Putin did it argument falls apart-MH17. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14592400
Since the disaster first made headlines there considerable effort has been exerted by both sides to try to prove the complicity of the other side in orchestrating the shoot down of Mh-17. Throughout this Putin/DPR-did it crowd have generally presented the mot credible arguments with websites like Bellingcat presenting supposedly indisputable proof. However, since then, and particularly recently, concerns have been raised about the credibility of Bellingcat and its methodology. Questions have been raised (by independent bloggers) about the photographs it uses and how it uses them:

http://7mei.nl/2015/05/18/mh17-buk-launch-photos-are-cheats/


http://7mei.nl/2015/07/26/mh17-buk-plume-burns-witness-part-i/


http://7mei.nl/2015/02/02/mh17-bellingcat-photo-proof-spoof/

The most credible intervention against Bellingcat has been a presentation given by Almaz-Antey, the producers of the BUK missile systems which said that a) the type of missile used has not been produced in Russia since the 90s and b) if the missile could not have been fired from Snizhne, as Bellingcat suggests.

http://7mei.nl/2015/06/03/mh17-bad-day-for-the-putin-did-it-crowd/

Here is the full presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs

Instead the company argues that the missile was shot from an area that was under Ukrainian control on the day the aircraft was downed as that would be consistent with the damage inflict among other factors. Although questions have already been raised about Bellincat's credibility and the credibility of its sources the fact that the missile was not fired from Snizhne means that any evidence that they have presented to suggest it was, even if it is genuine, does not matter.
#14595140
A preliminary Dutch report released last September said the plane had been hit by numerous "high-energy objects" and Dutch investigators have found fragments "probably" from a Russian-made surface-to-air missile at the crash site. Seven considerable fragments of "probably" from a BUK (surface-to-air) missile system were examined by the investigators but it was not clear yet whether the missile pieces found were related to the attack. While it's been suspected that pro-Russian rebels were responsible for shooting down the plane accidentally, it's almost impossible to determine who pull the trigger as the Ukrainian military also deployed the Russian-made BUK missile system in eastern Ukraine.

In a preliminary report last year, the Board blamed the crash on 'high energy objects' striking the aircraft. Western governments have said they believe it was downed by a ground-to-air missile fired in error by Moscow-backed separatists. Russia contests that claim, and has variously attributed the crash to an unidentified Ukrainian fighter aircraft and a Ukrainian-launched anti-aircraft missile. The Netherlands has avoided committing itself to any theory. Air safety investigations focus on the technical circumstances of crashes and do not attribute criminal blame, but information about the exact nature of the disaster could in this case suggest who was responsiblefor firing a missile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... blame.html

Code Roe wrote: If it ever came down to it, I […]

EU-BREXIT

I note that you posted a graph that actually back[…]

PS: Just quickly; the 'RA pretty much lost their '[…]

I don’t. You see, when my father and mother divo[…]