CNN leak on DSB report which blames pro-Russian rebels for shooting down plane is nonsense!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At July 16 CNN reported with big headlines : First on CNN: Sources say MH17 report blames Russian missile for shooting down plane. 

This article is complete nonsense however many media copied the CNN article. For instance the Dutch NOS and RTL Nieuws.

Major Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant however soon published that the DSB report will not mention the weapon and who used it.

According to the CNN article:

Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report.

According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile — a Russian surface-to-air missile — that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory.

Another source with knowledge of the report’s details says it gives a minute by minute timeline of flight MH17. This source also says not only does the draft report pinpoint where the missile was fired from it identifies who was in control of the territory and pins the downing of MH17 on the pro-Russian rebels.

According to both sources, the report also pins some blame on Malaysia Airlines for how its planes were dispatched that day.

News agencies should have known that the CNN article could not be correct. The task of the DSB is to establish the cause of an aviation accident. Not to blame the person who caused it. It is a pure technical investigation. Another reason to not trust the CNN article is that it would be very strange in this highly sensitive case the DSB would report more that what their responsibility is. This would for sure annoy Russia and discredit the DSB report.

However as shown many newspapers copied the CNN news without even thinking if it was correct.

Soon after officials confirmed the DSB report will not contain where the missile was launched and that the Pro-Russian rebels launched it. Major Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant was one of the very few newspapers which stated CNN was incorrect.

Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Olena Zerkal told at a pressmeeting there will be no location or perpetrator mentioned in the DSB report.

Also Mark Rosenker, a former chair of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), familiar with the draft report, said that it was a purely technical investigation that would only say the plane had been struck by a ground-to-air missile, with no information on those who brought the plane down, he stressed. (source)

At August 4, Dutch Ambassador to Ukraine Kees Klompenhouwer has said the DSB report will be purely technical, it will not answer who did it – that answer will be provided by the attorney general’s indictment, the ambassador said.

Another indication that the DSB cannot mention the location of the launch is that as recent as June 20 Dutch members of the JIT took ground samples of the supposed launch location near Snizhne. (source) and NOS. It would be impossible to include the results in the final DSB report. The draft final reports on the investigation into the crash and the investigation pertaining to flight routes were made available to the accredited representatives of the participating States on Tuesday, 2 June. In accordance with ICAO Annex 13, they have sixty days to submit comments on the reports. (source)

DSB spokeswomen Sara Vernooij said this in 2014 about the content of the preliminary report (source)

This interim report, however, has not apportioned any blame. “We investigate the cause of the accident and not who’s responsible,” Sara Vernooij, spokewoman for the Dutch Safety Board OVV, told AFP.

So someone told CNN about the content of the DSB report for what I believe propaganda reasons. And all major news agencies copied it without asking questions. With a single exception being the Dutch de Volkskrant newspaper.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

99 Comments on CNN leak on DSB report which blames pro-Russian rebels for shooting down plane is nonsense!

  1. You could have elaborated a bit on the information about Dutch collecting soil probes from the location near Snezhnoe.
    Boggled, AD and Rob will be happy to know that rebels invited Dutch to do it.
    “Pro-Russian separatists have put images online MH17 Dutch researchers who are working at the scene in eastern Ukraine. We see how the experts under the guidance of the OSCE highlight an area in a field.

    The Emergency Situations Minister Alexei Kostroebitski explains in the video that his people support the Dutch in their research.”

  2. Antidyatel, the main reason they did it with no qualms is they think what can they – JIT – prove after the farmer turning over his field a few times, diesel fuel could be the farmer’s tractor, all the rain and other elements, the fighting in the area.
    They figure they can dispute any evidence gained from that site almost a year after as it is tainted ground.
    And to that I think they might be right, unless the JIT finds direct BUK firing evidence like the firing cable to start the missiles engines or a few BUK firing specific items.

    Admin, I think your right, CNN really jumped the gun on that one.
    The editors really should have squashed that story before it was presented.

    Inexperienced journalists? Propaganda? Someone with Kremlin allegiances making a false story to make all MSM into faulty ‘news’ and that ‘news with a Russian spin’ is the better source? An agency trying to win back viewers that presents a sensational story from other agencies like ABC, CBS, AlJ, Fox? A 24hour news agency that is trying to gain some advertising revenue because people would prefer to watch Soap Operas during the day and DWTS at night? A Kremlin defender putting out false information on Live TV that is blatantly false because she wants to go to work for RT and snub MSM before she goes?
    All possible reasons I could suggest, but your right, an International org like that should have done better.
    And no, I am not a CNN faithful watcher or 24 hour news watcher.

    Yes, Annex 13 has outlined the parameters of what the report can comment on and investigate, however that does not mean that DSB and JIT members may not have members in both groups or that some crossover of investigators does not happen.
    The source may have had access to just one of many preliminary reports drawn up, then edited down to what the official one is.
    I do not know.
    There source could be like the one that Parry quoted and it is just a fictional story concocted by a Kremlin defender.

    However, will evidence presented in the report give clues to various items reported on CNN?
    Direction from which the missile came and the range the missile flew.
    Type of missile, warhead, guidance system, launcher are all possible clues that might be mentioned in the report.

    All possible clues someone could make a conclusion that it was a Russian or Ukrainian BUK launcher, a Russian military only used missile and warhead – never for export – and a direction that was separatist held territory.
    Even though the report specifically does not state those conclusions.

    Fare thee well

    • Antidyatel // August 5, 2015 at 1:07 pm // Reply

      They gave away black boxes, plane parts, passenger bodies – all the direct evidence that can implicate them, instead of your Facebook and Twitter. Now they allow Dutch to investigate the suspected sight that’s was the location of the launch will have traces of specific toxic fuel. What else can they do? Have some shame Boggled. Really, it’s pathetic on your part to not notice that till now there was no official transfer of.any evidence from Ukraine side, except of statements that there were no planes in the skies and Buks on the ground, that everyone has to just trust their word about. They fabricated phone intercepts, gave presentations with Ukr 312 BUK, flushed unverifiable photos of BUK movements in secret daylightthrough social media, and uploaded video with obviously false caption of BUK going through Ukr controlled positions.

      • You claim I have no shame?
        They only gave up the BB 4 days later due to international pressure and that hints were given an international military response would be given to control the scene if they were not given up.

        And you to state that Ukraine has not given any evidence up other than what you claim?
        For shame, you have know clue what evidence Ukraine has given.
        ALL of that evidence from Ukraine and more is being presented to International investigators in control of the scene and investigation.
        Just because RT tells you UA and DSB presents nothing technical to the Kremlin or to RT, does not mean it has not gone to the OFFICIAL investigators.

        Your statement there is so full of utter BS, I am surprised you said it, repeated it, believe it and the admin allowed it through.

        Fare thee well

        • You are lying straight away. They refused to pass boxes to any Ukr supporting hypocrites and shameless counties. So they passed it to Malaysian representatives, hoping for fair investigation. How could they imagine that instead of just releasing black box transcript Malaysians will pass them to most biased party in the case -British. You know, content ofbthe black box is a fixed fact, it should not change no matter what. Interpretation can change, but content will not. So there is no reason to keep it secret, particularly in such resonant case. Then Dutch were given bodies and plane parts – both should have been enough to present public the actual high velocity objects that hit the plane. Again, those are fixed evidence that should not change no matter how long they keep it.interpretation is up for debate but not the physical evidence. The only reason why such fixed evidence is not released, while bastards like Kerry through unsubstantiated accusations,is that preferred interpretation doesn’t fit that evidence. Simple. There is just no legitimate excuse for it, especially in event when you blame another country of mass murder and your actions cam lead to obliteration of the world 5 times. This is purely irresponsible. And I pity you for not understanding it. And I congratulate you with anniversary of war crime that you committed – Hiroshima. And you are personally responsible for it as you didn’t fight for bringing your representatives to court for it. Particularly disgusting assuming your fake stance of self-rightchesness.

          • @Antidyatel you are wrongly informed about the black boxes The handover was not a procedure as it should be with such a disaster. The Malaysian PM himself had to negotiate (I repeat negotiate) to receive the black boxes from the rebels. The night the black boxes were handed over I will never forget as I followed it on Twitter. It took many hours and some changing of location before the Malaysians got the black boxes. For sure they had to sign a paper which could be seen as a recognition of the DPR.
            Before the handover there were threats the blackboxes would be handed over the Russia.
            The black boxes went to the UK because there is an institute who has the knowledge to read out boxes.

            You want to talk about the way the separatists forbid the OSCE to enter the crash site the first 24 hours?

          • Antidyatel // August 6, 2015 at 8:34 am //


            Are you referring to your conspiracy theory that it was negotiated through the family connections In Khazastan. It is not even funny to discuss.
            Also please amend your claim “The bodies of the victims were transported in refrigerated train carriages to Kharkiv. An extra indication for Malaysia having done all the work was that only Malaysian people were on the train. No Dutch.”

            This is so false that it is not funny.

            Najib said that he appealed to their conciseness. Now tell me if a killer was asked out of consciousness give back the body of the victim and the clothes that he was committing the crime in. Best of course that he gives away the weapon of crime. Would the killer do it based on conciseness? Do you honestly belive in such scenario?

          • Admin, you and I were both watching that negotiations trying to determine if parts of MH17 were being flown to Moscow or not.
            Would Moscow make this another flaunting of disregard for international law like Crimea and mean war, or would it allow the International investigators it had approved before to investigate fully with an untainted crime scene?

            A way to attempt to understand the mentality of ‘Separatists’ is in a descriptive article with the title – ‘ … , tortured, buried alive: Horrific crimes of pro-Russia militia in Ukraine’
            I encourage you and your readers to read it.

            Antidyatel, you do not seem to understand how airplane disasters are investigated and reports made?
            I suggest you research Annex 13 and a few other items before you begin to describe customary procedure and what is released to media and the public.
            I also encourage you to read the DSB preliminary report so you know what some of the evidence obtained was.

            Your right though, I believe Kerry being a diplomat should not have made those statements unless the USA was ready to go to war over it at that moment and they were discussing why they are ready to go to war.
            That was a statement a Diplomat should not have made, the POTUS, yes, but Kerry no.
            Bahgdad Bob Lavrov and Churkin are just as guilty of that type of mistake, however.
            Kerry’s statement may be the truth, and he watched the satellite footage as MH17 was destroyed, but it should have not been a media announcement like that by a Diplomat.
            And without presenting evidence or a statement with evidence by BHO soon after to justify a war footing.
            They walked it back, but the damage was done by that statement.

            The Kremlin although had set the stage by their plain ignoring of International Laws and treaties they had signed.
            So yes, I can fault Kerry judgement on that instance, but not really blame him for making that statement.
            The Kremlin was setting the stage for a Global conflict already.

            Admin, the fact that Kremlin and their sponsored media only just brought Hiroshima to the forefront again, and Antidyatel so vehemently repeats the propaganda, is it any wonder why people have banned him?
            And then he tries to pass that judgement onto me, an incident that the responsible and those who made those decisions and those that would have held America’s decision under judicial review would have been born at least 90 years ago?
            And the fact that the rest of the known Kremlin TROLLops propagate this story also in their remarks might shine light on Antidyatel’s statements?

            I am not saying ban him, he makes himself look the fool he is by his comments and insults, but just pointing out a coincidence and a strange one at that.

            Fare thee well

          • Antidyatel said :


            Are you referring to your conspiracy theory that it was negotiated through the family connections In Khazastan. It is not even funny to discuss.

            Where did admin (or anyone else for that matter) refer to a conspiracy theory negotiated through family connections in Khazastan, Antidyatel ?

          • The post in which says that the Malaysian PM used his connections with Kazahstan is described here

            Understand that Razak is not the typical democratic elected PM. Only a few days ago press reported about corruption.

            Ukraine did not like the direct contact by Malaysia with the separatists. This could be a reason why Malaysia was kept out of the JIT for so long. Another reason could be the relationship with Moscow.

            @Antidyatel: any arguments?

          • Antidyatel // August 7, 2015 at 12:33 pm //


            My arguments were expressed in previous post. You still didn’t amend the statement that only Malaysian bodies were released by rebels. Western MSM propaganda did try to spin that story, I grant you that. But that was just a propaganda and you had enough time to correct that obviously incorrect statement. Rebels refused to give black boxes to any party that is biased towards them. OSCE showed itself in quite bad light after reporting from the crash site. They first blamed rebels for touching bodies, then they accused them of letting bodies to rot in open air. They accused them of looting, while all the belongings were gathered in one place for transportation. Not even once they apologised for misinformation. It was Kiev forces that prevented investigators reaching the site by launching an attack. Also instead of just allowing the investigators to reach location through shortest route possible, it was Kiev that demanded them to go through Kiev. Just for political reasons

          • Antidyatel:
            in the blogpost I do not state that only Malaysian bodies were on that train. That is your interpretation. I write:

            “The bodies of the victims were transported in refrigerated train carriages to Kharkiv. An extra indication for Malaysia having done all the work was that only Malaysian people were on the train. No Dutch”

            Read again: I used the word bodies and I used the word people. People is not a dead body. With people I mean persons who were travelling on the train, alive, as a guard/monitor.

            Your comments start to annoy me because they are not backed by URLs and tend towards propaganda. I will not block someone very easily but when this website is being used to spread proven lies and nonsense I will. So I do request to add URLs or other proof of your statements!

            For example you write:
            “It was Kiev forces that prevented investigators reaching the site by launching an attack. Also instead of just allowing the investigators to reach location through shortest route possible, it was Kiev that demanded them to go through Kiev. Just for political reasons”

            So what is your evidence? What Borodai said during an interview? See this post

            So please come with some proof.

          • Antidyatel // August 7, 2015 at 2:59 pm //

            Admin, I indeed misinterpreted your post. Apologies. Indeed, bodies and people should be understood separately. I’m too heated up in debate here.

            Regarding URL, here is one that hints quite directly about those who hindered arrival of inspectors and not just OSCE observers that discredited themselves in eyes of rebels.
            The article also directly points that Ukraine was refusing ceasefire, not the rebels. Ukrs thought that they are winning, so why to stop. “Groysman, a Ukrainian deputy prime minister leading Ukraine’s response to the crash, said at a news conference in Kiev, the capital, on Friday that Parliament needed to endorse the deployment of foreign investigators in Ukraine and that he hoped that this could happen “next week.” and this is on 26th July. More than a week after the crash. And Ukrs were quite sure that they will win

            The confusion about who attacked whome is partly explained in following link
            Security Council spokesman Andriy Lysenko said work was under way around Donetsk on “clearing approaches to the city, on destroying checkpoints of the terrorists”.
            “If there are explosions in the middle of the city, then it is not Ukrainian soldiers,” he told a news conference.
            “We have strict orders not to use air strikes and artillery in the city. If there is fighting in the city, we have information that there is a small self-organized group who are fighting with the terrorists.”
            I hope I provided enough links for discussion. Still no reply from you on BBC link that discusses Ukr jet shot down on 16 July. You are interested if Ukrs were flying between 14 and 17 of July.

            Borough was not there at the site and took liberty in interpreting the events. There is indeed no evidence of a strike on Malaysian team. But name me those that at didn’t lie in this conflict.

          • Thanks for the link. It reminds me of the bizar voting in the Ukraine house of parliament to have investigators enter the crash site. It is confirmed Ukraine started an attack soon after the bodies were evacuated. Making the investigation too dangerous so the team had to leave. Somethin many have forgotten.

            I am a bit lost: what reply do you expect?
            Still no reply from you on BBC link that discusses Ukr jet shot down on 16 July. You are interested if Ukrs were flying between 14 and 17 of July.

          • Admin, I think the BBC Link comment was on recent Churkin page.
            And if I am not wrong was directed to Rob.
            You stated that you have enough belief that Ukraine was flying planes that day.
            You might be right, I think.
            And yes, that could be considered an outright lie or disinformation.
            In war, you try to distract the enemy, say your not flying, then when they put down the MANPADS, go back to flying overhead.
            I do not know for sure if they did or didn’t, they are conflicting statements from the same office about planes being shot down and planes not flying, which should have at that time been one statement reporters demanded clarification on, I think.

            Now to Antidyatel’s confession of being wrong.
            Yippee, I am glad he was able to do it, I think it was a first for me to see.
            Although after how many days of insulting comments on the other thread, how many days of it on this thread?
            And his excuse, which personally he should not have even offered an excuse – just I am wrong let’s move on – , was the reason for misinterpretation after many many long days of commenting, that he was so flustered he could not read it correctly?
            So in his ‘misinterpretation’ he spun that story and created even more confusion to those of us saying what is he talking about? And that MSM was spinning that story also?
            Did he go back on all those comment boards and apologize to because he read it wrong? I wonder.
            He is quick to hand out his vitriol and claim everyone else is wrong.
            I wonder how many other things he is just ‘misinterpreting’?
            Or sees only what he wants to see?
            I do not expect him to ever say that I was right, that is his own mental problem, but I am glad to see he did it for you.
            Seeing him humble himself even slightly means there is still some humanity there.

            And Antidyatel, don’t get me wrong, I will give you credit when I think your right and have a very valid point.
            I will shout it from the top of the mountain.
            However there are a lot of grey areas we are discussing, and many of both our points can be valid until some clarification is brought in about more evidence.
            You express on side, and I give an equally valid counter point that could also be valid on the other side.
            Neither of us will be right all the time, however both sides must be weighed and considered by all parties.
            Sometimes even the prosecution withdraws their case when the defense is strong enough.
            Something we both should keep in mind.

            Fare thee well

          • Antidyatel // August 8, 2015 at 2:39 am //


            Let me give you few other links that you might have missed of forgotten.
            Ukrainian officials claimed multiple times that SU-25 cannot reach 10 km. This is false, even if SU25 is not responsible for downing mh17. And Ukrs should definitely know about it. In 2012 Ukrs declared themselves that they upgraded their SU-25 TO SU-25 M1. That was the selling point at 8th International Aviation and Space Salon AVIASVIT

          • Antidyatel // August 8, 2015 at 2:50 am //

            And one more link for Admin
            This article from AP appeared simultaneously with famous Paris-Match hoax. The stupidity of propaganda is so obvious that now the MSMs try to hush it up. Isn’t Peter Leonard the primary witness that supposed to be investigated by DUTCH? He has seen the BUK and people manning it. Drawn Faces of these people should be on interpol website, if they don’t have their photos. Why isn’t it there? And what a coincidence, Peter Leonard was assigned for a job just in time for AP.

            Same as Bellingcat appears on air on July 15th 2014 and gets the main topic for discussion. While witnesses happily sending it information, instead to investigate committee. How do you explain it to yourself? I really wonder?

          • Admin:

            “Ukraine did not like the direct contact by Malaysia with the separatists.”

            That is exactly the reason. But boo hoo. The people in Donbass exercised their natural rights and expressed their will to govern themselves and took up arms to enforce it when attacked by Kiev. The had and have de facto sovereignty and Malaysia had to recognize it.

            Remind me again how the Netherlands and the United States gained self-government and soveriegnty? Was it not the exact same way as what the people in Donbass are doing right now?

            The DNR held the black boxes and Kiev, the Netherlands, Malaysia, whoever, had zero ability to get to them without going to Donetsk. The idea of Borodai just going to the nearest checkpoint and handing them over to Kiev is preposterous. The Dutch and Australians sat in Kiev and moaned about not being able to get to the site. That they actually thought there was something productive about phony posturing in that way is either an exhibition of childishness or a complete lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. To get there, all they had to do was travel to Rostov and cross the border and treat the people of Donbass like equals. No, Kiev would not have liked it, but why should the Dutch and Australians care if their primary concern was working at the disaster site? Were the feelings of the government people in Kiev more important than accessing the crash scene? Were they more important than the feelings of the victims relatives? Apparently they were, which should make all relatives of the victims stop and think – geopolitics was more important than bringing back their loved ones to be buried.

          • admin said “It is confirmed Ukraine started an attack soon after the bodies were evacuated. ”

            I have seen you make that statement several times now.
            But I did not see any evidence that Ukraine indeed started an attack after July 21 specifically violating their self-imposed 40 km radius ceasefire around the MH17 crash site.

            Could you please provide evidence for your assertion ?

          • This post provide some information on the offensive of Ukraine army. It also says that the Ukraine parliament had to vote to the investigation team to enter the cras site. How weird is that.

          • Antidyatel said “It was Kiev forces that prevented investigators reaching the site by launching an attack.”

            Could you please provide evidence for that statement ?

          • admin said “This post provide some information on the offensive of Ukraine army. ”

            Actually, it does not.
            It just states :

            “A few days later after the crash, the Ukraine army started heavy fights north of the area where MH17 crashed. This was around July 26 when all the bodies has arrived in Kharkiv which was under control of Kiev. The Kiev government said the army wanted to conquer the area around the crash site.”

            But it does not provide any evidence for these statements, and especially does not show any evidence that the Ukrainian government violated their own, self-imposed cease-fire in a 40 km radius from the MH17 crash site (while the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, headed by Borodai, never signed up to that 40 km radius cease fire and instead wanted only a 10 km radius).

          • Rob:

            Its mindboggling keeping up with this sort of rubbish you post.

            “But it does not provide any evidence for these statements, and especially does not show any evidence that the Ukrainian government violated their own, self-imposed cease-fire in a 40 km radius from the MH17 crash site”

            Ukraine seized Debaltseve from the DNR Militia less than one week after the crash. Debaltseve is 24 km from the crash site. From there they set up artillery firing positions 15 km from the crash site visible on Google Earth from September 14 here:

            48°13’26.90″N, 38°28’20.31″E

            And here:

            48°13’37.12″N, 38°27’58.99″E

            And here:

            48°12’51.04″N, 38°23’28.94″E

            Among other places.

            Ukraine also went on an offensive from Debaltseve to Shakhtarsk 10 days after the crash that passed right through the west side of the crash site. They parked the 25th Airborne here and randomly shelled the area around them. See Google Earth on August 4 here of the Ukrainian Army encampment:

            48° 4’15.96″N, 38°31’50.75″E

            That location is 10 km from Hrabove and 6 km from Rozsypne. I’m pretty sure that is inside your imaginary 40 km ceasefire area.

            From the previously mentioned firing positions near Debaltseve, Ukraine shelled the main wreckage area here at Petropavlivka between 7/24 and 8/4:

            48° 8’55.29″N, 38°31’34.33″E

            And here:

            48° 8’36.36″N, 38°32’35.79″E

            Note the direction of the craters – firing was from Ukrainian positions near Debaltseve. But this wasn’t good enough, so they raked each of these areas with additional artillery fire between August 4 and August 7. Shift the Google Earth history to August 7 and watch the number of craters grow.

            And they also fired at this area in that same time:

            48° 9’19.15″N, 38°31’56.73″E

            And also here:

            48° 9’5.95″N, 38°31’30.23″E

            Then they fired this area between August 7 and August 20 very near the main crash site:

            48° 7’18.94″N, 38°37’4.20″E

            That is quite a ceasefire you claim to help out the wreck investigation.

          • Thx for the info. I will look further into this. Might make a blogpost to document it. I am aware of the heay fighting near Petropavlivka. That is the reason the debris were recovered in a later phase because the area was unsafe.
            Now we need to find out the reason for shelling, if possible. Was it to obstruct the investigation and or recovery? Who did it. When did it happen.
            In all cases, it is not wise to shell the area.

      • Antidyatel // August 8, 2015 at 8:41 am // Reply

        Ayayayay Rob,

        How could you miss the mouthpiece of your friends that like to kill so much.
        “Recall on July 27 the Ukrainian Army made significant advances: the military liberated Shakhtersk and started clearing Torez and Snizhne, near the MH17 crash site. In addition, ATO forces managed to break the rebel-held territory in two.”

        Accept your new friends in full, you deserve them

        • Antidyatel, your reference says : ” the military liberated Shakhtersk and started clearing Torez and Snizhne”

          Do you have any evidence for that ?
          As far as I know, neither Shakhtersk, nor Torez, nor Snizhne were ever (after April 2014) under control of Ukraine’s military, and neither do the “battle” maps suggest this.

          • Antidyatel // August 8, 2015 at 11:44 am //

            You and Ukr government manage to escape into the statement of omission for simple reason, my friend. You are distinguishing Ukr army and volunteer battalions. I don’t. That website is their mouthpiece. And it was directly talking about those Nazi scum advances. I already gave a link earlier that even Ukr army representative was attributing the attack on center of Donetzk on 21 July as a work of volunteer patriots. So better stop your BS.

          • Please keep on topic. I like this website to be clean of terms like nazi, liers etc etc.

        • And Antidyatel, your statements like “How could you miss the mouthpiece of your friends that like to kill so much.” are insulting to the 6000+ civilians that were killed in this Russian proxy war, again because they are so void of evidence (as we have come to know to expect from you).

          Look, in most cases of civilian shelling in Eastern Ukraine it is not possible to determine who caused it.

          But in some cases it is.

          And in these cases, such as the Mariupol attacks, and the Volnovakha checkpoint attack, and Kramatorsk, and Artemivsk, both attacked with cluster munition, and in Donetsk, against the very people that these “separatists” claim to protect, the deadly attacks on school 63, and the Leninsky bus stop, and the Jan 30 mortar attacks, ALL of these CLEARLY were fired from Russian controlled areas.

          And despite the evidence that these attacks occurred from Russian controlled areas, Russian media consistently, and hypocritically, puts the blame on Ukraine.

          And not a SINGLE attack can be clearly traced back to the Ukrainian army.

          PLEASE present your evidence if you are making blatant accusations like “your friends that like to kill so much.”.

          The time for lies and BS is OVER !

          • Rob:


            Igor Strelkov Press Conference July 28, 2014

            Intensification of the Ukrainian offensive and the OSCE representatives

            IS: Any other questions? Two or three more questions, and I’ll be finishing.

            Q: Igor Ivanovich, Donetsk 24 here: in your opinion, is the intensification of attacks by the Ukrainian military connected with the arrival of international monitors who need to get to the site of the catastrophe? You see, it just so happened that they moved their forces to Shakhtersk exactly on the day of the arrival of the international monitors.

            IS: Well, admittedly, they began their offensive on the eve [of the arrival]; and the movement towards Shakhtersk, they began the previous evening. They marched all night and arrived at their positions in the morning. I won’t take it upon myself to judge whether this was connected with the arrival of the OSCE representatives or not.

            It’s possible that it was connected. Or, perhaps they simply wanted to demonstrate their outstanding successes—because they’d hoped to take control of Shakhtersk and Torez in the course of one day.

        • Admin, here is another post from Ukrainian source about Ukr advancement towards Torez and Shakhtersk
          You can’t get more pro-ukraininan source than If they were were sure that they attacked Torez than it should be taken seriously, even if official Kiev pretends that their forces are far away. Probably some of those volunteer battalions knew better than Kiev on how important it this to capture the crash site

  3. The Dutch Safety Board wrote, “The draft final reports on the investigation into the crash and the investigation pertaining to flight routes were made available to the accredited representatives of the participating States on Tuesday, 2 June. In accordance with ICAO Annex 13, they have sixty days to submit comments on the reports.” The Dutch Safety Board also wrote, “The investigation team is composed of specialists from Malaysia, Ukraine, the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands.”

    However, the Federal Air Transport Agency of the Russian Federation reported that they have been given thirty days to submit comments.

    It isn’t clear whether the Russian Federation received the draft on June 2. They submitted their comments on or before July 16.

    • The first article you pointed to only has the statement that they did not have the full 60 days to review the DSB report in their hands.
      AS you can see in your beginning of your comment above, the actual terms are 60 days to COMMENT on the report.
      There is a difference ‘IsThatSo’ and I think you are spreading a little misinformation or your confused yourself.
      And it is hard to determine if they were given a shorter time to report to the Kremlin so it could compile all the questions submitted before the full 60 days ran out for the Kremlin to comment.
      A little clarification on the FATA of the RF procedure, such as submissions to the Kremlin and then to the DSB would be in order before stating flat out or assuming that the RF did not have 60 days to submit their comments and questions or to review the document.
      I am pretty sure the regulations would be followed on a critical accident investigation like this.
      What RF did with their time frame 60 days and demands on their own investigators could be completely different.
      The RF may have had 60 days, but the Kremlin gave NATA and the other report reviewers only 4 weeks.

      Fare thee well

    • It is very, very unlikely Russian aviation authority did not got the full 60 days to review and comment.
      DSB is an independant and professioal investigation body. It would be dumb to indeed provide Russia less time to read. Even 30 days should be sufficient. Russia is part of the investigation team so knows what is being investigated even without the official report.

      There are other claims of Russia which are highly likely to be propaganda with the intention to discredit the DSB investigation. Like the claim Russia does not get all the info other participants get.
      The other claim of Russia is that the investigation is too slow. Rubbish as all aviation investigations take at least a year before the final report is published.

      • admin, as to the claim Russia is not getting the info that others get, might relate to information that is more classified under the criminal and civil investigation then the DSB part of the investigation.
        I think all suspects are limited in those parts.
        So on that, Russia, Ukraine, and the Eastern Ukraine militias may not have full access to all investigators and what they know or are analyzing.
        The DSB and ICAO have particular parameters that the Kremlin can be included in, but other investigations that cross into the criminal investigations may be somewhat limited for them to find out what is being investigated.
        Such as identity of witnesses, satellite images provided by the USA, ATC conversations, original files of videos and photographs and quantity of them.
        The parameters of the DSB include certain items and exclude other items which are not particular to the Safety aspect of the plane and what are preventable procedures to follow in the future.

        So yes, I believe as you do, a lot of those statements are just propaganda and attempts to discredit various investigating bodies and trying to show a pattern of ‘Western cover – up’ for the conspiracy theorists to work with.
        Another one attempting to discredit the investigation is the well promoted FSB stooge GWP’s Easter Egg hunt for various parts of MH17 and belongings of the passengers and crew.
        All well thought of before as demonstrated in their shelling around investigators to scare them off, so they could come back in the future and say you investigators did not do your job adequately enough collecting evidence.

        Fare thee well


    Antidyatel states – ‘“It was Kiev forces that prevented investigators reaching the site by launching an attack. Also instead of just allowing the investigators to reach location through shortest route possible, it was Kiev that demanded them to go through Kiev. Just for political reasons”’

    AS the article linked above and other statements states, Kyiv forces were battling in areas around the crash sites, but not close by.
    I could infer from those statements if true, then the separatist forces were following their previous Method of Operation of shelling around and into cities, then roar into town and claim to the townspeople – ‘did you see what the UA military did to your town? We will protect you, and it will only cost you 60 million UAH for this protection.’
    To scare off the investigators and prevent them from looking closely at the alleged launch site and various crash sites closely and interviewing all the witnesses, they began firing randomly around the investigators so they could claim, look the UA military is launching attacks.
    It worked, about August 1st they left because of it being too ‘dangerous’.

    Now as to the part of it being political for them to fly into Kyiv.
    Kyiv had the ability to provide phones that worked in Ukraine, provide vehicles, provide ID that gets them through checkpoints, provide a military escort to the region to protect from various bandits, make sure everyone’s health insurance is up to date, give maps and other tourist info such as gas stations, hospitals, atms, hotels, restaurants and other stuff investigators might need.
    AS well as official documents so they could request from people the use of large transport vehicles for plane parts and bodies, provide translators, identify everyone who was in Ukraine proper so if someone came up missing, the government of Ukraine knew who it was,
    It was not political it was providing the investigators the tools and safety they needed while they were in Ukraine and Kyiv was the most convenient place to get all of that.

    It was not political, it was procedure.

    Fare thee well

  5. They have been thinking perhaps even planning to blame the anti coup forces for shooting the plane down with a buk.
    The Almaz Antey analysis has ruined that for them

    • AA analysis had quite a few flaws in it and has been discredited on those points.
      Location was wrong, debris cloud dynamics and vectors were wrong, the fact Russia did not have any of those BUK active was wrong. Who controlled the area was wrong.
      Many of these issues can be found in the articles at –

      I suggest you read up on them, both in English or Russian, or use your translator software.
      The first one is most informative, but all are worth reading.
      Алмаз-Антей had a better presentation then the Russian MoD but still failed on many counts.

      Fare thee well

      • “debris cloud dynamics and vectors were wrong”

        Amazing, Almaz-Antey doesn’t understand the performance of the warhead they designed and sold, but Rob does.

        • Think out of the (your) box Andrew. AA is a Russian company. Suppose Russia shot down MH17. Do you really think AA would tell the truth in that case?. Maybe, just maybe AA changed the story a bit in their advantage. I have seen many examples of errors in AA presentation documented at Metabunk. Just read yourself.

          • @admin. it’s not enough to cast dispersions at Almaz Antey without providing evidence. Is there any evidence that can be sourced to show they are wrong?

          • I suggest to read the thread on Metabunk as a start.
            for example the angle of the missile approaching the aircraft is a free degrees in the advantage of AA claim

          • I meant cast aspersion, not dispersions 🙂

          • admin Did you see how badly the execs at AA were sweating during their presentation?
            And the other body language.
            Certain parts of the presentation scream out they are not very experienced liars at the points of questionable conclusions they presented.
            I guess it could be too much beer the night before for that amount of sweating or unaccustomed to the lighting, but I doubt it.

            Fare thee well

          • admin, I am curious, has more clarity been given to whether or not it definitely was a 9M314M warhead?
            I have seen a few reports on censor and RTL and others, claiming 9M314, AA claims 9M314M, and I beleive there are about 3 other forms of this warhead, one targeting boats, one for low altitude aircraft, and another for high altitude like ballistic missiles.
            Is there more or less forms of the warhead then the confirmed and stated in your article?


            Do you know or have you found anything new to the warhead’s changeability from missile to missile?
            Or is the nose cone radar the most commonly changed part
            And the warhead is integrally part of the missile?

            I have not followed metabunk or others and clarity on the issue I have not seen, with your contacts is their something else?
            As can bee seen from this article –


            The warheads look very similar in shape and possibly interchangeable to my eye.
            And I imagine depending on the expected target, the manufacturers made modification that would vary the size shape and velocity of spread of the torus or donut for each warhead.
            Have you come across anything or been offered anything that makes the issue more clear in relation to the available warheads?

            Fare thee well

          • I do not know if warheads can be interchanged. I believe it cannot but I am certainly not sure.Point is there is hardly any open source info available on the BUK missile. The AA presentation showed a lot but how to be sure it is correct? In this cause you would need at least two independant sources.

          • Admin:

            Don’t disagree. A-A is a primary part of the Russian Military-Industrial complex.

            But if A-A was deliberately falsifying their work (aside from perhaps hiding some classified information), wouldn’t it be relatively easy to get engineers from Lockheed or Raytheon who make similar SAM systems to check into all their claims?

            Wouldn’t it be easy to get a 9M38M1 missile warhead from Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, or some other western friendly government and check just what is in it, how the explosive is shaped, what the shrapnel looks like and its metalic-chemical composition, perhaps test one or two of them to see the static and dynamic patterns of explosion, etc.?

            It seems like lying would be a very risky course of action to take with an easy ability of the US/Netherlands/Ukraine to expose in the international press and in court.

            Further, if Russia is guilty, Russia could have gotten out of all this trouble by coming out on July 18 and saying yes the rebels shot down a plane, it was an accident during a war where they thought they were targetting something else, Russia will pay the compensation. The world would have moved on, just like with the Iranian Air downing, KAL 007, etc.

            What is infuriating everyone is that no one will man up and say they made a mistake, and both sides are using the shootdown for geopolitical purposes.

          • The propaganda on both sides serves one major goal: to influence the public opinion. The AA presentation was hardly aimed at trying to convince the DSB about the missile trajectory. Indeed the DSB will consult many parties with knowledge on missiles.

            See what Lavrov said: he said AA did its own investigation because the DSB did not contact them. AA is the manufacturer of the missile. I doubt it is true that DSB did not contact AA.
            AA itself that that it suffered from the economic sanctions and wanted to convince they cannot be held responsible for the drama. That was the reason for the presentation.

          • Admin:

            AA was sanctioned on July 16, before the downing on MH17.

            I’m not entirely sure they even understand the timing.

          • @Admin…I read the metabunk thread. What did you mean when you wrote…. “the angle of the missile approaching the aircraft is a free degrees in the advantage of AA claim”
            I don’t understand what you are trying to say. What is “a free degrees”? Thank you

          • Maybe you meana few degree? Can you explain in plain words the evidence against Almaz Antey’s claim? Thank you
            Certainly Snizhne can be ruled out. Snizhne is impossible.
            This important as it shows that the USA and Ukraine and Bellingcat are wrong.
            Whether they go the exact launch site is up for debate but the missile clearly came from the side, not head on. Do you disagree?

          • Yes, I did mean a few degree. No time to check the exact post in the Metabunk thread. Hopefully later.

            What is your argument that Snizhne can be ruled out?

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 8:48 am //

            Admin asked: “What is your argument that Snizhne can be ruled out?”
            How is it that neither pilot or co-pilot noticed are missile trail that went across their field of view just in front of them and should have been visible for them for more than 10 seconds. It should have been quite impressive, don’t you think?

          • You are jumping to conclusions based on your tunnelvision. Lets stick to the facts:
            -the cockpit voice recorder has not been released. So we do not know if the pilots saw a missile or not
            -we do not know the trajectory of the missile. It might come from below or above
            -the missile approaches with enormous speed. Could be hard to see even if one of the pilots saw it coming
            -pilots are not monitoring the sky each and every second while on cruise altitude

            So saying Snizhne can be ruled out is complete nonsense.

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 9:08 am //

            I’m note jumping to the conclusions. I rely on available data. Please reread preliminary report from Dutch. It was claimed that voice recorder was listened and nothing unusual was recorded. At the same time 1 minute before the hit pilot was informed that there is an incoming traffic. After collision of two planes in Switzerland all pilots take seriously such messages and do look around from the cockpit. So your two arguments are jot consistent with available information

          • Antidyatel: you wrote “At the same time 1 minute before the hit pilot was informed that there is an incoming traffic.”

            Where in the DSB report is written about “incoming traffic”??

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 9:22 am //

            I’m glad to help you here. Page 15. Transcript of communication with control tower.
            13:19:49 DNP:MALASIAN one seven, due traffic proceed direct to point
            13:19:56 MH17 ROMEO NOVEMBER DELTA, MALASIAN one seven
            Next minute the strike happened.
            On page 12 figure 2 the details of the traffic are provided.

          • I know that transcript. Mind ATC did not state “incoming traffic” but just “traffic”.
            Mind they also did not state the position of conflicting traffic what is normal procedure. Something like “mind incoming traffic 3 o’clock flightlevel 330 Boeing 747′

            Anyway, it is not a prove that :
            a- pilots monitored the sky in front of them
            b- if they did, the could have seen the missile.

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 10:39 am //

            In 2002 at UBerlagen ATC gave following command “Descend flight level 350, expedite, I have crossing traffic”.
            No indication from where the crossing traffic was coming. That was one of the determined reasons for disaster. All pilots were instructed about it and definitely are paying attention to such messages with full seriousness. And here the missile plume would appear just in-front of them. What is the probability that pilot and co-pilot didn’t notice it? I think it is quite low. Remember that it would take more than 30 seconds for missile to reach hit point from Snezhnoe. So they would see it immediately after they finish the manuvor.

          • It was very cloudy at the moment of crash. Also their eyes could just as well be focused on the instruments as they had to change the autopilot directing it to the new waypoint which was not in the flightplane.

            Lets stop the discussion about if the pilots could see the missile of not. We cannot determine.

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 11:25 am //

            You asked why Snezhnoe can be discredited. I gave the option why. Clouds were quite low that day. In any case in Ukraine region they usually stay low. In any case clouds are generally below 10km mark.
            There is no zero probability that pilots didn’t notice the missile trail. But it is quite low and requires a lot of conditions to coincide. Why would you discard it straight away without evidence? Why not to use the Occam’s Razor and just consider a theory that requires less assumptions – rocket came from another direction

          • Antidyatel // August 10, 2015 at 11:27 am //

            You claim that you want to be impartial. Then try to be and consider all possibilities. Not just those that are promoted by laudest tribunes

          • I do not say a launch from other location than Snizhne is impossible. See my post

            I just say we can discuss this for ages without any facts. This would be a waste of time and confuss readers. I want to focuss on other things.

          • I just deleted a new comment by Antidyatel. As explained I do not want a discussion about if pilots could see an incoming missle or not. We will not know.
            This discussion is now closed and all further comments on this subject will be removed!

      • Rob:

        “Who controlled the area was wrong.”


    • Specifically WHICH part of the Almaz Antey analysis “ruined” the thought that the “anti coup” forces downed MH17 with a BUK ?

      Was it the dynamic particle velocity pattern that Almaz Antey presented, which does not comply with the laws of physics ?

      Or was it Almaz Antey’s debunked declaration that the 9M38M1 missile was no longer used by the Russian military ?

      Or was it Almaz Antey attempt to push the Snizhne launch location out of the way by disingenuously pretending dynamics of fragment velocity addition does not exist, and Zaroshensk’ye is at 72-78 deg off the flight path (while in fact it is 85 deg off the flight path of MH17) ?

      • Rob:

        “Was it the dynamic particle velocity pattern that Almaz Antey presented, which does not comply with the laws of physics?”

        Proof of assertion? Please show your evidence for the warhead shape and fragment distribution density and direction? Missile speed at detnonation? Fragment speed outward from warhead? Fragment packing density within warhead? You can’t just keep gratuitously asserting that Almaz-Antey are liars. Mick West is at least humble enough to admit he is guessing at some of these factors.

        “Or was it Almaz Antey attempt to push the Snizhne launch location out of the way by disingenuously pretending dynamics of fragment velocity addition does not exist, and Zaroshensk’ye is at 72-78 deg off the flight path (while in fact it is 85 deg off the flight path of MH17)?”

        Proof? Please show calculations of 85 degree number. Show calculations of point of impact.

        If flight was at 118 degrees, Zaroshchenske to FlightAware last point is 13 degrees, Zaroshchenske to your last FDR point you posted on Metabunk is 19 degrees. By my reckoning, 180-118+13 = 75 and 180-118+19 is 81.

        Possibly ALmaz-Antey calculated their own point from Rostov radar instead of using yours.

        There is also nothing to say the the BUK in the Russian image didn’t move about somewhere nearby before firing. The image was of course about 5 hours before the shootdown.

        • The BUK image was faked and you know that Andrew, your not some idiot, you can plainly see and admit that.
          As far as to ‘proof’ look deep into both comments and the article I posted with Salonin in it.
          This one is also important that I did not list before.
          It was closer to a head on collision then a side swipe.
          That just does not make sense with all the physics involved and the design of the missile.
          And yes, AA being a Russian defense contractor they would cover for the Kremlin as ou and I both know.
          There evidence is like reading National Enquirer, you have to take it with a grain of salt.
          A big one.
          I encourage you to watch their report again and watcho how profusely the guy started sweating when the issue of the SU25 got mentioned and they hated to contradict the Russian MoD.
          BUT they were SURE if it was a BUK it could only be this one.
          ALL that work and SU25 missile builders couldn’t come on and say if it was Russia aircraft missile, it could only be this one?
          Kremlin couldn’t have fount that since they were promoting the SU25 theory?
          Oh that is right, the main SU designer came up and said, SU25, NO WAY!

          I am not saying it has all the facts, but it has a lot of correct assumptions.

          Lie after Lie has come from Red Sqyare, pity on the fool that believes them.

          Fare thee well

      • Fragment damage to the left engine cowling and no fragment exit holes on the right side of the cockpit, both of these mean a missile did not come from Snizhne and hit the plane.
        This is hard evidence that cannot be changed

        • That is a bit too simplistic Eric. From my own experience while playing with the tool of Mike West I know it is hard to determine from what angle the missile came.
          The fragments are distributed in all directions. Mike West tool only shows the horizontal field.

          • Admin:

            Have you adjusted Mick’s tool for the actual missile speed? I think he was using 1000 m/s or more, but it would have been quite a bit lower since it was beyond the burn time of the motor and the peak speed, probably more like 750 m/s. Also, what assumptions are made about fragment speed, density, and initial direction. The warhead is obviously a very carefully designed item meant to slice a plane open, not just spray shrapnel everywhere like artillery or hand grenades.

          • It is very difficult to calculate the missile speed. I did change it. Someone on the Metabunk forum said a speed lower than 1000 ms/s does not make sense. This person could very well be a Kiev supporter. Hard to trust someone on this.

            Also distribution is hard to calculate although there are some basic rukes like adding vectors. See the metabunk thread. It is very interesting.

          • Andrew, shouldn’t the velocity of the aircraft be considered also in the destruction vectors?
            And to your statement, more like 750 m/s, lots of variables could produce that speed, but it would be more likely with a tailwind, gravity and other items, it would stay closer to the top speed of the missile.
            Would it slow down because it ran out of fuel? OFC, however doubtfully not 200m/s in the first second or two after it runs out of fuel.

            Fare thee well

          • Boggled:

            Yes, there is the vector of the aircraft at 250 m/s, the missile at 750 m/s, the warhead at ??? with all manner of angles.

            Missile speed:

          • Thank you Andrew, I did not expect such a sharp drop off in velocity, not quite as quick as you surmise from the missiles top speed, but entirely possible.

            Did you pick up if that was for M1, M1-2, M2 or if they could actually put an older missile warhead and nose cone on a current modification or rendition of the missile since the M1-2 can fire a variety?
            Like a tail end or engine that has a higher velocity and range because of evolving technology and synthetic fuels?

            IE putting a 500HP V8 in a Gremlin.
            Or putting in a standard V8 in a Gremlin.
            Or a hybrid engine in a Gremlin.
            One would eat a lot of fuel but fly faster – good for intercepting ballistic missiles coming at you.
            Or the other which would be good for higher speed targets like a MiG going away from you where you need the blend of fuel economy and speed.
            And the hybrid one would be for long range flight like helicopter targets at the limits of the potential range.

            Like anything, the more variables you introduce, the different the results can be.

            A few external factors I assume the guidance system takes into account is humidity (how dense the air is), wind direction and speed, uneven burning of fuel, weight of one warhead versus another, gravity (since I think I read usual operation is to use up most of its fuel and then still have a small amount for guidance as it descends from above at the target), the graph shows calculated time for 35 seconds at its longest for launch to target destruction, temperature (cold dry air is usually thicker then warm dry air), fuel generally burns more efficiently when it is warm as opposed to cold – important if the graph was taken in winter tests or maybe not if graph is average results, and probably a multitude of other factors I have not even thought about.

            Thank you again for the graph, it was not what I expected.

            Fare thee well

          • Boggled:

            It surprised me too when I was pointed to it. I had thought the missile was much faster. I should have known better, but got excited about the stated top speed and ignored the average.

          • The metabunk graph presents a missile with a range of 17-21 km.
            It is almost certainly NOT from a 9M38M1, which has a 35 km range.

  6. And honestly and sincerely what would it take you to admit the Kremlin was guilty?
    Could you ever admit that?
    If I showed you a video of Russians with faces plainly visible and patches that jumped in a BUK launched a missile then came out that was geolocated inside Ukraine on July 17, 2014, would you be fighting the truth this hard?
    It does not show the missile to hit on MH17, but a separate IR Satellite video does.
    Would you still live in this alternative reality?

    Fare thee well

    • Boggled:

      How about actual US satellite imagery – not power point slides with a 2010 Digital Globe background? IR, visible, radar imagery through the clouds, etc.

      Drone imagery? Should we believe Ukraine flew no drones anywhere near Saur Mogila to pinpoint artillery and bombing?

      Signals intelligence of the BUK radar working and its location?

      Satellite imagery of the BUK in Donetsk and on its way to Donetsk in the morning when it was clear?

      Photos from the Ukrainian Army near Saur Mogila of the launch? Aleynikov sees but they don’t?

      Photos from locals south of Snizhne of the launch? Tens of thousands of people and no one sees and takes a picture?

      • Yes, Andrew these would all be valid evidence of guilt or pieces of the puzzle that would help add together who the guilty party was.
        And if it was Ukraine as the Kremlin says, would not all of those images be expected to be out there if there was Ukraine’s guilt?
        And you know the Kremlin would have released or put that out their in its media, they have not.
        Don’t you wonder why?
        I mean with all the selfies Russian soldiers are taking in Ukraine while they are on vacation, and all the old Soviets in Ukraine, why has no images been put out there of a UA missile or plane?

        IF Ukraine had all or any of that or the USA had images, they are giving it to the investigators to prevent having a public trial of Russia.
        They are attempting to keep as much evidence as possible for the trial and still giving the guilty party a chance to confess.
        As opposed to trying them in a public circus media trial.
        They are trying to prevent this from turning into a global conflict as much as they can.
        We all feel and have the same frustrations you do by not knowing all the evidence right now.
        In the West they have a procedure, that is supposed to protect the defendant as much as the community.
        They try to avoid media trials when they can.
        Yes, people have an agenda and sometimes the media circus can try someone or slander someone without due process.
        BUT they try to do the most they can to prevent that.
        That is one principle of Democracy.
        Due Process and the right to remain silent.

        Fare thee well

        • “They are attempting to keep as much evidence as possible for the trial and still giving the guilty party a chance to confess.”

          You may want to read this:
          Terrorists and militants planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft

          or this:
          Fragments of Russian Buk- M1-2 missile body are identical to fragments from MH17 wreckage, – expert report

          • Thank you Ole, I had missed that SBU article.
            I am really surprised that Western Media did not pick up and run with that theory.
            Sounds plausible, but they should have demanded some clarification why the intelligence was that.
            Still, for all things considered, they have been a bit more hush hush then they normally are on global matters.

            I had seen that article, I believe I read that some unscrupulous person grabbed parts or evidence in Kharkiv and that is how they got it.
            It like the couple other important leaked issues are rarely talked about in connection to MH17, I wonder why?
            Lack of credibility? Authorities trying to play it down?
            I am not sure.

            Thanks again for the SBU article, I found that intriguing

            Fare thee well

        • Boggled:

          I would put it this way. I think there is a probability that the rebels/Russia may have shot MH17 down, but it is not certain beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind. In a US jury trial, that equals a vote of not guilty. If there is more/new evidence that I don’t know or have missed, I could certainly change my mind. I also view the supposed and entirely undocumented movement of a BUK from Donetsk Russia to Donetsk Ukraine as wild and baseless speculation with absolutely zero evidence. Working around construction equipment with rubber skirting, I certainly don’t believe in the pixelated fuzzy computer image rubber skirt wave shape fingerprints theory if that is some sort of supposed linchpin proof. I personally think there is actually more evidence a damaged BUK was taken by rebels from Lugansk or Donetsk and repaired. At least both sides admit to those BUK’s being within reach and there is also the Kurginyan tape claiming people came to repair them. Even if the rebels had them though, that doesn’t prove one of them fired on MH17.

          • As far as the captured BUK, more then one I do not think so, but one most likely.
            I read some reports they also got 2 or three missiles with it or they got them somewhere else before the other one got delivered.
            They said the targeting, the radar, and some other internals were to badly damaged to be used.
            They said also they had an old Afghan or Chechen war vet to fire it when it was ready, but that took some searching.

            They anticipated a long time to get the parts to repair it.
            So I am thinking this was an old M1 system with a few missiles on it.

            More then likely with the sabotaging the UA troops at the base, also pour sugar in the fuel tank and a few other special sabotage maneuvers when they decided to leave it at the base.
            I am really surprised to have read the ‘rebels’ had gained some missiles though at that time though.

            Could they have been at another base?
            Strelkov got frustrated when it couldn’t be fixed and the UA AirForce was giving their ammo depots and tanks and barracks a large blow.
            He demanded a BUK, and with vova being such a good friend with Girkin all the way back to the Serbian genocide, he got one.
            I do not think it came with missiles, but I could be wrong there.
            Or they could have gone in a separate truck then loaded on the BUK later with some other type of crane?
            Don’t know, but those are a few of my guesses.

            I do think the communication intercepts are factual.
            I think a few of the rebels have already confirmed it was their voices on the recording regarding the BUK.
            I do not think they could repair the one BUK and got vova to send them a surplus inventory one.

            I know it is almost to impossible to prove that someone in the Kremlin ordered the destruction of a civilian airliner as a pretext to invade with the military, but in my heart I believe it is true, most likely Shoigu and even possibly vova but possibly not.
            Because there was not a big shake up there, I am guessing it goes all the way to the top.

            I think they will however be able to prove it was a BUK from Russia with USA satellite data and they followed its route.
            Wasn’t sure what was under the netting, but were sure once it was parked waiting for a target.

            Did they know this real time though or after a long analysis period is hard to tell.
            Since they did not warn anyone, I would assume it is after analysis.
            The reason I believe the USA satellite data is so crucial is the DOD and Pentagon boys said – yippee we get to practice in a conflict situation to us all our new toys in a real conflict situation.

            Yes, they have other areas under constant scrutiny Syria, Iraq, North Korea, etc., but I think this conflict had a group of them following.

            That is why I think it was done after a period of analysis, and not real time so could not warn anyone.
            A BUK from Russia is the only reason that makes sense with the almost complete blackout of leaks of the investigation.

            It also makes sense with Russia’s reaction of 100 different false claims in Kremlin sponsored media and their political ones as well, including the refusal of a Tribunal now.

            I think a BUK launcher from Russia can and will be proven to be the culprit, but the ordering of an attack on an International civilian airplane will be very difficult.
            Can a missile from Russia be proven or can it be proven a missile from Ukraine was the culprit?
            I think so, I think there has been a long search but very quietly for the missile parts. They know almost all the vectors, so they will or have already found them.
            I think a few parts were found with the plane besides warhead parts, but not all.
            Was it enough? I do not think so but maybe.
            I think there was a wide search in the trajectory.
            That will be another part of the case.

            We shall see what communications intercepts UA and others have when the trial comes about.
            It is a long road ahead I think, and for that I feel for the families of the lost souls affect by this.

            Fare thee well

          • And I agree with you, there is still a lot of doubts in my mind also.
            But you go with intuitions, when you lack all the evidence.
            Yours is one way, mine is another.
            To my mind, my theories fit a lot of the puzzle pieces we do have together.
            But like you, if this was all I had at trial, I would give the Kremlin a not guilty vote.
            I would do it with misgivings, but it is just not enough evidence at this moment to say 100 percent to me.
            I think a lot is being withheld from the public for a very good reason.
            A civil war in Russia with nukes and lots of missiles getting distributed between various groups is a very large danger.
            Another is the action the Kremlin may take when it is finally cornered in the public.
            It is a small olive branch to Russia, but not to the elite that sent the BUK to Ukraine, which I believe happened.
            It fits together too well.
            Enjoy your night all.

            Fare thee well

          • boggled said :
            “I read some reports they also got 2 or three missiles with it or they got them somewhere else before the other one got delivered.
            They said the targeting, the radar, and some other internals were to badly damaged to be used.
            They said also they had an old Afghan or Chechen war vet to fire it when it was ready, but that took some searching.

            Do you remember the references where you read all of that ?

          • Rob, I have searched and searched the two histories of the browsers I use and have not been able to locate the exact article.
            I believe it was while looking for Ukraine not making the decision to close the skies.
            I may have posted the link here in one of the articles.
            From what I remember it had Pushilin’s face on it in a big photo, from a street interview.
            I want to say it was RIA or Itar-tass, but the article was in English.
            I believe it was one to two weeks before the June 29th statements on Itar-tass or it was July 2nd or 3rd.
            I am not sure why I cannot find it in my history.
            It was a very short article like the Itar article.
            It dealt only with the BUK, how bad a shape it was in and that it had missiles.
            It was one of the rare photos I saw of him with his right profile being shown, I think he alone in the image.

            A few links to suggest it but not the one I looked for are –
            Almost halfway down.

            About halfway down discusses 1402

            This article about third way down describes the missile broken apart and unusable, tried to follow the Kyivpost link, but it is not properly linked. The good thing it lists reporter’s name, maybe more clarification can be found there?

            This whole article goes into some depth about it, including the twitter posted photo from DNR.

            This one shows some discussions about it with dates from posts.

            Sorry I cannot be more help, I will look further.
            I do think it was a report on July second or third of 2014, but it is possible it was earlier.

            Fare thee well

          • Still have not found it in my history, however, thinking back I can not be 100 percent sure about the date though I thought it was in that time frame.

            This article –


            states –

            ‘Khodakovsky said it was widely known that rebels had obtained BUKs from Ukrainian forces in the past, including three captured at a checkpoint in April and another captured near the airport in Donetsk. He said none of the BUKs captured from Ukrainian forces were operational.’

            And it may have been an article regarding those.
            I will keep looking.

            Fare thee well

  7. @boggled…what is needed is evidence. Not stories on Fox News or long incoherent rants

    • Eric, this is an extremely biased piece, as can be seen from statements like this :

      “Flight MH17 was hundreds of kilometers north of its normal course. Why did flight controllers in Ukraine direct the plane there, across a war zone ”

      which we KNOW to be FALSE.

      The death and destruction among civilians in Eastern Ukraine last summer was absolutely horrendous.
      However, there is no concrete evidence that the Ukrainian forces (neither the Ukrainian army nor the volunteer battalions) have anything to do with the civilian deaths. On the other hand, there IS significant evidence that the Russian backed forces were deliberately shooting at civilian targets and then make statements that the Ukrainians did it.

      I gave a list before, and I can do it again, and we can go into details on these, but since this thread is NOT about Russia’s proxy war in Ukraine, but instead about MH17 specifically, can you PLEASE stop with senseless and unfounded accusations against Ukrainian government, military, and Ukrainian people in general ?

      It’s off topic, and off base, and void of evidence.

  8. Admin, you talked in your post about investigation team taking soil samples from location next to Snezhnoe. Do you know why why they didn’t even try to go to the location suggested by Russian MOD.. That would be better in terms of putting that version to rest instead of Bellingcat’s propaganda. Don’t you think?

    • Atidyatel: I really do not appreciate the jumping to conclusions you are doing here. Your logic is: a sheep is a white animal . All white animals are sheep.
      OR: the JIT team went to Snizhne and that was filmed. No filming at other locations so JIT did not go to other locations.

      What we do not know we do not know! I am sure JIT rather kept their investigation secret.

      Your statement is propaganda. The same propaganda you blaim Bellingcat does. At least they provide evidence for claims. You don’t.

  9. Admin, I agree that probably CNN’s sources are probably over-reaching the final DSB report’s conclusions. Specifically, I don’t expect the DSB to have pin-pointed where the missile was fired from, although it would be extremely helpful (for the later criminal investigation) if they would have done at least an initial analysis of the missile direction, based on the physical evidence from the reconstructed plane (at Gilze Rije). Something that is very hard to do from 2D pictures (as we tried at metabunk).

    Neither do I expect the DSB to include evidence who controlled the area where the missile was fired from. That seems outside of the scope of the DSB’s mission (to determine what caused MH17 to crash).

    You quote Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Olena Zerkal as saying at a pressmeeting “there will be no location or perpetrator mentioned in the DSB report.” in support of your (and mine) opinion.

    Can you please provide a reference to that quote ?
    For the record ?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.