MH17 - The Open Source Evidence

a reply to: PublicOpinion

They jumped to Bellingcats conclusion and were deeply sorry for that in the aftermath.

Not deeply sorry, just clarifying their sources. This is why Der Spiegel is doing responsible journalism and the Russian media are not. Again, their final conclusion is not that Bellingcat is wrong, just that the analysis cannot be considered definitive.

A propaganda-lie is just a lie after all, not an inconclusive investigation. But if that's all you have to say about this, I would guess your research is not conclusive at all.

Where does Der Spiegel claim that Bellingcat lied? Oh wait, they don't. If that's the best you can do to discredit Bellingcat you might as well admit that you would rather believe Russian propaganda than responsible journalism.

a reply to: DJW001

The results were not inconclusive, but just plain wrong. The maker of the image analysis tool even said "this is an example of how not to use image analysis software", or something like that.

a reply to: RogueWave

The results were not inconclusive, but just plain wrong

It does not say they are wrong; it says that the report is not sufficiently "nuanced."

The interview that we published yesterday morning on our home page, allows you to get a more nuanced picture of the theme.

a reply to: DJW001

Way to twist words. They said their interview gave a more nuanced look at the matter, it does not say that BC's report is not sufficiently nuanced ffs, give it up man.

The maker of the tool even said tha BC used the tool wrong. Therefore his results are meaningless.

a reply to: RogueWave

The maker of the tool even said tha BC used the tool wrong. Therefore his results are meaningless.

But that's not the same thing as "hoaxed," is it? As I said, you have a long way to go to discredit all the rest of their analysis.

a reply to: DJW001

The analysis of satellite images will not lead to the conclusion that Moscow is lying

Bellingcat jumped to "other" conclusions, which were wrong and never supported by evidence in the first place. A propaganda lie so to speak, which is pretty obvious.

You can't offer anything else than hot air, think we're done here. Have some fun spinning this right.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

A propaganda lie so to speak, which is pretty obvious.

A flawed analysis is one thing; a propaganda lie is another. This is what a propaganda lie looks like:

a reply to: DJW001

But...but....but the others! The others in the Kindergarden lie as well!!!

*sigh* Geeez...

This 'so called fake' legitimizes everything then?
Tell your DoD to release their sat-data and we won't need any Russian contribution at all.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

This 'so called fake' legitimizes everything then?

That's not the only Russian fake. Remember that video of an alleged Russian radar return? Never submitted to the investigation committee. The one that was showed no military aircraft in the area. Russia doesn't mind lying to the public, but they don't want to get caught out in a criminal investigation. Then there all the eyewitnesses who saw the whole thing... despite the fact that the weather record shows that the sky was overcast and the plane would not have been visible. Any need to go on?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Salander

But clearly "black marker policy" shows they have something to hide.

So you say they are, but have no clue as to what...imagine that.

My guess would be that they are trying to hide the truth, because the US version of the story does not comport with most of the forensic evidence.

No that would be Russia. There version have planes performing engineering feats not even known to the designer.

And exactly who's forensic evidence would that be?

Some group or the other has now paid for a demonstration flight with SU25. Climb to altitude, and it exceeded the FL that MH17 was at. Numerous pilots are on record as having flown it that high. One can pretend otherwise, but that's the way it is.

Likely you will not believe that fact, with or without a proper link, for which I apologize. MH17 was a political event, murderous as it was. That cockpit was shot up. The report is a coverup, the latest in a very long tradition.

a reply to: Salander

Likely you will not believe that fact, with or without a proper link, for which I apologize.

Correct. Why are you so convinced that Ukraine would deliberately shoot down a passenger jet, but you just can't wrap your head around the fact that the FSB burned people alive in Odessa?

a reply to: RogueWave

Yes you were "joking".Only the "joke" is not valid cause the pics ARE photoshopped.

Prove it.

I actually reviewed the op's source and backed up my claim. I see you didn't touch it, only responded with some empty words.

With what?

WHat empty reply, as you call it?

I said this...

I was joking...but guarantee you get a pro Russian backer at some point who says that.

And guess what, you come along and proved my point...Thanks.

a reply to: Salander

Some group or the other has now paid for a demonstration flight with SU25.

Source or link for this info?

Numerous pilots are on record as having flown it that high. One can pretend otherwise, but that's the way it is.

And were those pilots employed with the Kremlin?

And no they don't, but feel free to provide anything to back your claims.

Likely you will not believe that fact, with or without a proper link, for which I apologize. MH17 was a political event, murderous as it was. That cockpit was shot up. The report is a coverup, the latest in a very long tradition.

The report is a coverup for who?

And I really didn't expect you to be able to provide anything that backs your claims.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Salander

Likely you will not believe that fact, with or without a proper link, for which I apologize.

Correct. Why are you so convinced that Ukraine would deliberately shoot down a passenger jet, but you just can't wrap your head around the fact that the FSB burned people alive in Odessa?

I am not arguing for the angelic side of human nature, just for the record. I understand that humans of all tribes and countries make war upon each other. It is an old story indeed, and I'm not interested in stopping it. I accept it as part of life.

But as to the matter of MH17, it was a political event, judging from 15 months on, with the luxury of hindsight.

The NATO version of things must be maintained for the gullible media, and it's well under control.

Some of us can see the bull#, some can't.

a reply to: Salander

But as to the matter of MH17, it was a political event, judging from 15 months on, with the luxury of hindsight.

It has certainly been an embarrassment for Russia.

The NATO version of things must be maintained for the gullible media, and it's well under control.

Then why is the Russian version subject to constant change?

Some of us can see the bull#, some can't.

You got that right. How does it feel for people to see clean through you?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Salander
The fuselage took cannon fire.

So why is the manufacturers of the Buk (Almaz Antey) not highlighting this "cannon-fire"? Surely they would acknowledge in their investigation that in addition to the Buk warhead damage that they also can see "cannon-fire" damage? No the fuselage did not take cannon fire damage!

I'm guessing Almaz did not get to visit the crash site.

Further, they are now saying, according to today's RT, that what they saw suggested an early model of the BUK, not its latest model, -A1 designation I believe. Also from RT is a video showing a detonation of the BUK in proximity to an IL 86.

Cannon fire to the cockpit is what the early pictures showed. Possible air 2 air missile up the tailpipe.

So you are informing me and others on here that Almaz Antey can't tell cannon fire from warhead damage? You do realise that the Russian assisted with the investigation, so why are they not pointing out all the "cannon-fire holes". There have been enough high resolution images of the cockpit area showing the damage. Even Almaz Antey use the same images and concluded that the damage is from one of their Buk warheads.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think that damage shows cannon fire!!!!! It is as bad as you insistence that you personally witnessed footage on the BBC of MH17 coming down with an engine on fire. I get it though it is a mindset!!!!