MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: DJW001

You sir, are sadly mistaken. I had not noticed you are a news junkie, but you sure missed this one. Being from Earth, are you also from the US? Do you watch the US MSM, or only European?

On the Thursday evening I watched it, they were all absolutely certain of what they had been told by their "un-named sources" in the government. Standard MO for MSM when they break a big propaganda story. Like privacy in reverse, they can say anything they want, but they just can't tell you who it was that said it.

News junkie? ROFLMAO

a reply to: Salander

You sir, are sadly mistaken. I had not noticed you are a news junkie, but you sure missed this one. Being from Earth, are you also from the US? Do you watch the US MSM, or only European?

Of course I get my news from multiple sources from multiple countries. If you actually lived in the United States, as you claim, you would know that local news airs one hour before "prime time" for half an hour, followed by a half hour of national and international news. No story gets more than three minutes coverage so they can have commercials every six minutes. The only exception to this is when there is a pre-planned event, such as the Olympics, where sponsors have purchased air time because it is expected to have a wider audience than the usual prime time programming. Please bear this fact of everyday life in America in mind the next time you try to pretend you saw something on TV.

Shakes head sadly.

a reply to: DJW001

OK, I get it--you live sur la lune. I should have known. I think French is probably the most beautiful of the languages spoken by humans, especially when spoken by a beautiful woman.

But perhaps you have been too long sur la lune, because you are grossly misinformed about how the various brands of "Evening News" are presented here. In general terms you are correct with the 30 minute time frame, but there on the moon, you must have missed a few of those one hour specials.

Were you watching TV back when President Clinton interrupted prime time programming to inform the country of an airplane "accident" that was TWA800? We news junkies still laugh about that one. Next thing you know, POTUS will announce train wrecks and house fires.

TV has a huge propaganda effect, and you are such a news junkie that you didn't even know it.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: DJW001

OK, I get it--you live sur la lune. I should have known. I think French is probably the most beautiful of the languages spoken by humans, especially when spoken by a beautiful woman.

But perhaps you have been too long sur la lune, because you are grossly misinformed about how the various brands of "Evening News" are presented here. In general terms you are correct with the 30 minute time frame, but there on the moon, you must have missed a few of those one hour specials.

Were you watching TV back when President Clinton interrupted prime time programming to inform the country of an airplane "accident" that was TWA800? We news junkies still laugh about that one. Next thing you know, POTUS will announce train wrecks and house fires.

TV has a huge propaganda effect, and you are such a news junkie that you didn't even know it.

Are you sure your from the US once again your wrong Clinton didn't announce the accident occured. He did however meet with the families of the accident victims. And afterwards he held a press conference explaining the steps he was taking to investigate the crash. This was an election year and Clinton didn't want the crash to wreck his campaign. His press conference was a week later after he met with the families. The reason for meeting them is simple there were allocations of a bomb having been on the aircraft and even talk of a missile being fired. That would be a national security issue of huge proportions. Armed men shooting down aircraft on US territory and you don't think Clinton should have commented? In his speech on July 25 he assures the amarican public he would find the cause and explained the steps he was taking to do so. This isnt propaganda since he had no one to accuse he simply said we will investigate. Though I'm sure Clinton was very happy to get rid of the topic saying it's under investigation since several requests to discuss it were declined by him on this grounds.

So I guess you apparently have very faulty memory when it comes to what you see on the news. Now what on earth does any of this have to do with the fact that your wrong about the coverage of mh17 and we'll now tea 800 as well. Is that the link you were trying to make? There was no broadcast interruptions over mh17 or specials of any kind. In fact the day it happened I specifically had to go to international coverage to find out details since the US media was mostly quoting over seas sources anyway.

a reply to: Salander

How sad. Why don't you just admit you've been busted and move on. You're only drawing attention to your backstory.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Salander

How sad. Why don't you just admit you've been busted and move on. You're only drawing attention to your backstory.

Because I have not been busted, and we both know it.

I know what I saw last year, and I know what I saw exactly 18 years prior when Bill Clinton was POTUS. Even more importantly, I really don't give a GGD what you think or believe.

That you have already been reduced to calling me a liar speaks VOLUMES about the strength of your case.

Perhaps you are very young, or perhaps you really are on the moon, but no matter what, you have apparently not yet discovered the well documented track record of the US DoD when it comes to being mendacious. It is well documented, and this MH17 is just one example of many in which it attempted a false flag. If the Dutch have any honor left at all, that will become apparent in their final report.

I won't be surprised if they merely rubber stamp the US fiction.

a reply to: Salander

Perhaps you are very young, or perhaps you really are on the moon, but no matter what, you have apparently not yet discovered the well documented track record of the US DoD when it comes to being mendacious. It is well documented, and this MH17 is just one example of many in which it attempted a false flag. If the Dutch have any honor left at all, that will become apparent in their final report.

Now you are claiming that the Department of Defense has weighed in on this issue. Please provide a link to their official statement. Or is this another thing you remember that no-one else does?

a reply to: DJW001

The air must be quite thin up there on the Lune. It seems you might be hypoxic.

For the ______th time, I heard the story on US mainstream media. I have never visited the DoD website, never once in my life.

You don't quite understand how it works here in the US, and that seems odd for a self-declared news junkie.

We The People watch TV, and TV tells us what is going on in the world. Some of us also read newspapers and magazines, and then of course there is the internet.

On the evening of the day it happened, all 3 MSM networks had one hour specials concerning the MH17 event. They told me, the dutiful listener, that it had been taken down by a BUK missile operated by the bad guy Russian sympathizers. Further, they all claimed that they had certain unnamed sources (a term I've heard many times on MSM) within the government and the Pentagon, who were absolutely certain that was what happened. To "prove" it, they heard the bad guys talking about it on certain social media. Of course those sources could not be named because that might threaten National Security.

I also visit the internet (duh) and visit sites such as Global Research and RT. Because it was an international event, there were many pictures taken and published. BBC also covered it, but within hours or days some of their pictures and interviews were "taken down". Obviously a corporate decision.

There were interviews with a Canadian fellow with OSCE (if I have the right acronym) in the following days. He too mentioned the damage looking like cannon fire. His statements supported my observations and were consistent with the photos I had seen.

So there you have it sir.

a reply to: Salander

On the evening of the day it happened, all 3 MSM networks had one hour specials concerning the MH17 event

No they didn't:

www.tvtango.com...

www.tvtango.com...

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

a reply to: Salander

When will the reality sink in that you are chasing a theory based on a laymans description? Michael Bociurkiw has
already described the damage as "shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes." He isn't a military man and is simply describing the holes as a civilian would with no experience of what actual machine gun damage looks like.

online.wsj.com...

Can you not see that it is just his own description of what it looks like? Again if you showed him images of A-10 Thunderbolt IIs after receiving fragmentation warhead damage he would describe it the same due to the holes. It is just a laymans description.

So what is going to happen when the MH17 investigation doesn't highlight cannon fire? Will you be frantically contacting
Michael Bociurkiw to find out why?

[email protected]

www.osce.org...

a reply to: Salander

I've been very charitable up until now. Here are the Nielsen ratings from that day proving that the networks did not do a "one hour" special:

tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com...

And the next day:

tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com...

a reply to: DJW001

You are as deceptive a fellow as the Pentagon is a deceptive organization, but I'm not surprised considering what you've said here.

You provide me a link to TV ratings, as though TV ratings offer anything at all regarding what was shown on any given day. Ratings are about viewership, not subject matter, not time devoted to any particular news show.

So, peace to you, my deceptive fellow poster. Thank you for showing your colors.

a reply to: Salander

You provide me a link to TV ratings, as though TV ratings offer anything at all regarding what was shown on any given day. Ratings are about viewership, not subject matter, not time devoted to any particular news show.

The ratings show how many people were watching a given program. If "Big Bang Theory" were replaced by a CBS Special Report, that's what the Nielsen Agency would call it because they track news reports and specials, too. Do you really think that CBS would preempt "Big Bang Theory?" I suppose I should explain that it is one of the top rated shows on American television.


Clearly, you do not understand how television works in America; it is different than in your country. You have described how your government expects the television networks to broadcast its propaganda; in your country, all businesses ultimately exist to serve the State. In the United States, television networks exist to make money. They would not preempt a popular show like BBT because the sponsors have paid for time on that program. If they changed the programming, viewers would change the channel and the network wold not be delivering the market they promised. The sponsors might want a refund, or they might decide they no longer want to do business with the network; either way, the network loses money.

I cannot believe you have pinned your entire propaganda offensive on a lie that any American can see through, and when I pointed out that there was no one hour special, rather than letting it slide, you doubled down. Now you are accusing me of being deceptive!

You sir, are a failure at your job. In the old days, you would have been shot.

a reply to: DJW001

My propaganda offensive? That's rich.

Let's put it this way sir--you and I do not share the same fantasies or delusions. All mine involve sexual relations with young women, while yours apparently involve truthful statements coming from the US government and the MSM.

You are rather a False Prophet, telling me here what I saw and heard last year. An arrogant False Prophet would be the best description I suppose.

But I understand why you might want to do that. No matter the reason, the desperation of your position shows very strongly, just like the desperation of the NATO folks who have never been able to back up their initial claims.

I usually don't predict the future, but I'm going to predict that once the Dutch release their final report, it will find that the official story of a BUK was the reason.

I base that prediction upon how the NTSB, after an appeal by members within the organization years later, stood by the official story about TWA800.

There is a crime, and then there is a coverup of the crime. Yes, that's how governments operate.

a reply to: Salander

There is a crime, and then there is a coverup of the crime. Yes, that's how governments operate.

I am in total agreement: there has been a crime, there is a cove-up and there is a disinformation campaign. It's your government, not mine, that is responsible. Here is a link to the preliminary report. It is worth noting that Rostov air traffic control did not report any Ukrainian fighters.

www.icao.int...

a reply to: DJW001

Far out man, we agree on something, finally! Bravo!

Yes, it's my government that is responsible for the disinformation campaign. That's the point I've been trying to make all this time. I sat through its beginning on that Thursday evening in my living room. Yes, major propaganda effort by USMSM.

I'm happy that we finally agree on that point.

a reply to: Salander

Yes, it's my government that is responsible for the disinformation campaign.

Thank you for finally admitting you're a Russian. Your English is good, but not colloquial.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Salander

Yes, it's my government that is responsible for the disinformation campaign.

Thank you for finally admitting you're a Russian. Your English is good, but not colloquial.

He gave it away with the French fairy tales. People in the is have no idea what that is. And would have simply accused you of living in a dream world or fairy tale. But that aside doesn't matter really you two are arguing over silly stuff. If there is something that was presented by the US and it was wrong he's free to prove it. Making the claim they lie without proof means nothing. I can show over and over Russian lies in their propaganda.

So saying it's propaganda from the defense department I believe he blamed means nothing. You can easily research statements made Russia found out the hard way with their fake data they kept releasing.

a reply to: dragonridr

If there is something that was presented by the US and it was wrong he's free to prove it. Making the claim they lie without proof means nothing.

Or he could link to a video of his "one hour special." But you're right, this is kind of silly. I just wanted to make sure he is on record making statements that are clearly false, should he try to do it again. In order to be effective, he should offer opinions, not "facts" that can be falsified.

Yes, you guys are right--I'm Russian. As long as my cover is blown, I'll blow it wide open--I am Vladimir Putin, himself.

Damn you guys are great detectives!