More information is coming to light that doesn’t match the early massive media push by the Kiev junta and the US media and government. The cockpit fuselage of MH-17 shows a clear pattern of spherical holes consistent with those made by a high caliber machine gun…..not a missile. OSCE monitor statement on verification of heavy machine gun fire and no sign of a missile strike at 6:11 mark in the video. This report has been aired in Malyasia, Australia and Canada. It has not been shown in the United States.
Previous US media reports which denigrated the east Ukrainian rebels have been found to be false as proven by the fact the lead Dutch investigator actually gave the rebels high praise for their work taking care of the bodies of victims and securing the crash site.
The Kiev regime as well as John McCain and John Kerry have also been caught in an outright lie by stating that the Kiev regime did not possess any BuK missile systems and did not have them in the war zone. That falsity has now been completely debunked at this point as the AP photographed the Ukrainian military with BuK’s near Slavyansk (not far from where the plane went down) and used them in a story on July 4th. Link here: http://www.cp24.com/world/ukrainian-forces-win-more-ground-in-eastern-ukraine-1.1899368
The logical question one should ask is “if the rebels had no planes, why did the Kiev junta need BuK’s and why did they lie about them?
From the moment the US and Kiev came out with the massive media barrage aimed against Russia and the rebels before that plane had even barely hit the ground it was obvious something was amiss. It all seemed too planned and contrived. Now we are seeing evidence that doesn’t match the official US pushed narrative. No wonder the US government won’t release the official government radar and satellite data they have. They know it incriminates themselves and brings the entire Ukraine coup fiasco to a halt. This is what happens when you jump into bed with nazis. Things go bad.
The following video is the original BBC Video Report which was published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014. Immediately after it was posted it was deleted by the BBC.
“Why did BBC delete this report by Olga Ivshina?
“Is it because the BBC team was unable to find any evidence that a rocket was launched in the area that the Ukrainian Security Service (“SBU”) alleges to be the place from which the Novorossiya Militia launched a “BUK” missile?
“Or is it because every eyewitness interviewed by the BBC team specifically indicated the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft right beside the Malaysian Airlines Boeing MH17 at the time that it was shot down?
“Or is it because of eyewitness accounts in the report confirm that the Ukrainian air force regularly used civilian aircraft flying over Novorossiya as human shields to protect its military aircraft conducting strikes against the civilian population from the Militia’s anti-aircraft units?”
This is the official Russian government presentation of civilian radar telemetry evidence that blows away the US’s pre-high school black and white static image presentation. The Russians radar telemetry video includes real time flight patterns and analysis of the other civilian airliners over the combat zone with geo spatial coordinates and time stamps thereby proving it to be ‘verifiable evidence’. The US presentation, on the other hand, includes no provable time and date stamp correlation or verifiable proof of location. The US ‘evidence’ also neglects to provide actual proof of a missile being launched.
The Russian Ministry of Defense have also pointed out that the US had two satellites directly over the crash area and asked them to release the video imagery from these satellites but thus far the US has refused. The US has also refused to acknowledge the fighter aircraft that the Russians point out in their radar telemetry video.
Couple the poor US presentation with the refusal by Kiev to release the ATC radar data and air traffic control recordings plus the US refusal to release the radar data from ships monitoring in the Black Sea and you have probable cause to believe the United States and Kiev are conducting a coverup of the truth in regards to the downing of flight MH-17. The fact they also lied about the Kiev juntas BuK missile systems also puts their credibility in doubt. Here’s the Russia presentation for those that are seeking the truth and are not swayed by US government and media propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo
This is the Russian digital audio analysis of the US’s social media ‘evidence’. It seems the audio files John Kerry cited were made the day before the crash and consist of different digital audio files digitally meshed together. The Russians used sound spectrum analyzers and audio host software to show that the files were each different and comprised of various audio wavelengths that did not correlate naturally. A basic studio engineer could have figured out that the files were fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNZ8CYUFdY4
Consider the fact the fake files were made the day before the plane went down and the US has now cited these files as their ‘official evidence’ leads one to ask….” is the US complicit in the atrocity, as whoever manufactured the fake audio and video the US used as evidence – knew in advance the plane was going to come down?”.
Vineyard of the Saker provides analysis of the satelitte imagery released thus far.
Matt Lee of the Associated Press questions the US’s use and release of social media evidence as proof of their case. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229550.htm
QUESTION: Well, okay. But I mean, I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I’m asking you –
MS. HARF: It wouldn’t be the first time.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) No, that’s true. What I’m asking – I mean, there are social – all you’re willing to present publicly that backs up your version of the story, which may well be the correct version of the story, but all you have –
MS. HARF: “May well be.”
QUESTION: Well, it may well be. But I don’t know because I haven’t seen your evidence that shows that the missile was launched from rebel-held territory. But you’re saying – so the only thing you’re willing to put out publicly is the social media accounts, I mean the social media stuff.
MS. HARF: That’s part of it.
QUESTION: Right. But there are social media accounts that says – that disputes that or that claims to present a different version. So are you saying –
MS. HARF: What would that version be, Matt?
QUESTION: Well, I don’t – there are many, many theories.
MS. HARF: Any –
QUESTION: But you’re saying that all of those accounts –
MS. HARF: Most of which are completely illogical, I would point out.
QUESTION: Well, but all of the accounts that do not support your version of events are wrong –
MS. HARF: No.
QUESTION: — and all of the ones that do support it are right? Is that what you’re saying?
MS. HARF: Look, we make assessments based on a variety of intelligence and a variety of information, some of which we can talk about publicly and some of which we can’t.
QUESTION: Well, is the – are you –
MS. HARF: And we also – and look, if you just take a step back, right, we need there to be an investigation so we can get all the facts, period. But on top of that, we have public information, which is, of course, the easiest for us to talk about –
MS. HARF: — of the separatists bragging about having the system, bragging about the attack that took place, and then walking back from it when it became known that it was a passenger jet. I would ask people who don’t believe our assessment to say, “Okay, what other possible explanation could be – could there be for that?” They defy logic, right?
QUESTION: Well, I don’t know if it defies logic or not, but –
MS. HARF: So when you start from a place of you have separatists out on – again, this is the easiest piece of information for us to talk about – online bragging about it, start there and then work from there and work from all of the evidence we have that we are confident we know where it was fired from, we’re confident we know what it was, and it points in a certain direction. Again, we would encourage Russia to support an investigation if they don’t believe the facts.
QUESTION: Right. It points in a certain direction, but I’m not sure it would stand up to an international –
MS. HARF: I strongly disagree. I absolutely believe that it would.
QUESTION: — investigation. Well, are you willing, if not at this moment in time now but soon, to put forward the intel that you say backs the claims that were made on social media? And in particular, it seems to me that the Secretary was very definitive, as you were just now, at saying that you know for sure 100 percent –
MS. HARF: I didn’t say 100 percent. Nothing is 100 percent in any world, Matt. But go ahead. It is our assessment, very strong assessment.
QUESTION: Okay, very strong assessment that the rocket – that the missile was fired from the rebel-held territory.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And I mean, you can’t – there is no social media that I’m aware of that would lead to –
MS. HARF: Well, at the time that MH17 flight dropped out of contact, we detected a surface-to-air –
MS. HARF: — missile launch from a separatist-controlled area in southeastern Ukraine.
MS. HARF: Which we believe was an SA-11. What you want is the intelligence that underlies that?
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I mean, they – the Russians have challenged – I’m not – I’m just saying the Russians have said –
MS. HARF: I’m just trying to clarify the question.
QUESTION: — have said we’ve shown – we’ve put out our radar images which show this Ukrainian plane near at least – well, they have. I mean –
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: Why don’t you put out your –
Additional informational articles on what is known so far regarding the shoot down of flight MH-17.
US intelligence analysts doubt US claims and evidence.
Russia has evidence that the plane made a 14 mile last minute deviation.
The British government will allow the Kiev authorities to investigate themselves.