Rosaviatsia Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency states DSB manipulated investigation

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Oleg Storchevoy, deputy head of Russia’s national aviation regulator Rosaviatsia , held a press briefing on Wednesday, October 14, in Moscow. He said  that Moscow categorically disagrees with the Dutch Safety Board’s report on last year’s crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in East Ukraine.

The pressconference can be seen here

On a personal note I believe this is another attempt to confuse and mislead. One of the reasons is that Rosaviatsia seemed not to have read the DSB final report. One of the Russian journalists asked how many attachments the DSB report had. The response of Storchevoy was: “I cannot answer how may attachments the report has, we haven’t reviewed it in detail. So I will not answer” and “We didn’t have to read it (the final report) in detail, we only got it yesterday”

“We do not refute or deny any versions. We believe that there is a need to conduct further studies to determine what the aircraft was struck by,” Storchevoy said according to Sputnik news

“Russia will use the standard presented in annex 5.13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation to initiate the resumption of the disaster investigation,” Oleg Storchevoy told reporters

Alec Luhn, reporter in Moscow for The Guardian attended the meeting. Also Nataliya Vasilyeva of Associated Press attended the meeting. Below some of their Tweets. Also Tweets of Christo Grozev are included.

Some of the statements made by Rosaviatsia were :

  • Russian official claims Dutch told investigators #MH17 Buk had launched from “Schnitze,” they misheard as “Snizhne”
  • Storchevoi denies that Russia calculated #MH17 launch site near Snizhne, as Dutch report says
  • #MH17 only gets more confusing. Almaz-Antey said yesterday it tested launch from Snizhne, Storchevoi says it tested launch from Zaroshchenke
  • Storchevoi complains again that “Russian experts” were not allowed to go to the crash site in eastern Ukraine
  • Storchevoi also contradicts Almaz-Antei saying MH17 was shot down by an older Buk, says they have not evidence to prove it was a Buk at all. “If it wasn’t the missile the Dutch say, what kind was it?” Russian official: “We’re continuing investigation”
  • Russian aviation chief Storchevoi (again) blames the Netherlands to not bothering to remove wreckage from Hrabove until November. Storchevoi: well, the OSCE were hanging around there all the time, why couldn’t Dutch investigators come along?
  • Spanish news agency: “Is it your official position that the Dutch contaminated evidence?”
    RossAviation: Absolutely yes. We have proof.
  • “Not a single proof of bow-shaped schrapnel”
  • RossAviation: “There is not a *single* hole in the plane’s remains that shows a bow-tie pattern”
  • RossAviation: “The report includes a list of Russian inputs we gave in July. None of them were accepted, which we find unacceptable”
  • RossAviation: “The NL report is weak on facts, quality is not up to our standards”
  • RossAviation: Only if BUK came from Snizhne, our radars would have caught it. But not from Zaroshtenske. Maybe the Ukrainians caught it.
  • RossAviation: “We saw a photo of a weighed bow-tie fragment early in the investigation. It showed 5.5 g. Now it shows 6.1 g. Manipulated”
  • RossAviation: “Almaz Antey did not prove it was a BUK missile. They just calculated how it could have happened if it WAS a BUK”

Some statements made

More info

http://news.rin.ru/eng/news///133811/

http://sputniknews.com/world/20151014/1028498849/Russia-MH17-Dutch-Report.html

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e088dbecedff4cc9a95ecab641933599/russia-appeals-un-aviation-body-open-new-mh17-probe#

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

30 Comments on Rosaviatsia Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency states DSB manipulated investigation

  1. is that also not the guy who claimed a few days ago that DSB report would say warhead not over 33kg with 3/4000 frags,clearly wrong

  2. Normally I would trust organizations as DSB, but damned I can’t. I don’t trust the Russians but I don’t trust DSB either. So I have to let calibrate this stuff for some time waiting for inspiration.

    The report certainly has a lot of good elements, but that is more a kind of thorough administration. The framework of the Boeing is perfectly done, but that’s an order for a steel manufacturer, it’s not DSB.

    So I’m in despair, waiting for inspiration of admin. For example: are there no butterflies or bow-ties found in the wreckage? But what does that mean? Has it been a 9M38 with warhead 9H314?

    It is only the Russians who sabotage or are they clashing with the SBU of the DSB?

  3. butterfly frags found means 9N314M warhead,Russia has them as does Ukraine,The erratic claims of the Russian side has now become little more than embarrassing nonsense

  4. found in human remains ergo they are part of missile strike,entry hole can be any shape

    • Almaz-Antey maintains its criticism and concludes that the left engine cannot have been hit from Snizhne. (But that’s strange because the left wing lies in the path of the rocket chord).

      A-A also claims the Boeing 777 has no shrapnel butterfly holes (double T or bow-tie), which definitely are found on the IL-86 hull. What would indicate an old warhead 9H314 without butterflies and no 9H314M1. Therefore, if butterflies are shown in the bodies, how did they get there in the first place?

      Because a detonation from Shizhne would have given about perpendicular shrapnel images on the cockpit on a very short distance, it is very unlikely no butterflies would be found. Here A-A certainly has a point to be taken seriously.

      • Hector Reban // October 15, 2015 at 11:53 am // Reply

        NLR report states the damage to the left wing is consistent with a ¨secundary fragmentationpattern¨ if a BUK 9M38(M1) with a 9N314M warhead exploded 3 meters above the left side of the cockpit.

        The secundary fragmentationpattern is an area in the direction of the missile, so straightforward. But it contains mainly dust and parts from the missile itself.

        Remarkable enough it was just this primary and secundary pattern that was consistent with a Zaroshchenskoye launchsite according to the 2D model of Metabunk´s Mick West, as can be seen in an article on this website in june.

      • Almaz-Antey own direction is impossible because of very many reasons.
        100% RU propaganda for the gullible.

        • Yes AA scenario is impossible for many reasons. We don’t need to mentio them. So many many reasons. No need to say what they are. In fact what are they??

          • sotilaspassi // January 4, 2019 at 12:04 pm //

            A-A direction would:
            -cause missile to target vs center of radar echo (=center of MH17 side profile, not cockpit)
            -cause missile to detonate on the right side of the fuselage

            A-A missile orientation would:
            -cause different wh fragment paths than what is seen on MH17
            -cause wh fragments entering to business class & crew2 & passengers
            -cause wh fragments to hit left side engine + wing
            -cause secondary fragments to miss left side engine (+wing)
            -cause mid-air fuel explosion
            -missile engine piece could not have been found stuck on front-left side window frame (impacted from outside)
            -missile would not hit smaller targets like it is designed to
            -etc…

            +there is no evidence of any BUK launcher or any BUK missile launch from A-A estimated area

  5. DSB selected high energy (warhead) objects. They found 72 high energy objects or parts of them in the cockpit and in the bodies of the crew. They were selected on same size, mass and shape.

    Persons with shrapnel in cockpit:

    Captain Team A: hundreds of metal fragments found.
    First officer Team A: 120 mostly metal fragments.
    Purser: > 100 metal objects.

    Within this group (72) they found 15 high energy objects in the bodies of the crew. Further they found one object in a passenger and 56 in the cockpit wreckage: 15+1+56=72.

    The origin and the elemental composition of these 72 selected cockpit fragments, together with 21 other reference (probably cockpit) fragments (e.g. aeroplane metal structure, cockpit glass) was examined by the NFI (Dutch Forensic Institute) using a scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) system. Further examinations were conducted on cross-sections on fragments using a Focused Ion Beam (FIB).

    As said, 15 high energy ferrous objects or parts of them were found in the cockpit crew: the captain, the first officer and the purser. And it seems the body of the captain contained only one bowtie element, the other was found in the cockpit wreckage.

    But what is the total number of bowtie elements found on the whole crash site? Do we have statistics? Let’s refer to the appendix:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

    6.11

    Bowtie fragments

    [In the wreckage of flight MH17 several non-aircraft related, foreign fragments were found that are assessed to be the high-energy objects, or parts of the high-energy objects, that penetrated the aircraft from the outside. A number of these fragments found in the cockpit area have a distinct butterfly or bowtie shape, as the one seen in Figure 46. These fragments are recognized as one of the three types of preformed fragments used in the 9N314M warhead of the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles. Figure 47 shows these bowtie fragments in an inert 9N314M warhead. Accounting for deformation and abrasion due to explosion and impact, the bowtie fragments found in the wreckage of flight MH17 match the 9N314M warhead bowtie preformed fragments in shape, size and weight. ]

    Used techniques are interesting but will not prove a causal relation between 9N314M and MH17, since the crash site and the bodies have been unattended for a long period of time and techniques only were used qualitatively (naked eye inspection). Hence for causal relations DSB comes with zirconium in the bowties from the windows of the cockpit.

    The origin and the elemental composition of the 72 selected fragments were determined only qualitatively. It was found 43 of the 72 examined fragments consisted of unalloyed steel (rusty = warhead); hence, 29 were not from a warhead (stainless steel and one otherwise). That ‘otherwise’ fragment was non-metallic (coal-slag).

    Only 4 (FOUR) of these 43 ‘had distinctive shapes: cubic and in the form of a bow tie’. As said, they were found in the cockpit. Hence, nowhere else in the wreckage bowties were found. I mean, we have no information. So, only two bowties have been found to support 9N314M. One in the body of the captain of team A and one in the cockpit wreckage.

    And in 20 rusty, out of the 43 rusty, out of the 72 selected objects, fragments of unalloyed steel, aluminum and/or GLASS LIKE DEPOSITS were present. They have been inspected by the Focused Ion Beam (FIB). On 14 of these fragments, the glass deposit consisted of sodium, aluminum, silicon, oxygen and ZIRCONIUM.

    Hence on 14 rusty, out of 20 rusty, out of 43 rusty, out of 72 selected objects THEY FOUND ZIRCONIUM. BUT… POSSIBLY NOT ON THE BOWTIES:

    ‘The chemical composition of 20 selected fragments which had either a very distinctive shape (including the two bow-tie shaped pre-formed fragments) or a layer of deposits OR BOTH was determined. This was determined by means of laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.’

    This is the Dutch text:

    ‘Van 20 geselecteerde fragmenten met OFWEL een zeer uitgesproken vorm (waaronder de twee fragmenten in de vorm van een vlinderdas) OFWEL [[EN/OF; BD]] een laagje afzettingen werd de chemische samenstelling vastgesteld.’

    Is it ‘and’, is it ‘or’ or is it ‘and/or’?

    This information is contradictory because earlier was said ALL 20 elements had a layer of deposits.

    Hence, we don’t know if the bowtie had a layer of deposits. If not, we don’t know how it came into the body of the captain. May be no zirconium was found on the two bowties. Maybe they did not come through the window but through the skin of the cockpit. Maybe they were shot into the body of the captain of team A by criminals. We have no information from this research.

    Now earlier was said 15 high energy objects were found in the crew of the cockpit. We also know 14 of the 20 had zirconium. So 6 out of 15 high energy objects, found in the crew possibly had no zirconium. One of them might be the bowtie found in the captain’s body.

    So it turned out zirconium was found in 14 out of 72 pieces of possible warhead shrapnel. Hence and to be fair, if zirconium has been found on the bowtie in the body of the captain, it might be an important clue. But this zirconium has been demonstrated only qualitatively and it has not been cross checked by independent institutes. Hence this will not be enough to convince the judges. At most there could be a correlation between 9N314M and MH17; causality is not proven.

    Now they found the shrunken experimental group (20) and the control group (21) (probably cockpit wreckage) had the same kind of aluminum, but this was not checked scientifically but only with the naked eye. Here and there they took at will somewhat material. But maybe they first must prove significant differences are to be expected between several kinds of aluminum of planes, using their Focused Ion Beam (FIB), for shrapnel could be transported into the wreckage otherwise.

    Next it seems they SOMEHOW divided the 20 sample elements (n=20) into two groups of fragments. This is ABACADABRA in a scientific report.

    They apparently took m=8 kind of independent variables as metal dimensions. A dependent dichotomous variable seems to indicate the difference or similarity between groups. That dependent variable could be the principal component on which groups can differ or agree. It looks like multiple regression or discriminant analysis but then not optimized because of PCA.

    A number of techniques have been developed enhancing differences or similarities between groups, but sample size always influences significance in the first place.

  6. In the report of DSB high energetic objects are described jointly. As a consequence, the chemical composition of the two bowtie elements is shrouded in darkness; they are disguised in the group. This is completely unacceptable, given the huge importance given by DSB itself to bowties for the distinction between 9H314 and 9H314M. Also PCA analysis is not revealing for individual elements.

    On many places in the report, DSB relies with great confidence on the presence of these bowties. For example they are used as proof to negate air to air missiles. Therefore DSB should be urged to give separate chemical analyses of each bowtie separately.

    Undoubtedly, this data will be provided to the JIT. But in case specific data comes not available for the public and bowties are not cross-examined by independent institutes, legal proof for 9H314M will be invalidated.

    • The DSB report:

      10 Conclusions
      10.2 Supporting conclusions (causes of the crash)
      6. Fragmentation spray of pre-formed fragments.

      ‘(…) The objects that hit the aeroplane from the outside with high energy, as found in the aeroplane wreckage and the bodies of the crew in the cockpit, were made of unalloyed steel. Some of these showed evidence of having passed through the aeroplane’s exterior surface and/or cockpit windows. (…)’

      This is a very strange conclusion. How else than through the plane’s exterior surface and/or through the cockpit windows, high energy objects could have entered the bodies?

      Or did they pass without any damage? Isn’t that amazing if you have available a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) system and a Focused Ion Beam (FIB)?

      Possibly, this means not all shrapnel found in the cockpit or in the crew bodies came in as expected. Maybe only some shrapnel came in through the plane’s exterior surface and/or through the cockpit windows. Maybe a lot of shrapnel found in the bodies entered in a very peculiar manner…

      • DSB report:
        3.6. Weapon systems
        3.6.5. Surface-to-air weapon systems common in the regio.

        We know the following:

        ‘The Buk system’s missiles (the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles) carry a 70 kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead, composed of a high-explosive detonator surrounded by layers of pre-formed fragments. The 9N314 and 9N314M warheads are composed of two layers of pre-formed fragments. The inner layer of pre-formed fragments in the 9N314M warhead is composed of bow-tie shaped fragments together with square shaped ‘filler’ fragments. The outer layer consists of larger square shaped fragments (see Figure 5).’

        Now it is obvious that the larger shaped cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the outside of the warhead of 9M38M1 first arrived at MH17. They made the first holes through which the bowties could penetrate the cockpit freely. But remember bowties are much bigger (13x13x8,2 MM). In which case there must have been found a lot of butterfly impressions on the skin of MH17. Maybe Almaz-Antey forgot to place the larger square shaped fragments (8x8x5 MM) on their warhead, since bowties were very well visible on the IL-86, but that aside.

        Now, how DSB will prove 9H314M if bowties only were non-perforating fragments on MH17?

        10. Conclusions
        10.2. Supporting conclusions (causes of the crash)
        10.2.5. Fragments from one location

        The aeroplane was struck by a large number of small fragments with different shapes and sizes (cubic and in the form of a bow-tie) moving at high velocity. The direction of both the perforating and the non-perforating fragments originated from a single location outside left and above the cockpit. The fragments caused damage to the left hand side of the cockpit, the left engine intake ring and the left wing.

        How has 9H314M been proven?

        10.2.10. Weapon used

        ‘The aeroplane was struck by a 9N314M warhead as carried on a 9M38-series missile and launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. This conclusion is based on the combination of the following; the recorded sound peak, the damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the blast and the impact of fragments, the bow-tie and cubic shaped fragments found in the cockpit and in the bodies of the crew members in the cockpit, the injuries sustained by three crew members in the cockpit, the analysis of the in-flight break-up, the analysis of the explosive residues and paint found and the size and distinct, bow-tie, shape of some of the fragments.’

        A: The registered peak sound has nothing to do with 9H314M especially and is within margin errors and looks like tunnel vision, since the velocity of shrapnel from the blast is much to high for science fiction in the cockpit: Dismissed as circumstantial evidence for proof of 9H314M especially:

        2. Sound peak
        The Cockpit Voice Recorder recorded a 2.3 millisecond sound peak. Signal triangulation showed that the noise originated from outside the aeroplane, starting from a position above the left hand side of the cockpit, propagating from front to aft.

        B: The ‘damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the blast’ dismissed as circumstantial evidence for 9H314M: tunnelvision:

        Since, the DSB report gives no model for 9H314:

        3.9 Blast damage

        ‘By reviewing the observed damage on recovered parts of the aeroplane and by investigation of the blast pressure evolution for a number of discrete points on the aeroplane’s contour, the effects of the blast of the warhead was analysed. This was achieved by means of a so-called computational fluid dynamics simulation performed to provide a high-fidelity quantitative description of the blast loading. The computational fluid dynamic simulation takes into account the altitude, properties of the 9N314M warhead, velocity of the aeroplane, velocity of the warhead, and shape of the aeroplane.
        The position and orientation of the detonating warhead relative to the aeroplane was taken from paragraph 3.8.3, model II.’

        C: The damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the impact of fragments itself: dismissed for court as proof of 9H314M, since it proves 9H314 much better.

        For, the impact of fragments on MH17 misses bowties!

        Both 9H314 and 9H314M have big cubes on the outside of the warhead: 8x8x5 mm. They come first and make the first holes.

        But additionally 9H314 has even bigger cubes of 13x13x8 MM, which looks more like the damage on MH17. BTW have cubes 13x13x8 MM been found in the cockpit? Not reported.

        Also besides cubes: 8x8x5 mm, 9H314M additionally has bowties (13x13x8,2 MM) and little filler cubes (6x6x8,2 MM), both which are not visible on the skin of MH17. That’s remarkable since bowties are much bigger than cubes from the outside layer of warhead 9H314M. May be A-A forget to place outside cubes because bowties are very well visible on the IL-86, but that aside.

        D: Bow-tie and cubic shaped fragments in the cockpit and the body of the captain: dismissed for court without explicitly proven and double checked zirconium and aluminum profiles.

        It must be said the cube found in the body of the First Officer is 6x6x8,2 MM. Might be from 9H314M or from a criminal suspect.

        Up till now there is no prove bowties in the cockpit and in the body of the captain came from the supposed 9H314M. They may have been placed by criminals at the unattended crime site, or may have been shot into the captain before making Rontgen photo’s, since there was no control anywhere.

        E: The injuries sustained by three crew members in the cockpit: until now and without clear evidence not convincing for 9H314M, dismissed.

        F: The analysis of the in-flight break-up: questionable because of willful thinking and too many free parameters. Might be circumstantial evidence. Might fit 9H314 as well.

        G: Explosive residues and paint found at the crash site: Dismissed because of unguarded crash site and also could be from 9H314.

        This proof is a complete mess…

        • Hector Reban // October 18, 2015 at 11:43 am // Reply

          Then you even haven´t mentioned the procedures around the obtaining of paint and explosive samples:

          “As for the paint matching, the DSB says it tested “missile parts found at the wreckage area” with “fragments recovered from the aeroplane”. It concludes : “the paint samples taken from missile parts could not be distinguished from those found on the foreign objects extracted from the aeroplane”. How and when the two sets of samples were found, and by whom, is left unsaid.

          The testing of the explosive residues is just as faulty, or even worse, depending on your forensic standard: “A total of 126 samples were reportedly swabbed from parts of the plane wreckage. Just 30 of these tested positive for two types of explosive – RDX and TNT.A “few” are now reported to have shown traces of the explosive PETN. However, on the missile parts which the DSB claims to be proof of Buk, “traces of RDX was [sic] found. On the missile part [sic] TNT or PETN could not be identified.” The significance of the missing explosive evidence is left unexplained. But the DSB report concedes that “the objects from which the swab samples were taken had been exposed to the elements for a long period of time.” Just how long from crash to recovery the Dutch don’t say. “The possibility of contamination during transport and by the fact that the wreckage lay in an area of armed conflict is a concern for the explosive residue analysis.”

          http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14322

          It certainly is a mess. Much of the evidence is inadmissable in court, but in international politics the report has served its purpose.

          I have seen in the report some 20 points of doubt so far regarding the detonation, damage patterns, investigation procedures and results, its kind of dazzling to me.

          One thing we know for sure: the Bellingcat evidence is not taken seriously and US evidence is totally absent.

  7. sotilaspassi // October 16, 2015 at 9:05 pm // Reply

    Bowties look like this after A-A test:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wajNpOG5yX2kwZDg/view?usp=sharing

    In MH17 case the kinetic energy was higher and detonation was a lot closer to cockpit. Rebels tried to collect every visible bowtie and opened the captain to dug those out also from him.

    Already in last spring A-A was sure about M1 missile type:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wY3N6aXNtTk9hV1E/view?usp=sharing
    (until they found out their lie about Russia not having them failed)

    • “Rebels tried to collect every visible bowtie and opened the captain to dug those out also from him.”

      proof?

    • > Rebels tried to collect every visible bowtie and opened the captain to dug those out also from him.

      The report kind of indicates the opposite.

      Page 85:

      “Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination. The body of the Captain from Team A had undergone an external and internal examination to remove foreign objects. This examination showed a great deal of fragmentation in the body. In addition, hundreds of metal fragments were found. Several bone fractures and other injuries that were observed in the Captain’s body were judged to be related to the impact of metal fragments travelling at a high velocity.”

      It can be interpreted like this: After no bowtie fragments were found in human remains, all of the sudden it was noted that the fragments from the captain’s remains had already been removed elsewhere. How the fragments were assigned to the captain’s remains is unknown.

  8. Actually, both versions seem to be incorrect. It has already been a point of controversy and seems to come out of the way the English text of the report was formulated.

    It’s rather clear that the Captain’s body had been examined by the investigation’s expert themselves who found all those objects there but without knowing it was exactly the Captain’s body, and separately from a special examination of the presumed four bodies of the flight teams; it became clear afterwards, after the identification.

    The Guardian had a story on this — and they’ve made a correction to that point: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/mh17-report-suggests-efforts-were-made-to-cover-up-causes-of-disaster

    “• The subheading and text of this article were amended on 14 October 2015. An earlier version wrongly stated that a “bungled autopsy” had been carried out on the pilot of Malaysian airlines flight MH17. In fact, Dutch forensic scientists carried out the autopsy on the body and removed “foreign objects”. The error was due to a difference in translation between the Dutch and English versions of the Dutch Safety Board’s report into the disaster.”

  9. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/mh17-report-suggests-efforts-were-made-to-cover-up-causes-of-disaster

    ‘Among the fragments of missile shrapnel examined, two were in the shape of a bow tie, which the Dutch board found to be characteristic of a particular type of Buk missile warhead. However, the Russian manufacturer had earlier denied that any such fragments were found, and insisted an older Buk model was used, one that was no longer in service in the Russian armed forces.’

    DSB report page 85:
    ‘(…) Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination.(…)’

    Now, think about it.

    1: Where was the captain found? Not in the cockpit? And how come he was not identified as the captain?

    2: Was his body examined by inexperienced students? Searching for shrapnel?

    So, only DSB mistakenly thought to investigate the body of the wrong person. But the captain was of Malaysian origin. How many Malaysian males were at the plane? How come this terrible mistake? What is the chance of such an error made by professionals?

    And isn’t it an amazing coincidence the Russians are positive there was no bowtie in the captain’s body? Hence, the Russians must have identified the body as from the captain. Otherwise they would not know.

    Unless no bowtie has been found in an earlier stage, what the Russians generalized to the captain. So DSB suddenly must have done their amazing find after the Russians first got the impression no bowties were found.

    So we definitely conclude the bowtie must have been detected in two steps: First phase no bowtie found, second phase eureka. Unless the Russians did not speak the truth…

    So, in the second instance DSB examined his body again, searching for bowties and guess what, they found a bowtie. And in addition they found another one in the wreckage of the cockpit. But maybe they first found one in the cockpit wreckage then reexamined the bodies.

    It is fairly certain this follows not the product rule of independent chances:

    1: (p = 10%) They misidentified the captain times
    2: (p = 40%) in the second instance they found the only human bound bowtie just in his body = 4 % chance.

    This chance is low, unless as said we suppose some legitimate covariance between dependent chances. Now a legitimate covariate might be the captain was placed in the left chair (?), so if there was a bowtie to be found the biggest chance was in his body. That’s correct reasoning.

    But of course, in that case you first inform the Russians about your plan for a second autopsy on the captain’s body, for a child can understand a bowtie from heaven would not be accepted by the Russians. So, is this silly administration of research by DSB without notarial record, or is this something else?

    What is terribly missing is a logbook, an administration of findings from which later can be inspected what happened chronologically.

    For now I refuse to believe fraud has been committed with research data. That goes way too far. But I demand a chronological explanation of DSB aligned with the Russian earlier perception that no bowtie was found in the first autopsy on the body of the captain.

  10. > Where was the captain found? Not in the cockpit?

    — Obviously, not in the cockpit, as there was no cockpit any more. His body was found on the ground.

    > And how come he was not identified as the captain?

    — Do you understand what has remained of many of the bodies reduced to charred remains on the ground?

    > Was his body examined by inexperienced students? Searching for shrapnel?

    — What on the Earth made you think so?

    > So, only DSB mistakenly thought to investigate the body of the wrong person.

    — Why do you think they “mistakingly thought” anything? They’ve just examined an unknown body and found lots of ‘Buk’ warhead fragments within it. Later, they found out it had been the captain. Or, actually, A captain, as there were two separate flight teams, and two captains.

    > And isn’t it an amazing coincidence the Russians are positive there was no bowtie in the captain’s body? Hence, the Russians must have identified the body as from the captain.

    — Do you have any data stating that the Russians were meddling into the investigation and did their own separate autopsies of any bodies and even identifying them before giving them away to DSB?

    If you do, it would be an evidence into a criminal case against the Russians having tampered into the official DSB investigation. Please supply the data.

    • Prosto:

      Thanks for your friendly reaction. I always appreciate your expertise in this area. We all have a role to play. We all want to find the perpetrators what unites us on this blog.

      > Where was the captain found? Not in the cockpit?
      [— Obviously, not in the cockpit, as there was no cockpit any more. His body was found on the ground.]

      Okay, accepted, though you have no proof.

      > And how come he was not identified as the captain?
      [— Do you understand what has remained of many of the bodies reduced to charred remains on the ground?]

      Well, many persons were recognizable. But maybe you’re right as far as it concerns the cockpit. But on the other hand the first person they looked for must have been the pilot. So it is illogical.

      > Was his body examined by inexperienced students? Searching for shrapnel?
      [— What on the Earth made you think so?]

      I don’t believe professionals just cut open bodies in series to collect shrapnel, of course not. They definitely must have had an idea it was the captain or someone from the cockpit.

      > So, only DSB mistakenly thought to investigate the body of the wrong person.
      [— Why do you think they “mistakingly thought” anything? They’ve just examined an unknown body and found lots of ‘Buk’ warhead fragments within it. Later, they found out it had been the captain. Or, actually, A captain, as there were two separate flight teams, and two captains.]

      I think it was the captain of team A, who was also the pilot in function in the left chair, since on him they “found” the bowtie. And if someone was difficult to identify on that plane it had to be the pilot in function on that chair. So they were warned it could be the pilot.

      And remember the crucial argument of the Russians is DSB found the bowtie only in the second instance. If it was an honest action then it was stupid not to involve the Russians at that moment. That’s my point, cause if Jit really thinks the Russians are the perpetrators they missed an opportunity to involve them.

      > And isn’t it an amazing coincidence the Russians are positive there was no bowtie in the captain’s body? Hence, the Russians must have identified the body as from the captain.
      [— Do you have any data stating that the Russians were meddling into the investigation and did their own separate autopsies of any bodies and even identifying them before giving them away to DSB?

      If you do, it would be an evidence into a criminal case against the Russians having tampered into the official DSB investigation. Please supply the data.]

      Straw man argument.

      • > I don’t believe professionals just cut open bodies in series to collect shrapnel, of course not. They definitely must have had an idea it was the captain or someone from the cockpit.

        — Believe it or not, in cases like this one professionals do examine EVERY body and a piece of a body.

        And you still seem to think the captain’s body was found in its chair still holding the rudder and looking through the windshield, with his uniform hat on?

        > Straw man argument.

        — What else can you say having NO arguments?

  11. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf

    3.3 Analysis and assessment
    2. What hit the aeroplane of flight MH17 (and what did not) (page 35)

    It looks like DSB in the results mingles:

    1: fragments of shrapnel (splinters).
    2: bowties and cubes.
    3: fragments or parts of a missile.

    Fragments of shrapnel:

    Part 1:

    ‘Metal fragments
    The shape and size of the metal fragments made it possible to issue statements about their source. A NUMBER of these fragments had a special shape, which can basically be described as CUBIC AND BOW-TIE SHAPED. Knowledge of weapons was used to establish that fragments having THIS SHAPE are released at the detonation of a certain type of warhead. Using knowledge about different types of weapons, a corresponding weapon was sought that could contain fragments WITH THIS TYPE OF SHAPE. Traces (of aluminium and glass) THAT WERE DISCOVERED ON THE FRAGMENTS were also relevant, because this enabled the investigators to deduce whether, and with what, the fragments had collided’.

    Here ‘THE’ definitely refers to a certain group of fragments extracted from the whole: bowties and cubes. Hence they have proof the bowties came through the cockpit window and/or the outer skin of the plane.

    But what comes now: fragments of shrapnel or fragments of a missile?

    Connecting Part II:

    ‘The Dutch Safety Board attempted to obtain reference material of the suspected weapon in order to further substantiate the origin of THE fragments. The objective was to establish that the chemical composition of THE fragments was consistent with that of the suspected weapon. This was not achieved, so this verification could not take place’

    Does this mean bowties chemically did not match 9H314M? Or missile fragments did not match 9H314M or the missile? No, it definitely has been concluded bowties were not of the same chemical composition as a warhead. But that’s not important. Only important is if the two bowties are covered with aluminum and zirconium of MH17. And that’s they confirmed.

    Connecting Part III:

    ‘During the recovery of the aeroplane, OTHER OBJECTS were found that correspond with parts of a specific missile in terms of shape and appearance. Two shards were discovered in the aeroplane (in the cockpit and the left wing tip). The paint and traces on the shards and traces on pieces of the wreckage were compared with paint and traces of an explosive on THE OBJECTS that were found. These analyses were performed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) at the request of the Public Prosecution Service and shared with the Dutch Safety Board.’

    Now we are sure OTHER OBJECTS are part of the missile and metal fragments (shrapnel, inclusive bowties and cubes) chemically were NOT involved in a warhead or a missile. We also know aluminum and zirconium of MH17 were found on the bowties and cubes. Maybe Jit has some proof which it does not want to reveal to the public now. Maybe they also have proof of butterflie images on the fuselage…

    What we see is JIT keeps its powder dry because, since as has been argued previously in this place they have no legal position. Would they now already lay their cards on the table suspects would take a stand to crumble their arguments.

  12. It is unlikely large debris has been stolen from the crash site. More likely is DSW had some reason to wait 4-8 months with their collection of debris, which meanwhile disappeared somehow. This moment many parts of the plane’s fuselage are missing which have not yet photographed. That’s because they are missing.

    It might be JIT already confiscated some parts. Although DSB already found two bow ties with aluminum and zirconium, it’s too meager in court. So I predict February 2016 JIT will report to have found butterfly images on some yet undiscovered parts of the fuselage. But remember I have no proof; it’s just a projection from what we know now.

  13. Dueling logics Meduza examines Rosaviation’s biggest gripes about the Dutch MH17 report
    https://meduza.io/en/feature/2015/10/20/dueling-logics

  14. http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311 (press below: English)

    In January 2016 the Russian aviation authority Rosaviacia has named six new facts that demonstrate the lack of credibility of the conclusions drawn by the Netherlands, according to which the MH17 had been shot with a 9M38M1-Buk missile. These details are contained in an official letter of the Vice Chief of the Authority, Oleg Stortschewoj, to the chairman of the Dutch Security Tjibbe Joustra.

    Comments can be found here:

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-lot-of-evidence-is-missing-or-was-not-obtained-on-mh17/#comment-14500

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*