The Situation in the Ukraine. #22

Project Canada wrote:
Dutch report on MH17 will be released tomorrow isn't it? I wish it will be an honest document and not tainted with politics and propaganda to smear Russia and Novorossiyans

I wouldnt be holding your breath on that.

I dont think it will say outright who they think did it, but it will say that a buk was used and it will say where the buk was fired from, and who controlled that area at the time.

As far as i know, this is just the investigation of what caused the crash isnt it? So the actual criminal investigation, as to who is responsible for it, should come later. I dont think they would want to jeopardise the second investigation my making wild claims about who is responsible without proof in this one. If i were part of the dutch team on this, i would be trying to steer my investigation as far away from 'who did it' as possible. Because this is going to get dirty.

franco wrote:The End Game in Ukraine - Russia Wins;

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/end-game-ukraine-russia-wins/ri10390


EDIT: missed it by that much

       

Don't worry, you will get me next time

Project Canada wrote:
Dutch report on MH17 will be released tomorrow isn't it? I wish it will be an honest document and not tainted with politics and propaganda to smear Russia and Novorossiyans

Supposedly it will claim that it was a "Russian made" Buk that brought it down. Of course "Russian" and "Soviet" are the same thing in the minds of
NATO media consumers.

This has been one of the longest crash investigations ever (with access to wreckage and a myriad of other important details). The non-disclosure
agreement with veto rights for Ukraine was something epic in terms of non-transparency. If this report tries to pin it on the rebels and Russia it
will have nothing to base it on. There were multiple Kiev regime Soviet-made Buks in the vicinity of the launch point. We have to be aware that
many maps showing nice contiguous zones of control in the Donbas are rubbish. There were regime forces in many parts of supposedly rebel held
territory and this included Lugansk City. The Buk system filmed being transported via truck was actually in a Kiev regime part of Lugansk City.

flamming_python wrote:

And why would we want them to be 'cured'?

So we'll have 40 more million mouths to feed again?

Let NATO keep this country, seriously.

I do not understand why you have a negative opinion about any possibilities of Russian territorial expansion. Ukrainian (Future Novorossiyan) territory would be a vital addition to Russia, not only it will increase Russia's buffer zone against NATO but its resources and industrial+agricultural potential will contribute generously to the Russian economy.

Project Canada wrote:
I do not understand why you have a negative opinion about any possibilities of Russian territorial expansion. Ukrainian (Future Novorossiyan) territory would be a vital addition to Russia, not only it will increase Russia's buffer zone against NATO but its resources and industrial+agricultural potential will contribute generously to the Russian economy.

Russia doesn't have enough people to put the territory it already has to good use. Novorossiya will work better as a buffer if it is independent or still part of Ukraine with autonomy. If it were part of Russia, and NATO was in Ukraine, then it would be no buffer at all.

Live Almaz-Antej presentation of the results of its probe into the MH17

https://www.rt.com/on-air/almaz-antey-report-mh17/

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Live Almaz-Antej presentation of the results of its probe into the MH17

https://www.rt.com/on-air/almaz-antey-report-mh17/

So they have announced that it was hit by a buk.

But what time is the dutch report being released? This is all a bit strange.

Rodinazombie wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Live Almaz-Antej presentation of the results of its probe into the MH17

https://www.rt.com/on-air/almaz-antey-report-mh17/

So they have announced that it was hit by a buk.

But what time is the dutch report being released? This is all a bit strange.

Apparently Duch later today. And yeah they say it could be BuK however they claim it wasnt launched from Snizhne but Zaroshchenske.

Rodinazombie wrote:

So they have announced that it was hit by a buk.

But what time is the dutch report being released? This is all a bit strange.

12:00 GMT
Almaz-Antey have clearly shown MH17 was hit by BUK that could not have been fired from Snezhnoe, and a point they make is that it isn't really possible to pinpoint a launch position, but it is possible to rule out an arc of positions, and this arc includes Snezhnoe. And an arc of posible launch positions can be ruled in, and that arc includes Zaroshchenske, a village not under Militia control. They only deal with any Buk involvement and do not mention any possible 30mm cannon fire damage, which in some photos is obvious, IMO. Almaz-Antey also explained that it is beyond the maneuvering capability of Buk to be fired from Snezhnoe and then approach the Boeing from the opposite side given all the other factors as well, the Boeing's hight, speed and heading. They also explained what I guess is obvious, is that the Boeing is a very easy target and no need for any "aerobatics" by the missile to hit the target.

So they've stuck with their initial conclusion. But the remaining question is still what role the Ukie Su-25 played in conjunction with the Buk.

Khepesh wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:

So they have announced that it was hit by a buk.

But what time is the dutch report being released? This is all a bit strange.

12:00 GMT
Almaz-Antey have clearly shown MH17 was hit by BUK that could not have been fired from Snezhnoe, and a point they make is that it isn't really possible to pinpoint a launch position, but it is possible to rule out an arc of positions, and this arc includes Snezhnoe. And an arc of posible launch positions can be ruled in, and that arc includes Zaroshchenske, a village not under Militia control. They only deal with any Buk involvement and do not mention any possible 30mm cannon fire damage, which in some photos is obvious, IMO. Almaz-Antey also explained that it is beyond the maneuvering capability of Buk to be fired from Snezhnoe and then approach the Boeing from the opposite side given all the other factors as well, the Boeing's hight, speed and heading. They also explained what I guess is obvious, is that the Boeing is a very easy target and no need for any "aerobatics" by the missile to hit the target.

I saw a photo of them holding up a small piece of the plane used in the experiment in the presentation, now what would be interesting will be if they show more detailed photos of the damage to the plane used in the experiment, so we can compare it to the damage of mh17.

Anyone remember where exactly the ukrainian buks were at that time? Where was the one that was filmed on ukie news a couple of days before mh17? Is it within that 'arc of possibility'?

My only problem with excluding certain angles from this arc, is that you are assuming the plane is heading in a specific direction. Does almaz have definite details like that, so they can pinpoint the heading of the plane at the moment of attack? I ask, because it seems unlikely since the investigation has been so secretive.

Rodinazombie wrote:

Khepesh wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:

So they have announced that it was hit by a buk.

But what time is the dutch report being released? This is all a bit strange.

12:00 GMT
Almaz-Antey have clearly shown MH17 was hit by BUK that could not have been fired from Snezhnoe, and a point they make is that it isn't really possible to pinpoint a launch position, but it is possible to rule out an arc of positions, and this arc includes Snezhnoe. And an arc of posible launch positions can be ruled in, and that arc includes Zaroshchenske, a village not under Militia control. They only deal with any Buk involvement and do not mention any possible 30mm cannon fire damage, which in some photos is obvious, IMO. Almaz-Antey also explained that it is beyond the maneuvering capability of Buk to be fired from Snezhnoe and then approach the Boeing from the opposite side given all the other factors as well, the Boeing's hight, speed and heading. They also explained what I guess is obvious, is that the Boeing is a very easy target and no need for any "aerobatics" by the missile to hit the target.

I saw a photo of them holding up a small piece of the plane used in the experiment in the presentation, now what would be interesting will be if they show more detailed photos of the damage to the plane used in the experiment, so we can compare it to the damage of mh17.

Anyone remember where exactly the ukrainian buks were at that time? Where was the one that was filmed on ukie news a couple of days before mh17? Is it within that 'arc of possibility'?

My only problem with excluding certain angles from this arc, is that you are assuming the plane is heading in a specific direction. Does almaz have definite details like that, so they can pinpoint the heading of the plane at the moment of attack? I ask, because it seems unlikely since the investigation has been so secretive.

Photos of damage on IL86 that was used for test purposes.

https://www.rt.com/news/318457-mh17-report-plane-crash/

OminousSpudd wrote:So they've stuck with their initial conclusion. But the remaining question is still what role the Ukie Su-25 played in conjunction with the Buk.

It will be interesting to see if the report passes scrutiny of other forensic scientists, and it they make the wreckage available to other scientists to check the work, or do if just have to take the report on face value with no independent verification.

Rodinazombie wrote:

Khepesh wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:

So they have announced that it was hit by a buk.

But what time is the dutch report being released? This is all a bit strange.

12:00 GMT
Almaz-Antey have clearly shown MH17 was hit by BUK that could not have been fired from Snezhnoe, and a point they make is that it isn't really possible to pinpoint a launch position, but it is possible to rule out an arc of positions, and this arc includes Snezhnoe. And an arc of posible launch positions can be ruled in, and that arc includes Zaroshchenske, a village not under Militia control. They only deal with any Buk involvement and do not mention any possible 30mm cannon fire damage, which in some photos is obvious, IMO. Almaz-Antey also explained that it is beyond the maneuvering capability of Buk to be fired from Snezhnoe and then approach the Boeing from the opposite side given all the other factors as well, the Boeing's hight, speed and heading. They also explained what I guess is obvious, is that the Boeing is a very easy target and no need for any "aerobatics" by the missile to hit the target.

I saw a photo of them holding up a small piece of the plane used in the experiment in the presentation, now what would be interesting will be if they show more detailed photos of the damage to the plane used in the experiment, so we can compare it to the damage of mh17.

Anyone remember where exactly the ukrainian buks were at that time? Where was the one that was filmed on ukie news a couple of days before mh17? Is it within that 'arc of possibility'?

My only problem with excluding certain angles from this arc, is that you are assuming the plane is heading in a specific direction. Does almaz have definite details like that, so they can pinpoint the heading of the plane at the moment of attack? I ask, because it seems unlikely since the investigation has been so secretive.

All I can remember off the top of my head is the Russian MoD stated 7 active Buk systems at the time, couldn't tell you if they meant full complexes or just the launchers. They also stated that one went "active" at around the time of MH17's demise.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/318457-mh17-report-plane-crash/

Have a look at the twitter posts on that link, the reaction from westerners was predictable.

They seem to have eliminated the possibility of the missile being a unit that is currently in service with RuAF's and have to an extent identified the model as produced in 1988 by SSSR, that missile being withdrawn from service by RuAF's in 2011. This company was only concerned with the missile used and to an extent the arc of launch area but I think that extent arc was to assess the angle of attack of the missile. I agree with Kepesh, the cockpit is full of fair sized automatic weapon launched entrance and exit holes, at least IMHO for that it's worth.

Erk wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:So they've stuck with their initial conclusion. But the remaining question is still what role the Ukie Su-25 played in conjunction with the Buk.

It will be interesting to see if the report passes scrutiny of other forensic scientists, and it they make the wreckage available to other scientists to check the work, or do if just have to take the report on face value with no independent verification.

I wouldn't understand Almaz-Antey having any sort of agenda behind their investigation. They don't stand to benefit from concluding that a Buk (no matter the operator) shot the aircraft down. Either they're being honest... or... I got nothing.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Erk wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:So they've stuck with their initial conclusion. But the remaining question is still what role the Ukie Su-25 played in conjunction with the Buk.

It will be interesting to see if the report passes scrutiny of other forensic scientists, and it they make the wreckage available to other scientists to check the work, or do if just have to take the report on face value with no independent verification.

I wouldn't understand Almaz-Antey having any sort of agenda behind their investigation. They don't stand to benefit from concluding that a Buk (no matter the operator) shot the aircraft down. Either they're being honest... or... I got nothing.

Well, i think its in their interest to deflect the idea that it was a russian buk that did it, and not one owned by ukraine (but operated by rebels or ua).

That said, i dont believe at all that it was a russian army buk that did it, and if the dutch investigation tries to pin it on russia by deliberately playing with words and ignoring ukrainian buks, then ill agree that the whole thing is a sham.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Erk wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:So they've stuck with their initial conclusion. But the remaining question is still what role the Ukie Su-25 played in conjunction with the Buk.

It will be interesting to see if the report passes scrutiny of other forensic scientists, and it they make the wreckage available to other scientists to check the work, or do if just have to take the report on face value with no independent verification.

I wouldn't understand Almaz-Antey having any sort of agenda behind their investigation. They don't stand to benefit from concluding that a Buk (no matter the operator) shot the aircraft down. Either they're being honest... or... I got nothing.

NO..
Almaz Antei is reaching conclusions without having the whole picture of the Mh-17 incident.
They do not have the information of witness that saw planes chasing the plane.. they do not
have the information of Russian radars that shows ukraine military planes chasing the plane.
What they are doing is close to criminal.. because their investigation torpedo the Russian
investigation..  If they had any degree of responsibility and seriousness.. they will refuse
to be Sherlock homes and release their information to The Russian Governemt first and not
act independently of the kremling.. is incredibly stupid .. to claim something shot down the plane ,completely ignoring all the evidence that shows Military planes were near the malasyan plane when it was shot down.  Russia even have the testimonies of an Ukrainian mechanic.. who says an Ukraine pilot did it.. So you cannot ignore that evidence.. Imho the kremlin Incompetence in allowing Almaz Antei to sabotage their own investigation by releasing a report
that only covers partial evidence ,but not the whole.. I hope Russia is forced to pay hundreds of billions in fines , and all because if their Incompetence in not controlling their own companies
investigations that even though could be in good faith it could damage their own investigation..and not necessarily for being right..but instead for being incomplete.

Almaz antei is trying to solve a crime scene with science alone ,totally ignoring the political side,
of it.. -> A proxy war happening in Ukraine ,of Americans against Russia.. and their long trajectory creating false flags attacks... ie.. In the 9/11 WTC attacks , no civilian planes hit the towers.. it was US military ones by control remote.. and the real "hijacked" planes by "terrorist" were diverted to other airports. The same US government kidnapped the planes and replaced them with military ones .

Almaz Antei creating their own investigation ,separately from kremling is treason and the CEO should be fired and put in jail for his irresponsible behavior in such delicate incident. My take is
that it was a 100% false flag attack.. and it was done in a way to confuse the real authors of the crimes.. The claims that there was many rotten bodies already in the plane by Donetsk minister withing hours the plane crashed cannot be underestimated. .The "buk holes" tha ALmaz Antei claim they saw.. could have been cause of a bomb already in the plane..when it took off.  When you want to do a false flag attack and confuse the investigation any deceiving tactics is possible. My take is to get the real truth of Mh-17 ,the airport from where the Malasyan plane took off and the security of the airport and their bank accounts ,have to be investigated.. and done not
by Netherlands but by an independent neutral nation with the investigators names not know until the report released. so they don't bribed.

Relax everyone. After all, Russia can simply say "we didn't do it" Ukraine style, or decorate its hypothetical military personnel involved, US style /sarcasm off

You aren't honestly expecting an open, unbiased and objective analysis of the events prior to and after the shooting?

SturmGuard wrote:Relax everyone. After all, Russia can simply say "we didn't do it" Ukraine style, or decorate its hypothetical military personnel involved, US style.

You aren't honestly expecting an open, unbiased and objective analysis of the events prior to and after the shooting,

I am truly shocked that there is a possibility the investigation may be tainted, shocked, I say!

French publisher Larousse issued socio-economic world atlas for 2016