Bellingcat presents new social media evidence for BUK presence in Donetsk

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At March 4 Bellingcat pubished a new post presenting new social media evidence a BUK missile launcher was spotted near Donetsk.

This was published at the vKontakte website at 9:40am on the morning of 17 July 2014 :

“Bad news. Around 9am, a hauler was going along the Makeevka highwayfrom Makeevka in the direction of Donetsk. On the platform was a BukM1-M2? This AAMS proceeded to the intersection with Shakhtostroiteley Boulevard. The system was accompanied by a convoy that was composed of 1 gray Rav4 SUV, a camouflaged UAZ, and a dark blue Hyundai van with tinted windows. As of 9:15am, the vehicle was located at the intersection of Shakhtostroiteley and Ilycha. The militants got out of their cars, blocking 2 of the far left lanes. Obviously, they were waiting for logistical guidance.”

Bellingcat concludes:

The VK post regarding the RAV4, Hyundai, and UAZ was the first online witness report of a Buk in Donetsk on the morning of the MH17 tragedy. Further investigation into the vehicles mentioned in this post indicate that vehicles matching the same descriptions were photographed near the Buk on the same day. Furthermore, two vehicles that strongly resemble the vehicles photographed near the Buk and mentioned in the early morning VK post were described, photographed, and filmed in a separatist convoy headed to Donetsk two days before the downing of MH17. If there is any remaining doubt, this connection provides further proof that the videos and photographs of the Buk on 17 July 2014 are genuine and that the Buk missile launcher seen in eastern Ukraine was under Russian/separatist control.

Further investigation must be conducted regarding the identity of the owners and operators of these two vehicles that accompanied the Buk that downed

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

14 Comments on Bellingcat presents new social media evidence for BUK presence in Donetsk

  1. without pictures/photos to support this social media message means nothing.

  2. We’ll always have Paris Match!

    • Hector Reban // March 5, 2016 at 7:23 am // Reply

      My guess is they will come up with a justification for that after the weekend

      https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/705781724123414528

    • Paris Match photo is a proven fake. Funny enough the Bellingcat deceit operatives debunked their own conspiracy theory

      https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/611523407415480320
      “Unfortunately it looks like the Buk and truck in Donetsk had already moved out of satellite range, though we’re triple checking the images”

      The russian buk only exists in their laptops.

    • Deus Abscondis // March 6, 2016 at 3:15 am // Reply

      Yes it a key link in the chain. I don’t know Higgins to have ever admitted error in the MH17 story. I’ve challenged Higgins and Patin over the promulgation of their lie that Almaz Antey stated the 9M38M1 missiles aren’t used. Almaz Antey never stated such a thing. Do you think Higgins or Patin will correct their propaganda when faced with the facts? No way!
      @Deus_Abscondis

  3. Deus Abscondis // March 6, 2016 at 3:06 am // Reply

    It’s struck me as quite absurd that what we are being told to believe is the second attempt to paint over the bort number was also a failure. If attempting to conceal the number was the aim.

    Let’s see if there is reason to stick to my original theory. ‘Backwards story creation’ or as Arnold Greiganus might put it “planting the evidence in advance”.

    The Kursk BUK was known about well before the ParisMatch BUK. It was singled out for ‘special’ fingerprint treatment by Higgins. It wasn’t announced as a contender for entering Ukraine.

    Then up pops the ParisMatch BUK, and then after some time, the Kursk BUK is “discovered”, ta da, and the already figured out special sideskirt fingerprint method was also “discovered” by a clever operative.

    The Kursk BUK becomes “confirmation” of the ParisMatch BUK. The story appears, and is presented, as a linear chronological sequence but the creation of the story certainly isn’t. Higgin’s response is how did someone independently come up with the fingerprint method and what about all the tweets of the sighting of the BUK? These have been dealt with elsewhere. Toler sidesteps. I simply want to put in place, what may have been obvious to some and went unstated, a backwards story creation method was used to construct the narrative.

    @Deus_Abscondis

    • Hector Reban // March 6, 2016 at 8:13 am // Reply

      About “planting evidence in advance”, to exonorate him, not Arnold said this, but me.

      NB, its a hypothesis.

      My theory about this is the sources, which all give 2nd hand information and have a “credible” pro-Kiev ultranationalist leaning, could have been fed from a single source.

      So not locals passed on useful info to this relays who disseminated the info to ATO troops with the #ATO or #stopterror hashtags, but the informationflow was the other way around. @WowihaY makes this clear a day after the crash when he responds to a BBC journalist he is only “at the end” of the information pipeline, or something like that. He never saw the BUK himself.

      This original source, which is unknown, could be someone belonging to parts within the Ukrainian state that have clear interest in a false flag operation. That they are capable of such operation could be clear if one goes through the orgins of the Maidan square massacre. Besides, the SBU supported such a narrative themselves, which would have involved the Russians. Ill deemers are often ill doers. Again, this is not evidence of course.

      So, contrary to what Arnold believes, I think its really not necessary for the realtime info conveyers/relayers to know for what purpose they were fed specific information, e.g. about a BUK with “4 missiles” (@WowihaY). They are not part of a conspiracy.

      Of course, there is no hard evidence. There are very many circumstances around the dissemination of evidence of the BUK trail though, that could make one suspicious.

      • Hector Reban // March 6, 2016 at 9:00 am // Reply

        Second point I disagree with Arnold is that he assumes its logical the movements of a separatist/Russian BUK are only conveyed by proKiev people (and Ukrainian movements by pro-separatists).

        This is not true. E.g. the 15 july convoy, presumably Novorussian, was covered (videos) by both sides.

        In my humble view its NOT logical pro-separatist people didn’t mention and even cheered for a movement of a BUK – especially in Snizhne, where it drove on its own – as it is a high yield protection weapon after they were bombed two days before by what they thought Ukrainian SU25’s. Several news outlets cheered for the alleged capture of BUKs when separatists raided air-base A1402, so why should they have been silent now?

        Furthermore, Arnold implicitly thinks all proseparatist people must have a strong internal need to be silent about a BUK movement across the Donbass of hundreds of kilometers long.

        • I agree with you Hector. Logically there would be also reports of pro-separatist people who saw the BUK. It is not logical that a BUK transport in the middle of Donetsk was reported by less then 5 people on internet. Many many people have mobile phones in Donetsk. Many other convoys were taped from the street. However the BUK was only tapes from far away locations from appartment buildings which are not occupied.
          It is all very suspicious.

          Add to that that the US did not release any satellite photo of the BUK enroute to Snizhne. These satellites are commercially operated with no secret aspects at all. Add to that the US did not release any information they for sure have.

          • sotilaspassi // March 7, 2016 at 10:46 am //

            “These satellites are commercially operated with no secret aspects at all.”
            The absolute capitalists need money for the photos.

            Do you have any info if US is blocking people from buying the taken commercial satellite photos?

            IMHO: it would be good marketing for those companies to let world press have 17.jul2014 photos for free.

      • Hector Reban // March 6, 2016 at 9:28 am // Reply

        Thirdly, regarding the amount of people being implicated in a conspiracy (which is a good argument made by Arnold), I want to underscore my position its far more important to review the information from the first day than later information that fits the purported trail of evidence now.

        I.e. after 1,5 years people with a strong proKiev stand or a firm believe in the SBU/BEllingcat trail of evidence could be persuaded to be involved in fabricating false evidence for a story of which they are already certain its true. In that case they are doing nothing morally wrong in their view.

        This implies also that though they are involved in creating false evidence, they are not involved in the original false flag operation.

        BTW, I have found a man behind two supporting news items Bellingcat conveys about the Donetsk sighting. Konstantin Golubtsov works both for Facebews.ua (message 12:09 on 17th) and Kriminal.TV (16:18). He is an Ukrainian nationalist, though not from the hardline.

        http://empo.pro/blog/seo/news-portal/

        The Sto Donetsk message, which has a 12:48 EEST brother on another VK group, seems to be ulra-rightwing (AZOV) affiliated.

      • Hector Reban // March 6, 2016 at 9:41 am // Reply

        Thirdly, regarding the amount of people being implicated in a conspiracy (which is a good argument made by Arnold), I want to underscore my position its far more important to review the information from the first day than later information that fits the purported trail of evidence now.

        I.e. after 1,5 years people with a strong proKiev stand or a firm believe in the SBU/BEllingcat trail of evidence could be persuaded (by whoever) to be involved in fabricating false evidence for a story of which they are already certain its true. In that case they are doing nothing morally wrong in their view.

        This implies also that though they are involved in creating false evidence, they are not involved in the original false flag operation.

        BTW, I have found a man behind two supporting news items Bellingcat conveys about the Donetsk sighting. Konstantin Golubtsov works both for Facebews.ua (message 12:09 on 17th) and Kriminal.TV (16:18). He is an Ukrainian nationalist, though not from the hardline.

        http://empo.pro/blog/seo/news-portal/

        The Sto Donetsk message, which has a 12:48 EEST brother on another VK group, seems to be ulra-rightwing (AZOV) affiliated.

  4. In their article, Bellingcat provided the link to the Vkontakte (VK) group “Donetsk is Ukraine!”. Under the post, cited by BC, there are 10 comments. One of the commenters, named Anatoly Chuprina, wrote: “And from Makeevka in the direction of Snezhnoe, at 10:40, a convoy passed, consisting of 3 T-64 and 1 Kamaz.” Another commenter suggested Anatoly Chuprina report that to the Anti-Terrorist Center and posted the ATC contact info. Anatoly Chuprina replied: “I report everything I watch”.
    In fact, in the densely populated area around Donetsk, at the day time, thousands of locals could have seen Buk, provided it was transported there. Pro-separatists would have hailed it, while pro-Kiev locals would have posted “bad news” and/or report it to the ATC (by phone or e-mail).

  5. Denis Cashcov // March 9, 2016 at 3:58 am // Reply

    In an age when even children have mobile phones which can easily take photos an event like the passing of the convoy wasn’t even filmed or photographed once.
    This is despite the fact of the alleged witnesses telling us how important the convoy is.
    Something doesn’t add up

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*