen, Kiev had 6-8 BUK systems in the east (probably in the area) some or all _with_ an extra long range radar vehicle. Secondly my data for the response time of a BUK _without_ the extra radar still holds true. Which makes it LESS than feasible that the Donbass forces should have been able to track, assess and shoot down MH17 at that altitude, and MUCH more probable that the Kiev forces shot it down – IF it was a BUK that brought it down.
Thirdly to others here: the BUK system is designed to defend and area against relatively low flying ground attack and fighter jets, it is NOT a system designed to take down high-altitude reconnaissance plane or similar. There are other systems designed for that, including high altitude interceptors.
Beantwoorden ·
· 3 · 21 maart om 6:07

Rob Dekker · Populaire reageerder
Øyvind Randers-Pehrson said “Listen, Kiev had 6-8 BUK systems in the east (probably in the area) “
Here you go again. The first sentence alone :
You have no evidence, and are ASSUMING that they are in the area.
Meanwhile you are IGNORING the missile trail photo evidence from a field south of Snizhne, and videos and photo evidence of a BUK driving from Donetsk to Snizhne on the morning of the 17th, a BUK that has been identified (Bellingcat report) as originating from the 53rd BUK brigade in Kursk. Yes, that is Russia. And the evidence that it came with crew.
Øyvind, I’m sure you are a nice guy and we could have a beer together. But PLEASE stop inventing evidence where there is not and ignoring evidence that is publicly available.
It is insulting, and hurtful.
Beantwoorden ·
· 5 · 21 maart om 23:19

Rob Dekker · Populaire reageerder
Øyvind Randers-Pehrson said “the BUK system is designed to defend and area against relatively low flying ground attack and fighter jets,”
Where do you get this stuff ?
A BUK system (especially a single TELAR) actually has a pretty bad radius detecting low flying objects, and an optimal radius around objects between 5 and 15 km altitude. Here is a radius-altitude graph for clarification :
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20140807-080531-8vqlo-jpg.8340/
Why are you creating all these myths, Øyvind ?
Afraid of the truth ?
Beantwoorden ·

· 4 · 21 maart om 23:26
4 meer weergeven

Katya Pugacheva · Long Island City, New York · 227 volgers
This does not look like “Ц”, it looks like “4”.
Beantwoorden ·
· 6 · 19 maart om 12:35


Kiril Belozerski · Populaire reageerder · Cat bij Home
What does it matter? Ukraine shouldn’t have any weapons with Latin letters on them.
Beantwoorden ·
· 2 · 19 maart om 15:23

Leo EuroBand Australia · Populaire reageerder · Kapelmeister (Musical Performer in my own Band) bij Self employed
24 exactly… So what are they all on about…????
Beantwoorden ·

· 1 · 19 maart om 19:24

Darryn Forbes · Remployee relations officer bij Government Contractor
Cui bono ? Not Russia.
Beantwoorden ·
· 5 · 19 maart om 13:40

Vladimir Mihajlin · Lexmond
The fragment shows part of the serial number with a broken off 2 and a Cyrillic Ц from the Russian alphabet….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabets
Only that part, allready showing cheap journalism and low knowledge of world hystory. Second of all ( http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/onderzoek/2048/onderzoek-crash-mh17-17-juli-2014/onderzoek/1629/reactie-op-uitzending-rtl-nieuws-over-bewijs-van-neerhalen-mh17#fasen) . Commision didnt said a word about it. More speculation to progress russophobia ,just befor next Ukrainian miilitary campaign in South-East.