Ukraine is not cooperating with investigation as they should for ‘innocent state’

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

The general public is lead to believe Russia is responsible for downing MH17. Lets take a helicopter view and go back in time. Let us have an independant look at what irrefutable evidence there is to suspect Russia.

There is none. The only lead there is, are two Paris Match published photos of a BUK TELAR which is linked to a BUK operating for the Russian army. Possibly the photos are fake. That is it, no US satellite info, no other clues!

So how did Ukraine obstruct the investigation?

  1. At July 30 the Ukraine parliament had to vote to provide permission for forensic investigator and police officers of the Netherlands and Australia to enter the crash site. (source:Twitter) (NOS)
  2. The Ukraine Air Traffic control organization UkSATSE did not allow the Dutch Safety Board to talk to the air traffic controller responsible for the control of MH17
  3. Ukraine did not provide radar images of primary radars of both military and civil air traffic control. Switched off and in maintenance was the reason given.
  4. Ukraine did not want the Netherlands to directly negotiate with the separatists. This delayed the recovery mission
  5. Ukraine possibily shelled the crash site during many occasions.
  6. Ukraine started an offensive towards the crash site around  July 21, despite an UN resolution to stop all military activities.  This resulted in an unsafe situation which delayed the recovery and investigation. Situation at the crash site is described here.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

40 Comments on Ukraine is not cooperating with investigation as they should for ‘innocent state’

  1. People, who are lying, exhibit evasive behavior from the truth. By analyzing the structure of their lies we know why they are lying. Now it is common sense Western alliance is guilty of systematic lying all the time. It is called ‘politics’. Complot theories are the anti-projection of Western Neocons politics and they are very enlightening.

    In case of MH17 the Russians seem to be overtaken by events and that’s why they look more as random liars. If they had shot down MH17, surely they first would have prepared a marked and slick defense without those ostentatious errors.

    Of course it would be very sophisticated and refined if Russians first planned to shoot down MH17 and then agreed to lie gaudy and clumsy. But that would be counterproductive, so mark it off.

    The art of lying is different for politics or morality. In politics flatly lying is generally accepted but in morality humans are very sensitive and susceptible. Gaudy lying with MH17 will be unmasked immediately. And so it happened.

    Professional pathological liars as Prime Minister Rutte of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans are politicians who have lost their sensibility to lie within morally accepted frameworks.

    MH17 is not a political issue but touches the core of human existence. And now the public was alert and unmasked these pathological liars immediately. But until this day they are bewildered and do not understand precisely how morality works.

    Only the lies of Ukraine were very systematic. They seem the least surprised by the assault on MH17. It is as if they expected this disaster and their brutality was correspondingly.

    Maybe not the government, but the army or other uncontrolled groups might know more.

    We earlier concluded the separatists (b) had not the slightest motive to shoot down a passenger aircraft. But they could have mistakenly shot down MH17 in a conscious handling. The only party with a motive must be Ukraine (a). This means in our scenario Ukraine must be the inventor of the false flag (a). Then most simple and promising permutation is (a,b).

  2. > In case of MH17 the Russians seem to be overtaken by events and that’s why they look more as random liars.

    I’m intrigued about these “Russian lies” that you talk in your posts. Do you have a list?

    • As I wrote, I distinguish two types of politicians: systematic liars and random liars. Systematic liars have a plan while random liars try to escape their fate: a situation not planned. Regarding MH17, Ukraine seems to me a systematic liar and Russia a random liar.

      Russia lied a lot, for example regarding weapon delivery to Donetsk, so it became difficult to trust them when they told the world not to have brought a BUK-TELAR across the border. May be they were right, may be not, it is a random guess.

      Also debris from the fallen MH17 on primary surveillance radar definitely was no fighter aircraft and they must have known that before. So they lied to the world.

      Furthermore they must have known this fighter jet had to be seen long before on primary radar on the same flight level in the neighbourhood of MH17 to be able to shoot the passenger plane down. This was not the case and that was another lie.

      I registered a lot of random lies from the Russians but it is not my task to keep records of everything that happens in the world.

      In relation to the DSB-report I think the Russians spoke the truth. I do not think they brought MH17 down. They had no motive and a mistake seems impossible since they knew MH17 very well on a daily basis from ADS-B.

      • At risk off topic a small correction. With ‘Russians’ I mean of course the RF government and not an uncontrolled faction from the Russian army.

        Things might become very complicated if they brought a BUK-TELAR to Donetsk and held no contact with Rostov Radar. Then Russian soldiers as crew members could easily have been misled to see MH17 for an IL-76. This may have caused communication problems with Ukrainian spotters, which in fact may have been double agents of Ukraine.

      • “Ukraine seems to me a systematic liar”

        I’m intrigued about these “Ukrainian lies” that you talk in your post. Do you have a list?

        • I just planned to ask you 🙂

          • An example of a systematic lie campaign is to pretend your airspace is safe above 9700 meters while you definitely know it’s not:

            [On July 15, it was announced by the military in a Public Statement since July 14 civil aviation was only allowed above 9,700 meters and military aviation was suspended. But actually military flights went on as usual.]

            [- The Public Statement of the army also did not mention Pantsirs (A2A) reaching up to 15 km altitude, probably downed the AN-26 on July 14. For, this was aired only on a diplomatic meeting generally not known to the airlines. Therefore many airlines wrongly assumed only simple MANPADS were in the game certainly not reaching above 9700 meters.]

            But very well must have been known by the army and the SBU the video posted on YouTube by Elena Kolenkina a month (!) before MH17 was shot down:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENJhZwfEfc&list=LLZ3GTMiT5A5cyMntaf6Nh6w&index=4

            [- Elena says SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding, so they could not be touched by the separatists:]

            [(1:32/2:14). This means it was a provocation; they wanted the self-defense force to shoot down an airliner so that the militias can be declared to be terrorists who shoot down airlines. Hundreds of passengers would have died; it would have been a huge catastrophy.]

            [- But suppose the separatists only had Manpads to 3.5 km at their disposal while airliners flew about 10 km altitude. Then they had no story and no reason to put this video on YouTube. This means separatists already on June 18th IMPLICITLY ADMITTED the possession of Pantsirs, the little brother of the BUK with an altitude range of 15 km.]

            Here started the fundamental trace of lies of Ukraine causing the downing of MH17. They definitely must have known separatists possibly could shoot down an airliner.

            Do you really believe their defense they had no proof of advanced weapons before July 17, 2014? Must they wait a passenger aircraft to be shot down to have proof?

            Has Elena – not intentionally – brought Ukraine an idea? Don’t you see the reverse? But even if it was not Ukraine which brought this idea in practice, already on JUNE 21, 2014 they were known with the possibility an airliner could be brought down, one way or the other.

            But Ukraine did not close its airspace above Donetsk immediately on JUNE 22, 2014. Instead they started a SYSTEMATIC LIE CAMPAIGN to the world their civil airspace was safe. And so it happened.

            Does it really matter what party shot down MH17? From this systematic lie campaign all other scenarios must be developed. Also the random lie campaign of the Russians.

          • Prosto Tak // January 30, 2016 at 4:44 am //

            Basic Dimension,

            > An example of a systematic lie campaign is to pretend your airspace is safe above 9700 meters while you definitely know it’s not

            — It’s just your conjecture. While the embryonic Ukrainian security services and the intelligence might have supposed that Russia had already given a powerful “grenade to the apes” it was never stated publicly so you cannot claim this.

            > On July 15, it was announced by the military in a Public Statement since July 14 civil aviation was only allowed above 9,700 meters and military aviation was suspended. But actually military flights went on as usual

            — It’s wrong, the military flights were suspended for a single day, July 15, and were resumed on July 16 when another Ukrainian plane was shot down.

            > The Public Statement of the army also did not mention Pantsirs (A2A) reaching up to 15 km altitude, probably downed the AN-26 on July 14.

            — No one ever mentioned the ‘Pantsirs’ at the time, and the An-26 was officially claimed to have been shot by an air-to-air missile launched from a Russian jet from the Russian side of the border — while in fact it is most possibly not true and the plane might have been in fact downed by a MANPAD when flying much lower than it was allowed to, so the surviving pilots had to lie about the altitude.

            > Elena says

            — Who is that Elena? A grass-root brainwashed separatist repeating a rather standard set of ideas induced by the Russian propagandists. I don’t know if her words about the plane were also part of the brainwashing or her own fantasies. And I don’t think she implied that the separatists had powerful anti-aircraft systems. I don’t think she implied anything — most likely she just did not understand the technicalities of what she was speaking about, she did not understand at what altitudes different planes fly with different missions etc.

            So, the “systematic Ukrainian lie campaign” exists just in the heads of some overexcited individuals.

      • Reply to Basic Dimension:

        > Russia lied a lot, for example regarding weapon delivery to Donetsk

        I haven’t seen any proof of Russia delivering vehicles. There’s no modern weapons or potent anti-air systems. While you and I suspect that Russia does it, as I said, I do not have proof. I’ve seen plenty of videos with the rebels ending up with trophies (Ukrainian army running away and leaving some vehicles with white lines and tons of ammunition behind). But I’m just curious, do you really expect Russia to reveal state secrets if it did transfer weapons and ammo? I think they admitted that there were many volunteer soldiers, and with what was happening in Ukraine (Odessa massacre, etc.) and with a third of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia, I’m sure there were many volunteers. Russia certainly facilitated this…

        > Also debris from the fallen MH17 on primary surveillance radar definitely was no fighter aircraft

        And you know this … how? You are trusting some other source, am I right? So what makes you think that it is your source that is telling the truth rather than Russia is lying here?

        The thing is, the truth is on Russia’s side, so they don’t need to lie 😉 What photos and videos do you have as proof that rebels had Buk? Just 4 fake photos with Buk that came out hours or days after MH17 was shot down, and 3 fake videos (for example, made in Adobe After Effects) with Buk that were also uploaded hours after MH17 was shot down 😉

        There’s a lot to say, but I’m off topic here, so I’ll stop.

        • sotilaspassi // January 29, 2016 at 8:32 am // Reply

          >> Russia lied a lot, for example regarding weapon delivery to Donetsk
          >I haven’t seen any proof of Russia delivering vehicles.
          Then how did those thousands “volunteer” Russian fighters get those hundreds of “more modern than UA” weapons? (T72B3, Pantsir, GPS jammers, etc etc.)
          You can also verify a lot of vehicle paths from satellite images by yourself.

          >> Also debris from the fallen MH17 on primary surveillance radar definitely was no fighter aircraft
          >And you know this … how?
          Everyone who has studied the matter rather than believe someone else knows.

          Simply: Open your eyes. Unless you are paid to not to.

          Initially Russia started to shoot over the border to Ukraine (eg. the AN26 14Jul). But they soon had to deliver more to Ukraine soil to continue. Also the BUK.

        • “The thing is, the truth is on Russia’s side, so they don’t need to lie ?”

          Thank you for making me feel much fun with your words 🙂 Especially looking at how Russia constantly wriggles and dodges to escape the more and more obvious truth.

          • > Thank you for making me feel much fun with your words

            I have more jokes: fake video with Saakashvili made by Avakov’s people 🙂 And Buratino in Snizhne Buk video looks kind of funny just by being there 🙂

  3. Liane Theuer // January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm // Reply

    7. Ukraine stated they had not a single military aircraft in the air on July 17.
    8.Ukraine stated they had not a single Buk in the ATO-zone at this time.
    9. Ukraine first presented Buk 312 as the murder-weapon. The SBU deleted Buk 312 from their homepage, as had been demonstrated to them that it was an Ukrainian Buk.
    10. Ukraine spread just hours after the launch of MH17 edited telephone recordings of allegedly guilty persons.

  4. SBU deleted from its report not only the picture of Buk 312, but also the video of Buk with one missile missing.

  5. Liane Theuer, abcd,

    Ukraine must have known the deadly weapon was a ‘Buk’ “something like 312” (now we know it was what we call “3^2”), and a grass-root SBU employee posted a “Buk 312” picture he or she had just googled out as an illustration; as it appeared to be a well-known picture of a Ukrainian ‘Buk’ it was obviously deleted. Can you see any “Ukraine’s non-cooperation” here?

    As for the ‘Buk’ video, SBU have never deleted it because they have never published it. The video was made by the Ministry of the Interior, and it still remains on its official YouTube channel having more than two million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0

    • And, besides, the Ukrainian “Buk 312” was pictured on a white flatbed truck looking rather similar to the one that transported the Russian “Buk 3^2” — there’s another source for the confusion.

    • Liane Theuer // January 29, 2016 at 7:12 pm // Reply

      Prosto Tak :
      “Ukraine must have known the deadly weapon was a ‘Buk’ “something like 312”
      There are 3 options:
      1) It is your pure fantasy
      2) The Ukraine knew it because they themselves have shot at MH17 with such a Buk
      3) The Ukraine had planned even before the shooting to charge the separatists with such Buk.

      Prosto Tak :
      “(now we know it was what we call “3^2”)“
      WE know ? NO ! I don´t see any proof for Buk “3^2” beeing in Ukraine. And even less I see a proof that Buk “3^2” MH17 had shot down MH17.

      Prosto Tak :
      “and a grass-root SBU employee posted a “Buk 312” picture he or she had just googled out as an illustration;“
      So every „grass-root SBU employee“ can manage it to post something on the SBU website ?!

      Prosto Tak :
      “as it appeared to be a well-known picture of a Ukrainian ‘Buk’ it was obviously deleted.“
      Probably the SBU did not expect that the video from which the photo of Buk 312 was taken, would be circulated on the Internet.

      Prosto Tak :
      “Can you see any “Ukraine’s non-cooperation” here?“
      YES ! I tell you how a real cooperation would look like :
      Unasked giving a list of all ukrainian Buk locations on 17 July to DSB or JIT.
      Can you give any example that Ukraine has been actively trying to prove their innocence ?

      Prosto Tak :
      „And, besides, the Ukrainian “Buk 312” was pictured on a white flatbed truck looking rather similar to the one that transported the Russian “Buk 3^2“
      Indeed – this „grass-root SBU employee“ had a lot of knowledge.
      I hope the JIT identyfied him…

      • “There are 3 options:
        1) It is your pure fantasy
        2) The Ukraine knew it because they themselves have shot at MH17 with such a Buk
        3) The Ukraine had planned even before the shooting to charge the separatists with such Buk.”

        You forgot the main option: your versions are pure fantasies.

        “I don´t see any proof for Buk “3^2” beeing in Ukraine. And even less I see a proof that Buk “3^2” MH17 had shot down MH17”

        So, all the pictures of it in Ukraine are no proof. Bingo!

        And, correct, we have no undeniable proof that this very Russian ‘Buk’ shot down MH17. It must have just taken a leave of absence to visit Ukraine exactly for the date of the shooting down and returned back to Russia immediately after that.

        “So every „grass-root SBU employee“ can manage it to post something on the SBU website ?!”

        Do you really think SBU or CIA chiefs post information on their web sites personally? Or is it much more sane to think they have special people for that who know web publishing better that the numeration of ‘Buks’?

        “YES ! I tell you how a real cooperation would look like :
        Unasked giving a list of all ukrainian Buk locations on 17 July to DSB or JIT”

        In this case, wouldn’t it be much more reasonable to speak about Russia’s non-cooperation? Did Moscow give a list of all its ‘Buk’ location on that day?

        “Indeed – this „grass-root SBU employee“ had a lot of knowledge.
        I hope the JIT identyfied him…”

        I’m afraid he or she had too little knowledge and might have been sacked for the blunder.

      • “Unasked giving a list of all ukrainian Buk locations on 17 July to DSB or JIT.”

        Even better would be for Ukrs, after A-A presentation just provide the location of all BUK missiles in their posession (which is a fixed and well known number and both parties have the serial numbers of each rocket). It could simplify a lot of discussion on the type of the rocket used

        • Russia should have done it first after the DSB report: disclose all data on its ‘Buks’ and their missiles.

    • Prosto Tak, Jan 28:
      > As for the ‘Buk’ video, SBU have never deleted it beacause they have never published it.

      Prosto Tak, indeed, the video of the Buk with one missile missing was first posted by Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov at his Facebook account on 18 July, 2014. Next day, 19 July, SBU held a briefing on MH17 where it presented several photographs (including Buk 312) and a still from Avakov’s video. The same day, 19 July, SBU published a report on MH17 on their website. The report contained the same photographs and the still from the video that had been presented at the briefing. The text of the report repeated the statements made by the SBU official Vitaly Naida at the briefing.
      However, a few days later (I found it somewhere on 24-25 July), SBU updated the 19 July report. They deleted the photograph of Buk 312 and the still from Avakov’s video. Also, they revised the text.
      The following is the link to one of Ukrainian numerous media reports (in Russian) on the SBU briefing of 19 July:
      http://news.liga.net/news/politics/2589163-posle_krusheniya_boeing_777_boeviki_vyvezli_v_rf_tri_buk_m1_sbu.htm
      There, you can see all the pictures presented at the briefing, including the photo of Buk 312 and the still from Avakov’s video. According to the statements made by SBU’s Vitaly Naida at the briefing, on 18 July, at 2 am, two trucks with Buk launchers crossed the border from Ukraine into Russia. One launcher had four missiles , while the other had three missiles. At 4 am, three more trucks crossed the border: one was empty, the other had a Buk launcher with four missiles and the third had a control unit.
      SBU’s revised report (in English) is here:
      http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129116&cat_id=35317
      The report is dated 19 July, 2014, but it has neither the photo of Buk 312 nor the still of the video. Several revisions were made to the text. For instance, the revised report says: “At 2:00, July 18, two movers each with a Buk missile launcher crossed the Russian border in Luhansk region. At 4:00, another three movers: one of them empty, other carrying a launcher with four missiles and the latter allegedly with a control unit, crossed the state border”.
      No mention of a Buk launcher with three missiles.

      • Gteat comment. What is more amusing about the Avakov’s video is that all roads to the location from Snezhnoe have been blocked by Ukrainian army since the middle of 15th. This is not so well known fact (yet) but can be verified by carefully analysing news reports from (even Ukrainian) media.

        To add to the existing dubious facts around the video, there is now an indication that it was a false flag operation by Ukraine.

      • “SBU updated the 19 July report. They deleted the photograph of Buk 312 and the still from Avakov’s video”

        Actually, they did not take away the photo of a ‘Buk’ No. 312 *AND* a still from the video — they took away a single picture that contained the text capture, the Russian ‘Buk’ from the video and the Ukrainian ‘Buk’ No. 312 combined into a single picture.

        As we know very well about the blunder with the ‘Buk’ No. 312 that turned out to be Ukrainian very soon we could understand why they took this illustrative picture away.

        As for the ‘Buk’ snapshot from the video, presumably No. 3^2, they did not take it away individually, it just got lost from SBU site as it was part of the same picture.

        At the same time, Ukraine has never backed off from its initial claim of having filmed the Russian ‘Buk,’ only the location has been made more precise: Luhansk, not Krasnodon as the Ministry of the Interior said initially.

        As you can easily see, the Interior Ministry keeps it on its site as it was, even with that initial incorrect statement of Krasnodon of 18.07.2014, together with the video: http://www.npu.gov.ua/ru/publish/article/1103349 (in Russian; I’m afraid they did not publish it in English).

        And something more about SBU statement on their site: I’ve found a news report about their statement dated the same day, July 19, 2014 but quoting the statement (its Ukrainian version) word-for-word as it is on the site now: http://www.radiosvoboda.org/content/article/25463198.html (in Ukrainian). The news item has no time stamp and was obviously written later in the day than most other reports which still used the original version of the statement. That means the changes on SBU site were made almost immediately, within a couple of hours since the initial publication.

        So, there are absolutely no reasons to suspect a “false flag operation” by Ukraine where they stand by their general version till now though some details were specified more precisely within some time from the shooting down.

  6. sotilaspassi // January 29, 2016 at 8:37 am // Reply

    About the “article”.
    There is not any proof of UA BUK + missile being in the hands of the separatist.
    And we know for sure the missile came from separatist area.

    Ukraine is not innocent, everyone know it.
    They let the civilian flights continue.

    Meanwhile, Russia behaves like guilty of shooting down MH17, spreading 100% lies, destroying original radar evidence, etc.

    • “And we know for sure the missile came from separatist area.”
      All we know is that Snizhne launch location is likely not correct. We also know from physics laws that the story of photographer of the BUK plume is total fabrication. Fabrication prepared in advance. It’s not his fault that he doesn’t know how sound propagates or how plume will spread after launch. Also we know your imagination about physics when you suggested nearly straight trajectory for missile few months ago. And finally we know that DSB had to invent physics to make their simulations.

      But we definitely do not “know for sure the missile came from separatist area.”

      • “All we know is that Snizhne launch location is likely not correct. We also know from physics laws that the story of photographer of the BUK plume is total fabrication”

        Actually, not “all” “know” that but some “truth seekers.” There are no proofs the ‘Buk’ plume photo is a “total fabrication” as you claim, you can only put it into doubt.

        So then we have a Snizhne version — *indirectly* supported by much evidence: sightings of the Russian ‘Buk’ in the area, hearings of a powerful missile starting there exactly before MH17 was shot down that were reported in the local anti-Ukrainian social media groups, the plume photo that you don’t believe (but you don’t believe in anything that would blame Russia), several independent calculations (including Almaz-Antei’s own) of a possible launch site, etc., etc.

        And we have a Zaroshchenske version — based solely on the Russian claims supported by a deliberately misdated satellite photo of the “Ukrainian ‘Buks'” that can be also faked (the heavy vehicles look very strange in the middle of a field without any tracks left, on a later picture they disappear — again leaving no tracks), a pseudo-test by Almaz-Antei that had very little to do with the reality (blowing a stationary warhead against a stationary airframe at the sea level is very different from the real shooting down) — and a tale by some guy who had personally seen “a cupola” of a Ukrainian ‘Buk’ radar that has no “cupola” radome, and who still did not see or hear the launch. No real evidence whatsoever.

        • Prosto, just few weeks ago you pointed out that plume nearly dissapers after 15 seconds. And you just need to read the BS from the photographer about when he made the photo after he heard explosion. And this is apart from the fact that he physically could not hear the missile explosion

          • Prosto Tak // February 2, 2016 at 10:49 am //

            It was not me. I have no idea about how the plume disappears. If you’d ask me about that I’d unprofessionally suggest a time of some minutes, not seconds, given there was no strong wind.

          • Antidyatel // February 2, 2016 at 1:08 pm //

            Yes. It was not you. My mistake. It was sotilaspassi himself http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/photos-show-unusual-curved-contrails-of-aircraft-likely-from-su25s/
            He gives links even where plume disappears within 15 seconds, eventhough he tried to prove another point. But one thing is for sure the plume will not get thicker with time. And will not stay there for minutes.
            You are the first who claims that it was not windy that day.
            The width of the plume at this distance can be estimated to nearly 10 meters. Another good indication.
            But I definitely like most the claim of hearing missile explosion from 10 km height and 15 km away in ground distance. Geometrical attenuation, scattering in clouds and refraction between cold atmosphere on top and warm air at the bottom will lead to sound equivalent to a whisper. And the SBU shill who took the photo can be exposed immediately. But he is one of the network of prearranged SBU sources flooding social network on that day with agenda obviously agreed on days in advance

          • Prosto Tak // February 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm //

            Antidyatel,

            “But he is one of the network of prearranged SBU sources flooding social network on that day with agenda obviously agreed on days in advance”

            — You forgot to add: “in my personal opinion.”

          • Antidyatel // February 2, 2016 at 1:32 pm //

            My opinion indeed. But assuming the pattern of that day, the opinion is well grounded

          • >…one of the network of prearranged SBU sources flooding social network on that day with agenda obviously agreed on days in advance.

            In my opinion, it was not SBU who prearranged sources. In my opinion, it was RNBO (in Ukrainian), SNBO (in Russian), i.e. Council for National Security and Defence. SBU was tasked with a cover-up in the wake of the disaster. In July 2014 RNBO head was Andriy Parubiy, the commandant of Maidan in December 2013-February 2014. Parubiy quitted his RNBO post on 7 August, 2014, reportedly because of disagreements with President Poroshenko. Now Parubiy is vice speaker of the Ukrainian parliament. He has been close to Interior Minister Arsen Avakov.

  7. Hector Reban // January 29, 2016 at 12:07 pm // Reply

    Sotilaspassi, your claim that we know for sure the missile was fired from “separatist area” is untrue.

    Even the DSB designated area – which seems to be constructed with very questionable assumptions and methods – doesn’t hold this to be true.

    • Hector, even the widest version of the DSB designated area has only the southernmost tip of it on the territories not firmly controlled by the separatists, where hostilities were ongoing and it’s really difficult to imagine any side would place its ‘Buks.’

      And don’t forget what the DSB head told immediately after the official presentation has ended: that, according to classified data he had seen but could not officially use in the conclusions, the missile was indeed launched from within the separatist-controlled territory.

      You may, surely, say he lied…

      • Hector Reban // January 30, 2016 at 7:23 am // Reply

        Its obvious you trust NATO agencies who have issued a report with so many fallacies and mistakes, entangled in a web of political manipulation, but I really don’t give a dime for Joustra’s words.

        Its the other way around of course. The southern part of the area was not controlled by the eastern rebels and the frontline was positioned right through the area sometimes over several kolometers (more front area than line so to say).

        Maybe Joustra can get away with his faulty claims because western media swallows it, but in fact Andrew has proven its crap. Besides, why would separatists position a BUK there at the front were you conveniently are reasoning the Ukies would not?

        More important, the report is flawed to the core when calculating this launch area. No serious scientist could approve this clumsy investigation. Its my informed opinion the launch site must be sough more to the west, which would nicely fit with the 17 july military manoeuvers of the Ukies to regain control over the Marinovka area.

        Well, then we have of course the Boggled-like argument: there is ultimately always evidence from the Great Unknown. We can’t see it, but its there, The trustworthy Americans say it themselves.

        But also in this case you haven’t paid attention, because from Joustra’s words we cannot conclude he saw classified American stuff.

        • “why would separatists position a BUK there at the front were you conveniently are reasoning the Ukies would not?”

          — The separatists/Russians did not position their ‘Buk’ at Zaroshchenske as well. They positioned it at Snizhne, far within the territories captured by them at the time.

          Of the whole DSB-designated area, only the southernmost part of it, near Savur-Mohyla, was an area where hostilities were ongoing those days, the rest of it was rather firmly controlled by the separatists.

          “I really don’t give a dime for Joustra’s words”

          — So why do you think anyone should give a cent for your words, I wonder?

          • Hector Reban // February 2, 2016 at 7:27 am //

            Prosto:

            “Far within the territories they controlled”. This of course is nonsense. When Ukies had moved a BUK to the southern positions the DSB regards as justified, it would be just as far from the frontline.

            But then again, their modelling is not that convincing that we should take it for a fact the DSB designated area shows an accurate picture.

            If my words about this should be taken seriously can everyone decide for him/herself after reading this:
            https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/the-mh17-13-october-verdict-dsb-versus-almaz-antei/

          • Prosto Tak // February 2, 2016 at 10:43 am //

            “When Ukies had moved a BUK to the southern positions the DSB regards as justified, it would be just as far from the frontline”

            I’ve somewhat missed your idea about a Ukrainian ‘Buk’ moved to southern positions but if you mean to the South of the front line then the Ukrainian army controlled the territory South of Savur-Mohyla more or less at the time while the area near Snizhne was already off-limits for them to station any heavy equipment there though some quick raids might have been still possible.

            As for DSB, they have designated an area much wider that any of the calculations showed, to be on the safe side, I think.

  8. [And don’t forget what the DSB head told immediately after the official presentation has ended: that, according to classified data he had seen but could not officially use in the conclusions, the missile was indeed launched from within the separatist-controlled territory.]

    DSB say they cannot be hold for lies not in the report…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*