Dear Russian friends,
I am dismayed by the pretences and actions of the Australian government in relation to the shooting down of MH17 by Ukraine, as well as dumbfounded by the complete failure of any media organisation or public commentator to question or contradict this mendacity.
I have been trying to support the statements and actions of Russia and its various ministers by writing to the ABC as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs, since the start of the Syrian ‘campaign’. It must be said I have had little or no success, even in getting a response.
Last year I had the great fortune to accompany Mother Agnes Mariam on a visit to Malcolm Fraser, former PM. I can assure you that he at least is very well aware of just how criminal and dangerous the leaderships of NATO countries and Australia have become; as someone with ‘inside knowledge’, as well as experience in Serbia in the ‘90s he suffers no illusions about US intentions and global dominance, or Australia’s submission to it. Yet remarkably he is a lone voice.
With today’s news about the Dutch investigators’ preliminary report being quickly passed over, the situation has become intolerable. Remarkably this report actually supported evidence for Russian observations and elsewhere that MH17 was shot down by a hail of bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet – ‘a large number of high-energy objects’. No other conclusion is possible from the available physical evidence – photos of the cockpit damage. But so corrupt and stupified are our media organisations that they allow the lies of the leaders to go unchallenged.
I write to you just to show that there is a least one person in Australia who has no doubt about both Russia’s innocence and the Novorussians’ innocence of this terrorist act; there is little more I can do, beyond writing to my local newspaper ( national papers will not publish this viewpoint), but I nevertheless would like to offer my support in any way that you would consider useful. I believe that there must be processes by which such issues can be pursued with government, even though at all levels people do not accept the case we must make.
Lastly I should just note a comment in an article today in the Sydney morning herald. Talking of the MH17 report it quoted a Pravda editorial:
“Russia is unlikely to accept the report if it suggests they were involved in shooting down the plane.
A recent editorial in Pravda said
"Most likely the story of the downed plane will be hidden away carefully … it is clear that neither the [separatist] militia nor Russia were involved in the terrible disaster.
"The only question is whether Ukraine incidentally shot down the Boeing or it was a carefully planned but ineptly executed act of provocation."
The established narrative in Russian state-controlled media is that the plane was shot at by Ukrainian forces, either by a jet fighter or ground-based missile.”
This clearly articulates my own viewpoint – that the only thing we DON’T know is the degree of assistance from Western agencies to Kiev in committing this act – one which so favoured the plans of NATO and US aggressors who put the Kiev ‘government’ in place.
I hope that you will pass this message to the appropriate people.
Sandy Creek, Victoria, Australia 3695
Thu, 2014-09-11 20:45
"Former" CIA agent talks of the possibility of killing Putin.
Fri, 2014-09-12 23:20
"In a dangerous corner over MH17" (Border Mail)
Sept. 12, 2014
IT seems we have painted ourselves into a very dangerous corner.
No longer can we claim Russia bears responsibility for the downing of flight MH17, regardless of any evidence from investigators.
On Tuesday, the Dutch government released its preliminary findings, which were that MH17 was struck by a “large number of high energy objects”.
With pre-knowledge of the findings, our government was emphatic in stating the report drew no conclusions on who was responsible, while simultaneously restating Australia’s allegations that a surface to air missile fired by “Russian-backed separatists” caused the crash.
This goes against commonsense — and what real evidence we have from Russian intelligence that those “high energy objects” were likely bullets fired by a Ukrainian fighter plane directly at MH17’s cockpit.
So what are we to make of this framing of Russia, and our government’s enthusiasm to join in NATO’s campaign against it?
Why do they desire to provoke Russia into a dangerous war by threatening its legitimate interests?
And how else can we explain this fabrication of a narrative that Russia is the threat?
— DAVID MACILWAIN,
Sat, 2014-09-13 16:06
Hang on a minute.............
Sat, 2014-09-13 18:39
No need to hang on; it's well-known but unreported by ABC
Thank you for your comment. Since I know that David is really busy this week, I will have a go at explaining by saying that I think he is referring to well-known evidence that Russia has presented, but which NATO has ignored, based on an initial analysis by Peter Haisenko of a piece of wreckage at the East Ukraine crash site which was initially public on you-tube until removed shortly after (but screen shots were saved by several people). I don't see how he is going out of his depth in that. We can all refer to it and the Australian Government should too. The point of the letter is that our government (and NATO and its allies) is showing complete irresponsibility in blaming Russia; it has no evidence at all. The NATO-siding news sources have gone to ridiculous lengths to demonize the East Ukrainians, even pretending that they looted the site, which they almost certainly did not. (Note that articles already on this site mention this evidence as well.)
Below is an article with links to relevant info, plus pictures. If it doesn't display correctly here, you can find it here: href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814">"Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile" (by Eric Zuesse.)
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile
We’ll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.
The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he revealed there that,
It’s actually based on lots more than that; it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
The reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive,” that Haisenko is right.
Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko’s conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:
This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster.
Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and you will see it.
That youtube snippet in an interview with Michael Bociurkiw, comes from a man who is
That description of him is from the lead-in to the full interview with him, at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article, “Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site.” The far briefer youtube clip shows only what’s presented on 6:10-6:24 of this CBC interview with Bociurkiw. The CBC reporter in the video precedes the interview by announcing, “The wreckage was still smoldering when a small team from the OSCE got there.” So: he had to have been there really fast. “No other officials arrived for days,” she said.
So: one of the two first international monitors on-site saw conclusive evidence that the Malaysian plane had been hit by “very very strong machine-gun fire,” not by ground-based missile-fire.
Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the downing of that airliner, was here being essentially confirmed on-site by one of the two first OSCE international monitors to arrive on-site, while the wreckage was still smoldering. That’s as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian Government, or by the British Government, or by the Ukrainian Government, each of which governments has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent, and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence. That’s powerfully authoritative testimony, and it happens to confirm pilot Peter Haisenko’s theory of what happened. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organizing to come later: Bociurkiw speaks the local languages there — Ukrainian and Russian.
Furthermore, this is hardly testimony from someone who is supportive of the anti-Government rebels. Earlier, there had been this, http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3492, which transcribed the BBC’s interview with Bociurkiw on July 22nd. He said then: “We’re observing that major pieces, and I’m looking at the tail fin as I said, and then there’s also the rear cone section of the aircraft, they do look different than when we first saw them, … two days ago.” So, he had arrived on-scene July 20th at the latest. (Neither the BBC nor the CBC, both of which interviewed him, were sufficiently professional to have reported the specific date at which Bociurkiw had actually arrived on-scene, but, from this, it couldn’t have been after July 20th. The downing had occurred July 17th. If some of the debris was still “smoldering” as the CBC journalist said, then maybe he had arrived there even earlier.)
The youtube snippet of Bociurkiw came to me via a reader-comment to my article, from Bill Johnson, after which I web-searched the youtube clip for its source and arrived then at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article and its accompanying video.
Further, there’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner: https://twitter.com/EzraBraam. (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it.) Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot himself, producing at his location a huge gaping hole in the side of the plane precisely at the place where the pilot was seated. Furthermore, this gaping hole was produced by shooting into the plane, precisely at the pilot, from below and to the pilot’s left, which is where that fighter-jet was located — not from above the airliner, and not from beside it, and also not from below it.
In other words: this was precise and closely-targeted firing against the pilot himself, not a blast directed broadly against, and aiming to hit, the plane anywhere, to bring it down.
Haisenko explained how this penetration of the plane, though it was targeted specifically at the pilot, caused immediately a breaking-apart of the entire aircraft.
Other readers have responded to my news-report about Haisenko’s article, by saying that shrapnel from a Buk missile could similarly have caused those holes into the side of the cockpit. However, that objection ignores another key feature of Haisenko’s analysis. Haisenko said there: “You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that … these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly!”
What this means is that in order to have some of those holes frayed inwardly and the other holes frayed outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side.
That’s critically important, because no ground-based missile (or shrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced firing into the cockpit from both sides of the plane. It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides, that brought the plane down, in that circumstance. This is Haisenko’s main discovery, by his pointing that out. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions. Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile.
Peter Haisenko posted an extremely high-resolution image from that photo which he used, and it shows unequivocally that some of the bullet-holes were inbound while others of them were outbound: Here it is, viewed very close-up.
Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here. Of course, an airliner itself is fully pressurized. That pressurization inside the airliner is, moreover, a key part of Haisenko’s reconstruction of this airliner’s downing. Basically, Haisenko reconstructs the airliner’s breaking apart as soon as that hail of bullets opened and released the plane’s pressurization.
The specific photo of that cockpit-fragment, which Haisenko had downloaded immediately after the disaster, was removed from the Internet, but other photos of this fragment were posted elsewhere, such as at the British publication (which, like the rest of the Western “news” media is slanted pro-Obama, anti-Putin), on July 21st, headlining their anti-Putin missile-theory bias, “MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike.” Their “reporters” opened with their blatant anti-Russian prejudice:
Although they didn’t say in their opener that the “surface-to-air missile” was from the rebels, they made clear their pro-Ukrainian-Government anti-Russian bias by saying, “Over the weekend, western intelligence agencies pointed to mounting evidence that backs Ukraine’s claim that the aircraft with 298 people on board was shot down by mistake by pro-Russian separatists and Russian military personnel with an SA-11 missile launched from a Buk-M1 SAM battery.” Their stenographers (or as they would say “reporters”) stenographed (“reported”) that, “Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence ‘was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system’.” No analyst from the pro-Putin camp was interviewed by their “reporters.” For example, Russia’s Interfax News Service headlined on July 29th, the same day as the FT’s article, “Boeing’s downing by Buk missile system unlikely — military expert,” and they stenographed their “expert,” as follows:
General Krush’s statement can fit with Haisenko’s and with Bociurkiw’s, but not with FT’s or the rest of the “reporters” (just consider them as rank propagandists) in the West.
U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia – against which he is actually systematically building toward war – and not Ukraine (which he’s using as his chief vehicle to do that), is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came from Yanukovych’s State Security Service and not from the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych down and that Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie. He lies a lot, and it’s just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.
If someone wants to verify how rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time of George W. Bush’s Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it, and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many obvious questions it points out, which U.S. “news” media refused to ask and still refuse to ask about the matter, you’ll recognize that we are being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and with no respect for the public’s right to know the truth, even regarding massive history like that. It’s really brutal.
Ignorant “reporters” sometimes slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support the opposite side’s narrative of events and that discredit their own story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times piece, which included the statement that, “Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast, agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about 20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible.”
But rather than merely “a cloud of red hot metal,” what actually brought down this plane was what Haisenko has said brought it down: magazines-full of carefully targeted rapid-fire machine-gun bullets pouring forth from below the plane, at both its left and right.
This was a Ukrainian Government job. It was close-in. (No missile fired from the distance more than 30,000 feet down to the ground could have been that precise to target the pilot rather than the far larger target of the plane’s entire body.) It came from the Government that Obama installed there in February and that’s now carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine’s southeast, the places where Yanukovych’s voters live (to the extent that they still can and do live).Compare that picture with the following one, which I take from a propaganda-site for the U.S. regime, and so which is intended instead to support the Administration’s line on this, certainly not Haisenko’s explanation of how the airliner was downed, though it actually supports Haisenko’s case:
As you can see there, a plane that’s hit by a ground-fired missile, instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane’s pilot is seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.
Furthermore, note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it, which is where missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of bullets to the Malaysian plane’s pilot came from below the plane, aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.
As regards whether there were actually two fighter jets firing into the Malaysian airliner or only one, a proponent of the single-jet hypothesis, Bill Johnson, posted as a reader-comment to my article on August 4th, a series of extreme close-ups of the side-panel, in which he inferred that the explanation of the apparent left-side (pilot-side) bullets was probably the shape of the bullets. I then asked him why he declined to accept the possible existence of two jets. He said,
However, the most virginal, earliest, online evidence concerning the matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlined in the subsequent English translation, “Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17,” and it included, “@spainbuca’s TWITTER FEED,” which included his observation, only minutes after the downing, “2 jet fighters flew very close” to the plane. Furthermore, immediately before that, he had tweeted, “The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar.” So, perhaps the second jet appeared distinct to him only immediately prior to the downing.
The accompanying news-report, also on July 17th, said:
The best evidence is consistent that those bullet-holes came from two directions not from one. What is virtually certain, however, is that at least one jet fighter was close up and shot down the Malaysian plane. The rest of the tweets from @spainbucca, there, described the immediate hostility of the Kiev authorities toward him on the occasion, and his speculations as to who was behind it all.
And the European Union has been playing along with this hoax. (If you still have any further doubts that it’s a hoax, just click onto that link and look.) And the mass of suckers in the West believe that hoax: it’s succeeding to stir a fever for war, instead of a fever to get rid of our own leaders who are lying us into a war that will benefit only the West’s aristocrats, while it inflicts massive physical and economic harms against everyone else – as if it were the invasion of Iraq except multiplied in this case a thousand-fold, especially with nuclear weapons possibly at the end of it.
If we had a free press, the news media would be ceaselessly asking President Obama why he doesn’t demand accountability against the Ukrainian Government for their massacre perpetrated on May 2nd inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa, where that newly Obama-installed regime’s peaceful opponents were systematically trapped and then burned alive, which the Obama-installed Ukrainian Government has refused to investigate (much less to prosecute). Basically: Obama had sponsored the massacre. So, our “news” media ignore it, even though it started this civil war on Russia’s doorstep, and thereby re-started the Cold War, as Obama had intended that massacre (his massacre, and his subsequent ethnic cleansing) to do. (Similarly, the “news” media, though all of them receive my articles by email, virtually all refuse to publish them, because I won’t let them control what I find and report.)
And while Obama leads this Republican policy, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s top foreign-policy advisor Victoria Nuland actually runs it for Obama, congressional Democrats are just silent about it, and do not introduce impeachment of this fake “Democratic” hyper-George W. Bush neo-conservative President, who’s a “Democrat” in rhetoric only – and though Obama’s policy in this key matter threatens the entire world.
A reader-comment to an earlier version of this news report and analysis objected to my identifying Obama as a Republican-in-”Democratic”-sheep’s clothing, and said:
However, U.S. Senate bill 2277, which invites Obama to provide direct U.S. military support to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime, has 26 sponsors, and all of them are Republican U.S. Senators. Democratic Senators, by contrast, are just silent on Obama’s turn toward nazism (or racist — in this case anti-ethnic-Russian racist – fascism); the Senate’s Democrats aren’t seeking for it to be stepped up.
This is a Republican policy, which congressional Democrats are simply afraid to oppose. Any realistic person knows that however far right Obama turns, the overt Republican Party will turn even farther to the right, because they have to be to his right in order for them to be able to win Republican primaries and retain their own Party’s nomination. Just because Obama’s game of moving the American political center as far to the right as he can move it is succeeding, doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party itself should end. It instead means that progressives need to take the Democratic Party over, just like conservatives took the Republican Party over with Reagan. There is no other hope.
If a Democrat in the U.S. House will simply introduce an impeachment resolution against Barack Obama, then the right-wing takeover of the Democratic Party might finally end, and the world might yet be saved, because the Democratic Party itself could then reject Obama as being a fake “Democrat,” a Democrat-in-rhetoric-only. It could transform American politics — and American politics needs such a transformation, which would move the Democratic Party back to progressivism, more like the FDR Democratic Party was, so that Republican politicians would no longer need to be so fascist as they now have become (and as they now need to be in order to be able to win their own Party’s nomination). If Democrats fail to renounce the conservatism of Obama and of the Clintons, then the Party will end, and needs to be replaced, just like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party immediately before the Civil War. Nazism has become today’s slavery-type issue – it’s beyond the pale, and Obama’s installation and endorsement of it in Ukraine is like James Buchanan’s endorsement of slavery was during the 1850s: either the Democratic Party will become the progressive party, or else the Democratic Party is over.
But that’s just my own theory of how Obama’s frauds might yet be able to be overcome and defeated, if they still can be; it’s not part of my presentation of the explanation of what brought down the Malaysian airliner, which has been an open case since July 17th, and which is now a closed case. This is past history, not future.
The present news story is being circulated free of charge or copyright to all “news” media in the English-speaking world, in the perhaps vain hope that the cover-ups of our leaders’ constant lies will cease soon enough to avoid a World War III, even though communism is long since gone from Russia and so the ideological excuse wouldn’t make any sense here.
This insanity is actually all about aristocratic conquest, like World War I was. It’s not for the benefit of the public anywhere. Silence about it (by “Democrats,” and the “news” media) is a scandal, which needs to stop. The real Democratic Party (the Party of FDR, who loathed and despised nazis — and even mere fascists — yet today Obama installs nazis into Power in Ukraine) must be restored, and a real news media needs to become established in America. Even Republicans need it, because the very idea of “victory” in a nuclear war is a vicious fantasy. It is a dangerous lie, though there are some people who find it a very profitable one. And time might be short — let’s hope not already too short.
After all, Obama’s hoax of having won from Europe the stepped-up economic sanctions against Russia after the government that Obama had installed in Ukraine downed the Malaysian plane and successfully blamed it on “Russian aggression,” is very encouraging to him. And European leaders know that Obama’s entire operation is a very bloody fraud (read the phone-transcript there — it’s a stunner). So, they certainly won’t save the world from it. It’s up to us.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
David M (not verified)
Mon, 2014-09-15 23:36
On having an open mind..
I agree that my statement that ‘no other conclusion is possible from the physical evidence’ is a little over the top, and provocative to those who are unconvinced of the separatists’ innocence of this criminal act. As this includes practically everyone who follows Western media sources, and these are the people I was addressing, it was unwise language.
However, and it is a big however, the case being made for the separatists’ guilt, and use of a BUK missile to shoot down MH17 dominates much analysis on the web, which in a circular fashion quotes and references the same range of sources. Even amongst people who do not believe this story at face value, and accept the dubious nature of the Kiev regime, there are people still arguing that this damage is from missile shrapnel. I have been involved in several discussions on blogs on this, and been accused of ‘knowing nothing about missiles’ already, so have gathered my case together a little.
The essence of the ‘Western case’ is this – if MH17 was brought down by a missile then it was obviously fired by separatists with Russian help – because that is what ‘everybody says’ – including all Western leaders, media and NGOs. In fact they started saying it very soon after the crash before having any information. The argument that it was downed with a missile is not that it could have been a Ukrainian army missile, despite the fact that it has BUK missile launchers, and had them in the region, and has the necessary radar equipment and intelligence to coordinate such a strike. However the OSCE does not say it was brought down by a missile – ‘there was no evidence to suggest it’, and the Dutch report doesn’t say so either. All they said was that MH17 was hit by a ‘large number of high energy objects’.
The case for the separatists, backed or not by Russia, bringing down MH17 is very thin. They had every reason not to do such a provocative thing, and lacked the necessary coordination and intelligence. Even had they been responsible, it would clearly have been a tragic accident. But the thinness of the case against them is only matched by the thinness of the ‘evidence’ used by the West in accusing them of the crime; none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Not only is this the case, but had the accusation actually been true the US in particular could and surely would have provided the unarguable evidence from its satellite - over the region conveniently – that Russia has demanded but the US has failed to provide. In addition, as Eric Zuesse points out, a BUK leaves an obvious vapour trail visible for miles around; it is impossible that no witnesses or even photos of this were found. The important thing to note then is that those people claiming a missile was responsible have a
to jump to this conclusion.
So much for the Western ‘case’. My argument, based on the consequent assumption that Ukraine was 99% likely responsible ( and personal belief that it WAS responsible) is that it doesn’t then make a lot of difference whether a BUK missile was responsible or machine gun fire from a fighter jet was – the culprit is what we need to focus on. It could be argued that claiming it was a missile is in any case no argument – it was more likely a surface to air missile fired by Ukraine, or an air to air missile fired by a Ukrainian jet, than one fired by the separatists.
With all this in mind, I don’t have any
for claiming that the damage observed in the photos of the cockpit ( or lack of damage to other parts of the plane, also noted by the OSCE) was caused by machine gun fire, other than that is what seems most plausible – as Bociurkiw also noted – ‘it looks like’ heavy machine gun fire.
And of course I don’t have any credentials, other than a scientific background and general knowledge of what metal looks like and behaves like. I do have the support of many people who DO have such credentials though.
So looking at what I can see in the photos which are preserved for the moment here:
I can see many perfectly round holes, of about 30 mm diameter, all around the cockpit area. These are mostly in the inner skin, with the outer skin apparently torn and pushed away. Some of the holes appear to be in fairly evenly spaced rows, beyond what could be expected from a random shrapnel pattern. While Zuess talks about two fighter jets – and so did Carlos at the ATC in Kiev – Peter Haisenko suggested that the alternate exploding rounds in the SU25 cannons could have caused this strange damage. No doubt there are many many real experts who could tell you exactly why this is....I hope this will satisfy your objections to my statements, as well as perhaps push you a little further towards considering what criminal act may have been committed by the Ukrainian government and it supporters, for which Russia must now pay the consequences.
Arthur (not verified)
Wed, 2014-09-17 22:28
Australian Public condemns 4Corners bias on MH17
ThomasT (not verified)
Fri, 2014-09-19 18:40
Sat, 2014-09-20 00:08
Can't find where Hishammuddin Tun Hussein blamed Russia for MH17
I could not find where the Malaysian Defence Minister Hishammuddin Tun Hussein claimed anywhere in any recent article that 'an expert' claimed that the Russians had shot down MH17. I could not find it in the most recent article I could find. That article is MH17: Three more Malaysians yet to be accounted for - Hishammuddin of 18 Sep 2014 at 22:04 MYT. All the other articles about Hishammuddin Tun Hussein and MH17 seemed to indicate that he blamed Ukraine for the crime and was trying to hold the Ukraine government to account for the destruction of MH17.
That is not to say for certain that he has not made that false allegation against Russia. If he did, that is cause for concern.
Could you try to locate the article and provide a link?
ThomasT (not verified)
Fri, 2014-09-19 18:43