Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?

Exclusive: Pointing the finger of blame at Russian President Putin for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down last July, an Australian news show claims to have found the spot where the Russian BUK missile battery made its getaway, but the images don’t match, raising questions of journalistic fakery, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

An Australian television show claims to have solved the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down mystery the Russians did it! but the program appears to have faked a key piece of evidence and there remain many of the same doubts as before, along with the dog-not-barking question of why the U.S. government has withheld its intelligence data.

The basic point of the Australian “60 Minutes” program was that photographs on social media show what some believe to be a BUK anti-aircraft launcher aboard a truck traveling eastward on July 17, 2014, the day of the shoot-down, into what was generally considered rebel-controlled territory of eastern Ukraine, south and east of Donetsk, the capital of one of the ethnic Russian rebellious provinces.

A screen shot from a video of a suspected BUK missile battery traveling on a road in eastern Ukraine after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (As shown in Australia’s “60 Minutes” program.)

A screen shot from a video of a suspected BUK missile battery traveling on a road in eastern Ukraine after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (As shown in Australia’s “60 Minutes” program.)

Citing one image, the program’s narrator says the “launcher is heading east further into rebel territory,” south and east of Donetsk.

However, in mid-July, the ethnic Russian rebels were reeling under a Ukrainian military offensive to the north of Donetsk. Despite shifting their forces into the battle zone, they had lost Sloviansk, Druzhkivka, Kostyantynivka and Kramatorsk. In other words, the lines of control were fluid and chaotic in mid-July 2014 with the possibility that an unmarked Ukrainian government truck, maybe carrying a concealed anti-aircraft battery, could have moved into the titular rebel zone, especially in the lightly defended south.

Another problem with the Australian TV account is that the video and photographic images show the truck heading eastward toward Russia, but there are no earlier images of the truck moving westward from Russia into eastern Ukraine. If the mysterious truck was supposedly so obvious on the day of the shoot-down, why wasn’t it obvious earlier?

For the Australian TV account to be true blaming the Russians the launcher would have to have crossed from Russia into Ukraine, traveled somewhere west of Donetsk, before turning around and heading eastward back toward Russia, yet the trail seems to begin only with photos on July 17 showing the truck headed east.

Indeed, I was told shortly after the MH-17 crash, which killed 298 people including Australians, that one of the problems that U.S. intelligence analysts were having in pinning the blame on the Russians was that they could not find evidence that the Russians had delivered a BUK missile system to the rebels who until then were known only to have short-range Manpads incapable of reaching MH-17 flying at around 33,000 feet.

Another part of the Australian TV narrative stretched credulity. If the Russians had somehow snuck a BUK missile system into eastern Ukraine without U.S. intelligence knowing and were moving it back toward Russia, why would the crew stop en route to shoot down a civilian airliner before continuing on the way? There was no military value in destroying a civilian airliner and it was obvious in the Western media hysteria then surrounding Ukraine that Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, would be blamed.

What I was told by a source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts was that at least some of them after reviewing electronic intercepts, overhead satellite images and other intelligence had reached the conclusion that the shoot-down was a provocation, or a false-flag operation, carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military operating under one of the hard-line oligarchs.

However, it was not clear to me whether that was the opinion of just a few U.S. analysts or whether that had become the consensus. When I sought an updated briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in March, I was told that the U.S. intelligence community had not updated or refined its analysis of the shoot-down since five days after the event, a claim that was not credible given the significance of the MH-17 case to tensions between nuclear powers, United States and Russia.

In reality, Western intelligence services have been hard at work trying to determine who was responsible for the shoot-down. Last October, Der Spiegel reported that the German intelligence service, the BND, had concluded that Russia was not the source of the missile battery that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base but the BND still blamed the rebels for firing it. The BND also concluded that photos supplied by the Ukrainian government about the MH-17 tragedy “have been manipulated,” Der Spiegel reported.

And, the BND disputed Russian government claims that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to MH-17, the magazine said, reporting on the BND’s briefing to a parliamentary committee on Oct. 8, 2014. But none of the BND’s evidence was made public, and I was subsequently told by a European official that the evidence was not as conclusive as the magazine article depicted. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case.”]

Possible TV Fakery

There also appears to have been some fakery involved in the Australian documentary. In several instances, as the film crew traveled to eastern Ukraine to seek out scenes from July 17 video showing the truck possibly carrying BUK missiles, images of those sites then and now were overlaid to show how closely the scenes matched.

However, for one crucial scene the image of an alleged “getaway” BUK launcher lacking one missile and supposedly heading back to Russia after the shoot-down the documentary broke with that pattern. The program showed the earlier video of the truck moving past a billboard and then claiming based on information from blogger Eliot Higgins that the TV crew had located the same billboard in Luhansk, a rebel-held city near the Russian border.

This was the documentary’s slam-dunk moment, the final proof that the Russians and particular Vladimir Putin were guilty in the deaths of 298 innocent people. However, in this case, there was no overlay of the two scenes, just Australian correspondent Michael Usher pointing to a billboard and saying it was the same one as in the video.

But the scenes look nothing at all alike if you put them side by side. While Usher is standing in an open field, the earlier video shows an overgrown area. Indeed, almost nothing looks the same, which might explain why the film crew didn’t try to do an overlay this time.

A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery supposedly passed after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)

A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery supposedly passed after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)

This discrepancy is important because the Russian government placed the scene of the “getaway” BUK launcher in the town of Krasnoarmiis’k, northwest of Donetsk and then under Ukrainian government control. Usher dismissed that Russian claim as a lie before asserting that his team had located the scene with the billboard in Luhansk.

The significance of the Australian news show’s sleight of hand is that if the BUK launcher was making its “getaway” through government-controlled territory, not through Luhansk on its way back to Russia, much of the Russia-did-it scenario collapses. It also means the Australian audience was grossly misled.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

 

image_pdfimage_print

106 comments for “Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?

  1. Abe
    May 25, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    The destruction of MH-14 was a propaganda plum for Washington, which had been waging a propaganda war for months.

    SETTING THE STAGE

    By mid-July 2014, the Armed Forces of Ukraine were in the third month of their so-called Anti-terror Operation (ATO) against the people of eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian government forces continued air and artillery strikes at pro-Russian separatist bases after President Petro Poroshenko vowed to rid Ukraine of “parasites”.

    Armed with equipment obtained from numerous Donbas military bases and captured in battle with ATO forces, and aided by volunteer units from Russia, the pro-Russian militias in Donetsk and Luhansk strongly defended their regions.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would continue to defend the interests of ethnic Russians abroad – up to 3 million of whom lived in the east of Ukraine.

    Russia began a criminal investigation of the commander of the Aidar Battalion, a volunteer military unit with links to the far-right, supported by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, for organizing the killing of civilians in eastern Ukraine.

    In addition to the Ukrainian ground troop casualties, the Ukrainian Air Force suffered numerous losses of both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

    The worst death toll took place on 14 June when separatist militia, using 9K38 Igla (Needle) MANPADS (man-portable air-defense system), shot down an Il-76 transport plane near Luhansk Airport with 49 crew members killed.

    STALLED PROPAGANDA WAR

    The Ukrainian public was growing weary of the escalating casualties, military equipment losses and cost of the ATO miltary actions.

    Meanwhile, Washington was having difficulty garnering European support for a third round of economic sanctions against Russia. Germany had recently expelled the Berlin station chief of the United States Central Intelligence Agency following a series of spy scandals.

    The German government accused the NATO supreme commander, American General Philip Breedlove, of disseminating “dangerous propaganda” on the extent of Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine, and trying to undermine a diplomatic solution to the war.

    PROPAGANDA 3.0

    With no credible evidence of the Kremlin’s direct military involvement in eastern Ukraine, and faced with the prevailing distrust of the Pentagon or Western intelligence agencies, Washington advanced the propaganda strategy that had proven effective in promoting the February 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev

    The strategy in Ukraine was to use several sources:

    – Russian anti-Putin oligarch-owned mainstream and social media
    – fake “reporters on the ground” in Ukraine
    – Ukrainian state media and privately-owned media
    – information released through US/NATO allies like Poland
    – most importantly, “analysis” of satellite imagery by fake “citizen journalists”

    DRESS REHEARSAL

    On July 14, a Ukrainian military An-26 twin-engined turboprop transport aircraft crashed near the village of Izvaryne near the Russian border, killing both pilots and most of the 8 member crew.

    The Ukrainian Defense Ministry claimed the aircraft was “shot down” from an altitude of 6500 meters, leading to speculation the plane was hit by a “Russian anti-aircraft rocket”.

    The flight ceiling of the separatist Igla MANPADS was 3500 meters.

    U.S. officials said they had “evidence” the aircraft had been fired on from inside Russian territory, then switched stories and insisted that the aircraft was shot down by a BUK surface-to-air missile from separatist-held eastern Ukraine.

    On July 15, a Ukrainian airstrike on the separatist-held town of Snizhne killed at least eleven civilians.

    On July 16, the US widened sanctions against Russia, targeting major banks and energy companies, Russian defense industry, and individuals it said were responsible for the continuing support of the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Russia for failing to meet commitments to end the violence in Ukraine, and said Russia might face further EU sanctions.

    SHOWTIME

    On July 17, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 carrying 298 people from multiple countries crashed near Hrabove in Donetsk Oblast, on a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

    Ukrainian officials again claimed the aircraft was “shot down”.

    On July 18, US President Barack Obama says the United States has “increasing confidence” that that MH-17 was shot down by a BUK missile that came from Russian separatists in Ukraine – and that Russia bore responsibility for the crisis.

    The sources of Obama’s “confidence”:

    – Russian anti-Putin oligarch-owned mainstream and social media
    – fake “reporters on the ground” in Ukraine
    – Ukrainian state media and privately-owned media
    – information released through US/NATO allies like Poland
    – most importantly, “analysis” of satellite imagery by fake “citizen journalists”

    The world was in a frenzy.

    PAYOFF

    Unsubstantiated allegations about who — and what — shot down MH-17 provided political support for the EU to introduce the third round of sanctions against certain sectors of Russia’s economy, including the financial sector (all majority government-owned Russian banks), trade restrictions relating to the Russian energy and defense industries, and additional individuals and entities designated under the EU asset freezing provisions.

  2. Abe
    May 24, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    “If you want to ‘investigate’ yourself…”
    is the core rhetorical strategy of Higgins and Bellingcat.

    “60Min/Bellingcat at least tried to find/show material which everybody could analyse themselves…”

    Yeah, go do your own damn geo-location, haters!

    Stop picking on poor little Eliot and his laptop.

    “At least” Higgins and those shiny “citizen journalists” at Bellingcat “tried” to help…

    by peddling material handed to them by the Pentagon or Western intelligence agencies who cannot sell their tripe any other way.

    Higgins and Bellingcat are allied with George Soros-funded organizations and the CIA-managed Atlantic Council.

    The Western Propaganda 3.0 strategy is to keep throwing more BM (“Brown Moses” by any other name) against the social media wall and see what sticks.

  3. Robert E
    May 24, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Robert Parry wrote: “In other words, the lines of control were fluid and chaotic in mid-July 2014 with the possibility that an unmarked Ukrainian government truck, maybe carrying a concealed anti-aircraft battery, could have moved into the titular rebel zone, especially in the lightly defended south.”

    This way of reasoning could also be applied to a truck carrying a Russian BUK. If a Ukrainian BUK (on a trailer) could drive around freely without being noticed, also a Russian BUK (on a trailer) could do it. This doesn’t proof anything!

    Robert Parry wrote: “Another problem with the Australian TV account is that the video and photographic images show the truck heading eastward toward Russia, but there are no earlier images of the truck moving westward from Russia into eastern Ukraine. If the mysterious truck was supposedly so obvious on the day of the shoot-down, why wasn’t it obvious earlier?

    He answered his own question in the alinea before i would say.

    I could continue this way for the rest of the article, but that would be a waste of time.

    My biggest problem with this article:
    IT DOESN’T PROOF ANYTHING

    60Min/Bellingcat at least tried to find/show material which everybody could analyse themselves, Robert Parry just provides “i was told”, “i have heard”, etc nothing concrete that could be verified by myself.

    If you want to ‘investigate’ yourself, this article can be in the dustbin, if you want a confirmation of Ukrainian guilt, this article should sound like heaven and solid proof.

    • Abe
      May 25, 2015 at 3:51 am

      Mr. Parry has proven precisely that Higgins doesn’t prove anything about MH-17.

  4. May 20, 2015 at 9:21 am

    Shame on all of them alright. Australia is just another vassal of the international Zionist mafia who’s main goal is to be a good servant of the House of Rothschild and their associate banksters in their quest for a One World Govt NWO globalization agenda and their main enemies of Russia, China and the BRICS alliance who are the shining light on the side of proper democracy and true justice need to be demonized by deception by the Rothschild controlled zionist news criminal news empire in any way possible

    • Abe
      May 22, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      Whenever the prevailing lie is discarded, the hasbara trolls chime in frothing “anti-semitic” remarks. Hilarity ensues.

  5. May 20, 2015 at 1:51 am

    Just so that everyone understands the quality of bellincat’s analysis, I recommend this piece. While it’s not in major media, the quotes from Teddy Postol, one of our nation’s foremost weapons experts are damning. And I have checked the basics against Teddy Postol’s actual report, which concludes that bellingcat totally misidentified the munitions used in the Syria sarin attack and their range.

    So, please tell me: how does a former admin/finance guy become, over the course of a couple of years, the world’s recognized expert in weaponry, whose opinion in corporate media trumps that of actual weapons experts?

    All our basic values on what constitutes research and analysis have been debased.

    Robert Parry may not be an expert in image analysis. But he is an expert in bullshit detection.

    • Abe
      May 25, 2015 at 4:02 am

      It might have been a battle between a Pulitzer Prize winner and a data-collecting blogger if a team of rocket scientists and weapons experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hadn’t taken issue with Higgins’ analysis.

      “It’s clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian government-controlled areas as the White House claimed,” Theodore Postol told MintPress News.

      Postol is a professor in the Science, Technology, and Global Security Working Group at MIT. He published “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21st, 2013” in January along with Richard Lloyd, an analyst at the military contractor Tesla Laboratories who previously served as a United Nations weapons inspector and also boasts two books, 40 patents and more than 75 academic papers on weapons technology.

      Higgins, Postol said, “has done a very nice job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it’s so lacking any analytical foundation it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

      The Failed Pretext For War: Seymour Hersh, Eliot Higgins, MIT Rocket Scientists On Sarin Gas Attack
      By Carmen Russell-Sluchansky
      http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-failed-pretext-for-war-seymour-hersh-eliot-higgins-mit-professors-on-sarin-gas-attack/188597/

  6. Jole
    May 19, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    Robert must be trolling, this just can’t be serious …

    • Ash
      May 20, 2015 at 7:55 pm

      Cogent rebuttal. Present no evidence, just act incredulous!

  7. Geoffrey de Galles
    May 19, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 — Boyoviki vivozyat missile complexes “BUK” to cordon Russian iz. The earliest seconds of the video show, on the right, what sure looks to be a white window frame, from which viewpoint one looks some fifty meters over the top of dense foliage and curbside grass to a completely uninteresting T road junction. What uncanny powers of prediction — or sheer good luck — did it take for someone armed with a camera to occupy such an utterly boring yet fateful position, with camera-trigger already on, at the very moment (all in all, some 5 seconds) when a truck loaded with a missile-launcher happens to fleetingly sail by — allegedly, the very missile-launcher which, just a short while before, had downed a Malaysian passenger airliner over eastern Ukraine? Hardly kosher, it sure seems to me.

  8. bfearn
    May 19, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    I don’t know who shot down this airliner or what happened to ML370, who killed JFK or destroyed Pan Am 103 and then there is 9/11.

    Tragic that people somewhere know what happened in all those disasters but governments never get the truth and if they do they never tell us.

    • jaycee
      May 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm

      The Unexplained Event has become part of our contemporary shared experience.

  9. Nick Koblov
    May 19, 2015 at 11:38 am

    There is another one problem for Australia 60 minutes. BUK system consist from 4 vehicles. Single anti-aircraft machine is blind and it cant even shoot without “Kupol” (Tube Arm in NATO classificaton), and command machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system in help.

    • Tom
      May 24, 2015 at 4:13 pm

      You need to do more research Nick Koblov. The whole point of the system is redundancy. The KUB TELAR on its own can track and fire on its own. It doesn’t require the full system of other vehicles to operate in this mode. The TELAR is equipped with the fire control Firedome radar. In addition it also has an infra red seeker and an electro-optical sighting system by which means the crew may initiate a launch even without radar aid. The Firedome on its own was perfectly capable of engaging a large target such as a MH17. What you are quoting is a myth. The Soviets built redundancy into the system with the BUK TELAR able to function completely on its own in order to engage targets.

  10. Brendan
    May 19, 2015 at 10:46 am

    There are some problems with the claim that that ‘Buk’ video shows rebels or Russians transporting it in the early hours of the morning on the day after it was used to shoot down the MH17:

    1. The video was shot in an area which the Ukrainian army claimed to control at that time.
    (see point no. 22): http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/08/05/mh17-the-lugansk-buk-video
    That road was part of a strip of land in the south west of Luhansk city that stretched to Luhansk airport in the south of the city. Ukraine controlled the airport until about 1 September when they were forced to withdraw:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11067351/Ukraine-battles-Russian-tank-column-near-Luhansk-ahead-of-Minsk-peace-talks.html

    2. The Buk was approximately 60 km from the alleged missile launch site (south of Snizhne) and therefore would have been travelling a long distance in the wrong direction before that if it was really travelling to Russia.
    It would have been travelling north before turning eastwards in Luhansk towards Russia. A much more plausible route would have been through Krasnodon, which is where the Interior Minister Avakov originally claimed the video was shot. He was forced to admit that it was taken in Luhansk after someone on Facebook questioned if it was really taken in Krasnodon.

    3. They waited until there was sunlight to drive through the largest city in that region, overlooked by many appartment blocks (the video was allegedly shot around dawn).

    4. No covering at all was placed over the missiles to conceal them. A photo that allegedly showed the Buk in Torez the previous day showed the top of the launcher almost completey covered, so that you could not even see if it contained any missiles.

    If you believe that anti-Russian explanation of that video, you will therefore have to believe that the Russians or pro-Russians, knowing that they killed hundreds of innocent people with a Buk missile launcher, drove it a long distance in the wrong direction, into territory that was at least partly controlled by the enemy, allowing it, including its remaining missiles, to be clearly seen in daylight by anyone it passed in the biggest city in that region.

    The video was allegely shot about twelve hours after the Buk allegedly shot down the MH17. Therefore, what they did cannot be explained simply as driving away in panic in any direction and not knowing what they were doing.

    That kind of of behavior is not just irrational, it goes against the instinct of anyone who would find themselves in that situation. Even the most stupid kind of person would instinctly drive away from an enemy who is looking for them, instead of towards them. They would also hide anything that would identify them as guilty of a major crime that everyone knows about.

    Anyway there is no evidence, and no testimony from any reliable witness, that the video was shot on 18 July 2014. Neither is there any such evidence or testimony that the pictures that were allegedly taken of the Buk on the previous day, 17 July, were actually taken on that day. These claims are simply accepted as fact by Eliot Higgins, the Ukrainian authorities and many media organisations.

    • Phil
      May 20, 2015 at 6:54 am

      Well said Brendan.

      The world of social media investigations is a murkey one at best. So easy for things to be taken out of context and indeed downright fabricated. The bar for verifiable evidence is set at height determined by the “investigator” and depending on their desired outcome.

      This Higgins guy’s intentions are up for debate given his rather open and honest bigotry towards Russians and anyone they deem as “friends”. He detests them. So therefore given this bias any interested party following his “investigations” needs to bear that in mind. He starts his “investigations” from a predetermined conclusion and works back twisting the facts to fit the evidence.

      In Syria a video surfaced that claimed to show rebels firing the same rockets that were used to deliver Sarin in Ghouta. Higgins’ sole defence of his ‘Assad-done-it’ conspiracy was that rebels have never been seen in possession of these types of rockets. Higgins then and now calls the video a fake. No investigation needed.

      Yet he so easily accepts Ukrainian intelligence services pictures of a Buk and obviously photoshopped images such as the Paris Match picture as gospel. ‘No need for investigations her either as the picture supports my story so let’s run with it’ you could easily imagine him saying to himself.

      Notice how Higgins ignores Yemen, Somali, Iraq, Libya (since the NATO invasion), Turkey, Israel etc? No “investigations” here. Why? Well there’s no Russian involvement and lots of US involvement so his funders don’t permit his prying therein.

      His work has received NO support from the experts in the areas he chooses to indulge in. Any expert asked to review his theories have rubbished them (Postol, Johnson et al) and warned caution against believing them. So where does he get his legitimacy from? The corporate media.

      His Assad-done-it conspiracy theories were point by point challenged and proven factually and evidentially incorrect at the ” WhoGhouta” blog. Before Higgins fell silent in face of WhoGhouta’s relentless challenges to him he called them “Pro-Assadists” and “conspiracy theorists”. Though he also called Professor Ted Postol of MIT and ex UN Weapons Inspector Richard Lloyd conspiracy theorists and ‘deluded’ . He went after Seymour Hersh, Carla del Ponte of the UN and a plethora of other experts for daring to challenge his stuff!

      Hard to believe that a guy who 3 years ago sold women’s underwear and hasn’t, by his own admission, a single exam to his name has become an “expert” in warfare by watching YouTube. Nothing to see here. Move along.

      • Shingo
        May 20, 2015 at 8:10 am

        Great comment and summary Phil.

        Higgins is the typical 40 year old virgin who hasn’t had a shower in weeks, sitting in his mother basements all day flicking between Youtube and porn. Like you said, no one with any credibility in the intelligence community has taken anything he says seriously.

  11. Helge
    May 19, 2015 at 10:32 am

    When I look at the first screenshot which apparently shows the rocket launcher passing by I would say it proves nothing, it can be anywhere, the lamp post looks like Eastern European-former USSR but all the rest, it can be anywhere. Perhaps the photo was taken two years ago somewhere in Russia, somewhere in the Ukraine, in Belarus, Lithuania? You name it. BUK rocket launchers are probably shifted around sometimes in any of whose countries, I can post any picture from anywhere and claim whatever I want, most people won’t be able to tell where and when it was taken. If ABC tries to use such photos as prove, then that is very poor journalism.

  12. Pancho Villa
    May 19, 2015 at 8:41 am

    All these discussions about pictures and geo-locations is beyond me, we are missing the main flaw of all this stupid theories, it is much more simple.

    This man, Higgins, provides a picture that he claims he casually found on the internet. We are supposed to believe not only in the coincidence and the good luck of a man that with no expertise or experience whatsoever became a darling of the mainstream media, even after being proven wrong by real experts; but also, and here lies the extremely ridiculous, the farcical and nonsensical of all these, we have to somehow assume that the Russians would just wave the whole BUK system on open roads for some hundred Km without even putting a a fucking blanket on it!

    Just imagine the conversation. The stupid rebel shuts down the plane by mistake, Russian intelligence knows that just minutes afterwards, there is a phone exchange (just like the fakery that the Ukrainian SBU issued the very day of the tragedy):

    -“Pro-Russian rebel”: What shall I do?
    -FSB official: Bring it to Russia, now!
    -Pro-Russian rebel: Wouldn´t it be better to store it on one of the thousands of barns, to bury it, to destroy it with a shell, burn it, dismantle it?
    -FSB official: No, no, no. I want you to parade it on the main roads and take the most erratic route in broad daylight to bring it to Russia, fast.
    -Pro-Russian rebel: Shall I put a blanket, paint it?

    (…)

    • PHIL R
      May 19, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      Ha ha! Exactly

    • Oleg
      May 20, 2015 at 5:38 am

      Upvote!

  13. May 19, 2015 at 7:51 am

    Anyone who wonders what obtains in the propaganda war against Russia should read Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” particularly pages 241-248, 593-595 and 847-848 (hardback thirtieth edition, Sinon & Schuster: 1959 and 1981). The taint of war preparation is undeniable — and undeniably terrifying.

  14. Victor
    May 19, 2015 at 6:14 am

    What about the 30mm rifle (machine gun) shots into the fuselage of the cockpit of the downed MH-17 aircraft? According to numerous witnesses on the ground NO smoke trail was noticed at that time in that area. The BUK missile leaves a very recognizable smoke trail behind as it flies towards its destination. I have chosen to believe the Russian version because it relates to all the facts. I just cannot get my teeth into the Australian-American side of the story, as the BUK and trailer narrative,sound to far fetched and just to fantasized to lay claim to any truth. There are just to many gaps that are NOT covered in the BUK fairy tale.

  15. May 19, 2015 at 5:56 am

    I am stunned that you would take this report so seriously. The idea that footage showing a BUK missile system being driven around Eastern Ukraine would be evidence of anything is pure nonsense. The aircraft was not struck with a n anti air missile so it is actually completely irrelevant. The network and journalist involved have zero credibility and this is simply more of the dishonest and venal propaganda they pump out everyday.,
    In order to determine the truth about an event such as this all of the evidence must be considered. This would include the witness accounts of fighter aircraft in the sky at the time MH17 was attacked and the assessment of the OCSE representative on the scene Michael Bociurkiw that the fuselage was struck by heavy machine gun rounds. It is timid and misguided of you to even pay a seconds attention to the despicable liars of Channel 9 and their propaganda trash.
    http://crimesofempire.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/mh17the-life-and-death-of-a-psyop/

    • PHIL R
      May 19, 2015 at 7:24 am

      Well James I consider it very important.
      To me ,this represents a very serious attempt ( through channels leading back to the U.S. State department) to influence the general public of Australia and promote strong anti Russian / Putin sentiment.
      America appears to be losing some of its grip over some of its main European allies over this aggression directed towards Russia and would for certain take an Opportunity to shore up support from a major ally like Australia.
      On the other hand this could be just a cheap grab for ratings and fame by Chanel 9!
      In any case I have felt proud to see so many Australians standing up and calling this thing for the b s that it is

  16. Brendan
    May 19, 2015 at 5:49 am

    I’ve spent some time comparing the landmarks in that video, like lamp posts, billboards and buildings, with those shown in photos from Google Earth and Streetview. I can confirm that the video can in fact be located to that road in Luhansk.

    Unfortunately the spot that Eliot Higgins specifies is off by ten or maybe twenty meters. As a result, those landmarks don’t line up as they should if you try to work out the location. If Higgins had been more exact and presented the evidence, he could have proved the location beyond doubt.

    Anyway, the presence of a Buk missile launcher at that location does not support the accusation that either rebels or Russians used it to shoot down the MH17. In fact, there are numerous facts related to that video that prove the opposite. I have other things to do right now but I will get back to it later.

    • Cody Joe Bibby
      May 19, 2015 at 8:50 am

      Streetview doesnt work for Luhansk.

    • CodyJoeBibby
      May 19, 2015 at 8:50 am

      Streetview doesnt work for Luhansk.

      • Brendan
        May 19, 2015 at 10:10 am

        Whatever it’s called, it does the same thing, it shows a view of the street.

        • CodyJoeBibby
          May 19, 2015 at 10:47 am

          you mean Yandex.

          I’m not interested in people speculating from Yandex or google earth.

          that’s what Eliot Higgins does.

        • Brendan
          May 19, 2015 at 1:47 pm

          If it were possible to post images here, I could show a satellite photo with the exact direction that the video camera was pointing. It would show many of the objects lining up exactly as they appear in the video.
          As I said in my other post anyway, the location in Luhansk almost certainly proves Higgins wrong instead of supporting his allegations against Russia and the rebels.

          • CodyJoeBibby
            May 20, 2015 at 9:14 am

            i don’t accept such speculation as evidence.

            To me Luhansk looks nothing like the video, and drawing lines on a satellite photo isnt going to change that.

  17. onno
    May 19, 2015 at 4:30 am

    US vassals like Australia and Europe keep the nonsense on that Russians were responsible for the downing of MH 17. However, the following recording of the pilot who shot down MH 17 tells us otherwise:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/meet-the-pilot-who-shot-down-malaysian-boeing-mh-17-vladislav-voloshin-the-plane-was-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time/5421363

    Dutch investigators are keeping a low profile under pressure of USA that refuses to disclose their so-called evidence or refuses to permit Dutch authorities to publicize the voice recorder, now 10 months after July 17, 2014. The latest Germanwing crash in the French Alps killing 150 people on board this voice recorder was made public within 14 days. So its obvious ALMIGHTY USA has something to hide and protect the neo-Nazis in Kiev.

    In addition it was a clear day and NOBODY saw a white condense stream associated with every rocket launch. And finally, the cockpit shows round bullet holes not irregular holes associated caused by the irregular clusters of a BUK missile. It was obvious that Ukrainian Air Force pilots wanted to kill the pilots first preventing them of speaking which could embarrass the West.
    And finally what can you expect of a pro-Bandera government in Kiev that uses cluster bombs on schools, hospitals and residential housing and murdering more than 6000 innocent women and children in the process. Like burning 100 citizens in Odessa alive!! MH 17 in their eyes and that of the Washington neocons is that the 298 killed on board were only ‘collateral damages’ ANYTHING goes to accuse the KREMLIN, its a witch hunt.

    Conspiracy theory or not the disappearance and 240 on board of MH 370 is now also associated with a US missile from the US fleet in the China Sea. How come the president of Malaysia met with Obama in Hawaii, certainly not to play Golf.Or Iran Air 655 Airbus on a local flight from Teheran to Dubai with 290 on board with 66 children shot down by USS Vincennes. US government NEVER apologized or acknowledged their mistakes but paid $ 62 million to compensate for the lives. This money doesn’t even cover the costs of the aircraft, but what the heck they were only Iranian people!

  18. CodyJoeBibby
    May 19, 2015 at 4:01 am

    I’m glad someone has finally pointed out that the video does not match with the claimed ‘geolocation’ in Luhansk. I’ve been saying this for a long time.

  19. Cody Joe Bibby
    May 19, 2015 at 4:00 am

    I’m glad someone has finally pointed out that the video does not match with the claimed ‘geolocation’ in Luhansk. I’ve been saying this for a long time.

  20. Andy Johnson
    May 19, 2015 at 3:40 am
  21. Andy Johnson
    May 19, 2015 at 3:37 am

    Fucking russian terrorism killed MH-17 FUCKING PUTIN

  22. 2143214
    May 19, 2015 at 3:35 am
  23. slavix
    May 18, 2015 at 11:43 pm

    All those who want to know what happened to MH-17 should see this video.
    The plane was filled with dead bodies!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB2-Ra1SPqE

    • Anonymous
      May 19, 2015 at 12:14 am

      That is intriguing and I don’t know what to make of it!

  24. Susan
    May 18, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    I saw the Australian television show, and I would ask why even bother to analyze a program where they start off with the premise Russia did it, now lets go prove it. And prove it with some wiz kid called Higgens who is introduced to us strolling down a street, while the US no doubt can’t determine with all of it’s wiz kids who shot down the Malaysia Airliner.

    • Shingo
      May 20, 2015 at 7:53 am

      “And prove it with some wiz kid called Higgens who is introduced to us strolling down a street, while the US no doubt can’t determine with all of it’s wiz kids who shot down the Malaysia Airliner.”

      I couldn’t agree more. If what Higgins uncovered was so ground breaking, when why if the White House not making hay of the evidence? Why aren’t any of the 17 US intelligence agencies doing it?

      Usher made some pathetic and illogical argument that the Dutch investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons. But what could these political reasons be? The EU and Australia, among other states, immediately imposed sanctions on Russia over the incident, so clearly they have already made up their minds who did it. So who is the Dutch investigation protecting?

      • Erik S
        May 24, 2015 at 4:04 am

        We keep asking why the US does not present the evidence they obviously must posess and it should be obvious. It’s called plausible deniability.

        Rather than potentially being exposed for biased, selective or even false presentation of evidence if or when real evidence turns up pointing in the “wrong” direction – keep it classified and in the meantime support and promote such dupes as Higgins for what it’s worth.

        Remember the State Department has been embaressed before when providing official slam dunk evidence and is likely acutely aware of any risk of going down the same path again.

        After all truth is not what matters, its what people are told is the truth.

  25. Abe
    May 18, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    MISSILE-ARMED UKRAINIAN JETS ABOVE DONETSK

    On 21 July 2014, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation reported that Russian military radar detected a Ukrainian SU-25 military jet gaining altitude towards the MH-17 on the day of the catastrophe.

    With an operational ceiling of 23,000 feet (though some sources claim it can fly higher), the SU-25 “Frogfoot” Close Air Support Aircraft could not use its GSh-30-2 dual-barrel automatic cannon to directly attack MH-17. However, an SU-25 concealed beneath the 24,000 foot cloud ceiling could fire its R-60 / AA-8 “Aphid” Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles.

    Smaller and less destructive than the R-27R / AA-10 “Alamo” Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile used by MIG-29 and SU-27 aircraft, an R-60 traveling at 5,024 feet per second (Mach 4.5) would still be more than able to cause explosive decompression in the commercial aircraft.

    Ascending to the 33,000 foot cruising altitude of MH-17, and R-60 missile would have been visible for only 1.8 seconds prior to detonation.

    After an attack, the MH-17 aircraft would have been visible to satellites for at least another 23 seconds as it plummeted into the clouds.

    Regardless of whether they were SU-25, MIG-29, SU-27 or any combination of the above, Ukrainian military aircraft in the vicinity of MH-17 complicates any explanation of the airliner’s demise.

    FRIEND OR FOE?

    The Russian confirmation of the presence of Ukrainian Air Force planes in the sky above Donetsk on 17 July further complicates claims that Russian-separatists fired a BUK-M1 / SA-11 “Gadfly” Surface-to-Air Missile.

    BUK-1 air defense units operate as a complex system that includes a radar vehicle, a command vehicle, and multiple launcher vehicles.

    The BUK-1 radar and command components are equipped with an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) system able to detect if the missile is targeting a civilian plane through its transponder code. An NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) system also was installed, relying on analysis of returned radar signals to purportedly identify and clearly distinguish civilian aircraft from potential military targets in the absence of IFF.

    Operating under the guidance of the system’s radar and command vehicles, BUK-1 missile operators know precisely what they were shooting at.

    However, without the guidance of the system’s radar and command vehicle components, individual BUK-1 launchers cannot properly identify targets.

    An individual BUK-1 launcher still can operate independently in TELAR (transporter/erector/launcher and radar) mode, enabling it to engage and fire without central guidance

    An autonomous BUK-1 launcher can use its TELAR radar (known to NATO as Fire Dome) to search, track and lock on to targets, fire its missile and destroy the target, but it cannot distinguish friend from foe.

    As if on cue, on 23 July, Aviation Week published an article, “Buk Missile System Lethal, But Undiscriminating”. Aerospace and defense journalist Bill Sweetman confirmed the lack of IFF and NCTR in autonomous BUK-1 missile launchers. Sweetman emphasized that this unique feature “may have been a crucial factor in the destruction of MH17.”

    ROGUE MISSILE OR WELL-COORDINATED STATE TERROR ATTACK?

    Western and mainstream media and political leaders seized on this information as proof that pro-Russian separatists had used a captured BUK-1 to bring down MH-17.

    However, the most casual analysis invalidates this assumption.

    The Russian Ministry of Defence had identified the presence of Ukrainian military aircraft in the airspace near MH-17. Lower flying Ukrainian Air Force jets would have been the proximal targets for an autonomous BUK-1 missile launch.

    According to the mainstream media version of events, the pro-Russian separatists were inexperienced (and perhaps drunken) operators of a captured BUK-1 launcher. Unable to accurately identify their target, the separatists accidentally shot down the Malaysian airliner.

    In short, the purported BUK-1 attack was a immensely unlucky shot for the separatists, and an immensely lucky shot for Washington and Kiev’s anti-Russian propaganda machine.

    One mainstream media version of the story has the diabolical separatists, under the direction of Putin, deliberately targeting the airliner.

    Another version has the evil separatists, believing that it was Putin’s plane, deliberately targeting the airliner.

    However, a reasonable explanation is that MH-17 was deliberately targeting by the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force was never investigated.

    Such an explanation directly implicates the post-coup regime in Kiev and the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the deadliest air incident in Ukraine and the deadliest airliner shoot down in history.

    This alternative explanation was to be avoided at all costs by Western governments and the mainstream media.

    KIEV’S FAKE SATELLITE PHOTOS – COURTESY OF U.S.

    On 30 July, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation presented a detailed analysis of satellite imagery released by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).

    The Russian analysis proved that the Ukrainians were lying on two points:

    1) The SBU falsely claimed that their disclosed satellite images were from the Ukrainian Sich-1 and Sich-2 satellites.

    Satellite images can be accurately identified in terms of the location and time because all satellites orbiting the Earth move according to predetermined trajectories. According to the Russian space surveillance system, Sich-1 and Sich-2 were not flying over the crash site area during the times specified on the satellite images.

    However, at the time specified in the images, an American Key Hole reconnaissance satellite was flying over the territory.

    The source of the images was the United States, not Ukraine as claimed.

    2) Satellite images disclosed by SBU were deliberately distorted or falsified. For example, in several instances, the specified time did not correlate with the image.

    The most critical image was Slide 4 dated for 17 August, the day of the MH-17 crash. The Russian Defence Ministry analysis of the image makes matters clear:

    “according to all weather reports for Avdeyevka on July 17, the area had 70 to 80% cloud coverage and cloud base height of 2,500m. The information can be easily verified through a number of independent sources. Russian satellite image shows exactly that.

    “Please note that the SBU’s Slide 4 shows clear skies and sunny weather on the same day. No comments are necessary.”

    The Russian evidence proved that satellite images disclosed by SBU were distorted and falsified, by Ukraine or by the United States.

  26. May 18, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    Simply superb reporting and analysis. Truly.

  27. Gail
    May 18, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    I have a few questions regarding the pictures offered as evidence. This Higgins person stated that they were pictures taking by ordinary people that were enamored by military armaments in transport and that he searched through internet photos in the time frame of the MH17 soot down to see what was out there on the internet. How did this Higgins get the photos? Did he have signed releases from the people so that he could use them? Did these people email these photos to Higgins? Did he hack them? Why weren’t these photos identified by the person who took them? Surely Higgins was paid by 60 Minutes for these photos, did he compensate the people who took them and if so does he have copies of checks he paid them with? Isn’t it called royalty rights in Australia or something like that. This whole thing smells of old fish, but then again it’s 60 Minutes and much of there work has the same order.

  28. May 18, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Interesting. The first reported instance of a BUK missile firing 30 mm. air cannon rounds, a secret military innovation by the Duhansk separatists. But how did they fit the air cannon and its at least dozens of rounds of ammunition in the relatively tiny BUK warhead? This needs investigative follow-up.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 18, 2015 at 10:45 pm

      From what I can tell both sides now agree that the agent of the airliner’s destruction was a BUK missile. It’s an old system dating back to 1979, and since then there have been new models as well as many upgrades, and modifications. There is no telling what an old Ukraine system might have been carrying as a warhead.

      http://russia-insider.com/en/russia-report-points-ukrainian-buk-missile-responsible-mh17-tragedy/ri6599

      This link dates to May 8 of this year, and tells of the Russian conclusion that the BUK was launched from an area where Ukrainian missiles were known to be located.

      The Rebels may or may not have had possession of a BUK, but the Government forces certainly did. Also, the Rebels had no known motivation to down an airliner, and the Government had plenty of reasons.

      So my present stance: The Government did it, launched in the North, and with a BUK.

  29. Abe
    May 18, 2015 at 10:03 pm

    Military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance satellites such as those used by the US Key Hole, now codenamed Evolved Enhanced CRYSTAL (EEC), satellite system can provide live, high-resolution, full-motion video at 30 frames per second. The satellites provide continuous surveillance and are capable of a great deal more than merely registering the heat signature from a missile launch.

    The earth’s surface may be obstructed by clouds, as it was over eastern Ukraine on 17 July.

    However, MH-17 was cruising at 33,000 feet, 9,000 feet above the cloud ceiling.

    Everything above 24,000 feet that was moving in the sky over Ukraine was clearly visible to surveillance satellites.

    That means the Russians as well as the Americans have accurate images of MH-17’s demise.

    • PHIL R
      May 19, 2015 at 12:21 am

      I figure they do as well. Perhaps the Russians are keeping their information up their sleeves as a weapon to use against the USA if the US keeps pushing them. Perhaps they have already released what they have and it has just been ignored.
      Perhaps the USA is just desperately trying to quietly maintain this narrative for now and withholding their own evidence for some time in the future when it might become beneficial for them to turn on their own puppet regime in Kiev and hang them with this evidence. Maybe one day we will know but probably not

  30. Abe
    May 18, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    MISSILE-ARMED UKRAINIAN JETS ABOVE DONETSK

    On 21 July 2014, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation reported that Russian military radar detected a Ukrainian SU-25 military jet gaining altitude towards the MH-17 on the day of the catastrophe.

    With an operational ceiling of 23,000 feet (though some sources claim it can fly higher), the SU-25 “Frogfoot” Close Air Support Aircraft could not use its GSh-30-2 dual-barrel automatic cannon to directly attack MH-17. However, an SU-25 concealed beneath the 26,000 foot cloud ceiling could fire its R-60 / AA-8 “Aphid” Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles.

    Smaller and less destructive than the R-27R / AA-10 “Alamo” Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile used by MIG-29 and SU-27 aircraft, an R-60 traveling at 5,024 feet per second (Mach 4.5) would still be more than able to cause explosive decompression in the commercial aircraft.

    Ascending to the 32,000 foot cruising altitude of MH-17, and R-60 missile would have been visible for only 1.8 seconds prior to detonation.

    After an attack, the MH-17 aircraft would have been visible to satellites for at least another 23 seconds as it plummeted into the clouds.

    Regardless of whether they were SU-25, MIG-29, SU-27 or any combination of the above, Ukrainian military aircraft in the vicinity of MH-17 complicates any explanation of the airliner’s demise.

    FRIEND OR FOE?

    The Russian confirmation of the presence of Ukrainian Air Force planes in the sky above Donetsk on 17 July further complicates claims that Russian-separatists fired a BUK-M1 / SA-11 “Gadfly” Surface-to-Air Missile.

    BUK-1 air defense units operate as a complex system that includes a radar vehicle, a command vehicle, and multiple launcher vehicles.

    The BUK-1 radar and command components are equipped with an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) system able to detect if the missile is targeting a civilian plane through its transponder code. An NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) system also was installed, relying on analysis of returned radar signals to purportedly identify and clearly distinguish civilian aircraft from potential military targets in the absence of IFF.

    Operating under the guidance of the system’s radar and command vehicles, BUK-1 missile operators know precisely what they were shooting at.

    However, without the guidance of the system’s radar and command vehicle components, individual BUK-1 launchers cannot properly identify targets.

    An individual BUK-1 launcher still can operate independently in TELAR (transporter/erector/launcher and radar) mode, enabling it to engage and fire without central guidance

    An autonomous BUK-1 launcher can use its TELAR radar (known to NATO as Fire Dome) to search, track and lock on to targets, fire its missile and destroy the target, but it cannot distinguish friend from foe.

    As if on cue, on 23 July, Aviation Week published an article, “Buk Missile System Lethal, But Undiscriminating” http://aviationweek.com/defense/buk-missile-system-lethal-undiscriminating

    Aerospace and defense journalist Bill Sweetman confirmed the lack of IFF and NCTR in autonomous BUK-1 missile launchers. Sweetman emphasized that this unique feature “may have been a crucial factor in the destruction of MH17.”

    ROGUE MISSILE OR WELL-COORDINATED STATE TERROR ATTACK?

    Western and mainstream media and political leaders seized on this information as proof that pro-Russian separatists had used a captured BUK-1 to bring down MH-17.

    However, the most casual analysis invalidates this assumption.

    The Russian Ministry of Defence had identified the presence of Ukrainian military aircraft in the airspace near MH-17. Lower flying Ukrainian Air Force jets would have been the proximal targets for an autonomous BUK-1 missile launch.

    According to the mainstream media version of events, the pro-Russian separatists were inexperienced (and perhaps drunken) operators of a captured BUK-1 launcher. Unable to accurately identify their target, the separatists accidentally shot down the Malaysian airliner.

    In short, the purported BUK-1 attack was a immensely unlucky shot for the separatists, and an immensely lucky shot for Washington and Kiev’s anti-Russian propaganda machine.

    One mainstream media version of the story has the diabolical separatists, under the direction of Putin, deliberately targeting the airliner.

    Another version has the evil separatists, believing that it was Putin’s plane, deliberately targeting the airliner.

    However, a reasonable explanation is that MH-17 was deliberately targeting by the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force was never investigated.

    Such an explanation directly implicates the post-coup regime in Kiev and the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the deadliest air incident in Ukraine and the deadliest airliner shoot down in history.

    This alternative explanation was to be avoided at all costs by Western governments and the mainstream media.

    KIEV’S FAKE SATELLITE PHOTOS – COURTESY OF U.S.

    On 30 July, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation presented a detailed analysis of satellite imagery released by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).

    The Russian analysis proved that the Ukrainians were lying on two points:

    1) The SBU falsely claimed that their disclosed satellite images were from the Ukrainian Sich-1 and Sich-2 satellites.

    Satellite images can be accurately identified in terms of the location and time because all satellites orbiting the Earth move according to predetermined trajectories. According to the Russian space surveillance system, Sich-1 and Sich-2 were not flying over the crash site area during the times specified on the satellite images.

    However, at the time specified in the images, an American Key Hole reconnaissance satellite was flying over the territory.

    The source of the images was the United States, not Ukraine as claimed.

    2) Satellite images disclosed by SBU were deliberately distorted or falsified. For example, in several instances, the specified time did not correlate with the image.

    The most critical image was Slide 4 dated for 17 August, the day of the MH-17 crash. The Russian Defence Ministry analysis of the image http://eng.mil.ru/en/analytics.htm makes matters clear:

    “according to all weather reports for Avdeyevka on July 17, the area had 70 to 80% cloud coverage and cloud base height of 2,500m. The information can be easily verified through a number of independent sources. Russian satellite image shows exactly that.

    “Please note that the SBU’s Slide 4 shows clear skies and sunny weather on the same day. No comments are necessary.”

    The Russian evidence proved that satellite images disclosed by SBU were distorted and falsified, by Ukraine or by the United States.

    • Michael
      May 19, 2015 at 12:49 pm

      Abe,

      You are absolutely correct on every point.
      I shall just add that the Russian Ministry of Defense, in its presentation 5 days after the downing of fligth HM17 had also confirmed that 3 Buk systems had radar activ in the area.
      There was also a map showing the locations of this Buk systems.

      The sol to air missiles are not fired normally in pursuit mode but frontally. The crash site and trail of parts, bodies and luggage is consistent with an attack occuring 20 miles before; and one of these 3 Ukrainian Buk system was in perfect position.

      The Buk is equiped with a proximity fuse (as most modern missiles) and normally explose at a maximum range of 50 meters of the target and above.
      It is not really consistent with the damage on the cockpit but more on the fuselage that has been scatered.

      Did something when amiss (old stuff and poor maintenance ?) and did the SU27 had to gave the “coup de grace ” ? that would explain the obvious impact on the left side of the cockpit showing entrance and exit on the same panel.

      That would also explain why after 10 months the “experts” can still not tell what did shot down the plane.
      And when the Russians affirmed recently it was a Buk, are they pressurising a little the Carefully Selected Experts ?

  31. PHIL R
    May 18, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    It has been interesting to take part in the debate over this 60 minutes article on their Facebook page. I have been pleasantly surprised to see that perhaps even a majority of respondents have lambasted 60 minutes for this attempt to pin the blame on Russia and most of these people have been pointing out that there could be no possible motive for Russia to do such a thing. Most of these people seem to be very well informed as to the real situation in Ukraine also. It gives me hope that Australians are starting to wake up.
    A great many people who have taken 60 minutes to task over this article have had their comments removed. There was no hate speech. Anyone who tackles this theory with a point by point analysis based on facts not in dispute etc , is likely to have their comments removed and mine were.
    I have written many letters to our national broadcaster here in Australia, the ABC , complaining of several instances of blatant anti Russian ,anti Putin articles appearing on their online news service as well as their approach of running a one sided narrative in favour of US foreign policy across all branches of their service. No commentator however reputable, like former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser of Australian journalist John Pilger or anyone else for that matter ,has ever been allowed air time to make their case if it contradicts the ABC’s narrative .
    I pointed out that a great many people are now watching them very closely and that a very strong case could be made that they are deliberately seeking to cultivate support for war against Russia within the Australian community.
    They have been without any doubt complicit in allowing the Australian public to believe that MH 17 was shot down by a Buk missile system and that it was provided to Russian separatist perpetrators by the Russian military.
    Also that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has a large military force in occupation there.
    I have pointed out that no evidence for any of these accusations has been presented and that if these accusations were to be put before a court of law, the case would be immediately dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence.
    I pointed out that they have been in very clear breech of their charter.
    I have received a couple of replies detailing specific points I have made, which proves to me that somebody has been actually reading and noting my complaints.
    They said that they do have a very clear charter that demands that they adhere to the highest standards of journalistic integrity and unbiased reporting and that they adhere to it without fail.
    I immediately replied to that with a thank you for giving me what was perhaps the greatest belly laugh I have had in my entire life!
    I have however, recently noticed a distinct pull back from their former bullish manner when reporting on these subjects.
    I have been trying to make a case with individuals and organisations that wish to oppose the control over mainstream media by ( ultimately ) the US state department ,that there is a possibility here in Australia to cause a breech in the defences of media control and the one sided narrative being run in relation to the situation in Ukraine and MH 17.
    I believe that a coordinated campaign of letter writing, emails, phone calls and peaceful street demonstration ,coming from all those around the world who know that justice and truth have been forsaken, and directed specifically to the staff of the ABC news and current affairs division at the ABC office in Ultimo in Sydney, may well cause dissent within the organisation and cause the staff to challenge their editorial content directors so that our side of the story might get a chance to be heard by the Nation.
    It would in essence employ blitzkrieg style tactics of maximum effort deployed against the weakest point of our opposition.
    Our opposition is the Neo cons running the USA and their control over the media.
    Their weakest point is their allies, especially important and overly compliant ones like Australia.
    Within Australia, the weakest point of their defence is the ABC. If we could crack them and get them to start running a balanced narrative without bias, it would be a real thorn in the side to the Neo cons and could well sow the seeds of further media rebellion in other countries.
    My two bob’s worth.
    Thank you for tackling this 60 minutes article Mr Parry

    • Cassandra
      May 18, 2015 at 10:39 pm

      “I have pointed out that no evidence for any of these accusations has been presented and that if these accusations were to be put before a court of law, the case would be immediately dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence.”

      I am touched by your faith in the incorruptibility of the courts, Phil. Do you want to be a judge when you grow up?

      • Anonymous
        May 18, 2015 at 11:08 pm

        You have a point Cassandra, it’s a whole other issue I guess . I suppose I like to believe in the basic premise that you actually have to have evidence before you can convict someone of a crime!

        • PHIL R
          May 18, 2015 at 11:09 pm

          Sorry , that was me , forgot to put my name on it

          • Lubka
            May 19, 2015 at 5:51 am

            Already under another article and ready to use other name? :) Dont worry, we ll not say to anybody that you are troll

          • PHIL R
            May 19, 2015 at 7:31 am

            Jeez I’ve never been accused of being a troll before! Wow! Wider if I can make a living out of it? I’d love to be able to quit shearing sheep for a living!

    • Mills
      May 19, 2015 at 12:54 am

      That’s right Phil,
      I too was one of those posters who had my post deleted. I deliberately made sure a few hours before the show aired the viewers could get a background on who Higgins was and his previous debunked claims in Syria etc. The reason was to take the conditioning effect the commercials and previews had on the audience and to pay attention at critical moments, this obviously was unwelcome but I believe it evened the playing field. We Ozzie, particulary those with backgrounds who have been tarnished by media lynching tactics know what to expect. Surprisingly many with Anglo backgrounds (who obviously see how putin has changed Russia) saw through the crop or should I say crap.

      • May 19, 2015 at 2:15 am

        I advise all people posting comments on sites that regularly remove posts to take screen shots of them to store as evidence.

        • PHIL R
          May 19, 2015 at 2:30 am

          Yes I should get in the habit of doing that.

    • Mel
      May 19, 2015 at 1:45 am

      Well done, Phil. Keep at it. The BBC has mirrored the ABC in its mindless repetition of the Washington narrative but it too seems to be pulling back. Prepping for what, I wonder? No lie lives forever but when this festering abscess of manipulative bursts will we see any of the purveyors of these lies and calumny brought to account? Methinks not.

      • Anonymous
        May 19, 2015 at 2:21 am

        Mel ,I have a growing suspicion that the USA Neo cons might have painted themselves into a corner. With a split clearly beginning to form between the USA and European nations like Germany and France over this belligerent attitude towards Russia and Putin, a real threat of war between Nato and Russia….. I would not be surprised to see the USA turn on its own puppet regime in Ukraine and allow the Dutch crash investigation to reveal true findings. Kerry’s claims of definitive proof about Russian involvement would be all forgotten.
        I believe that these people will do whatever it takes to consolidate their position in the grand scheme of things even if it means some historical revision and backtracking.
        I don’t know…it’s just a feeling.., but maybe the USA will burn Poroschenko and Yatsenyuk to save face
        Maybe if we are lucky, real evidence as to who murdered those on MH 17 will see the light of day and the families of the victims will have some satisfaction ( there surely is a better word )
        I am just hopeful… But I am likely just naive

        • PHIL R
          May 19, 2015 at 2:22 am

          Damn, forgot to put my name again!

      • PHIL R
        May 19, 2015 at 2:40 am

        Mel when I write my letters of complaint to the ABC I always point out to the staff that they are being watched.
        What they put on the Internet and over the air is a matter of public record.
        To stir up public hatred against any individual, state , nation or ethnic group is a breech of the human rights international charter and that a case could be made against those staff members of the ABC responsible for editorial content pertaining to the situation in Ukraine and mh17 . That they may well be held accountable in the future.
        These are just people like the rest of us. They do their job, they fear losing their job and they take their orders.
        But this is the most dangerous situation the world has faced since the Cuban missile crisis. I’m sure none of the staff of the ABC want to die in a nuclear conflagration.
        This is why I advocate a coordinated campaign of protest directed towards the abc. I believe that individuals within that organisation might prove to have the gumption to defy their masters.
        The commercially owned media outlets are a lost cause

        • Anonymous
          May 23, 2015 at 11:05 am

          Very well said

    • PaulCC
      May 19, 2015 at 6:44 am

      What beautiful logic – it was not in Russia’s interest, so they could not have shot down MH17….

      You think it was in the US interest to shoot down an Iranian airliner ?

      I have not read anyone arguing that Russian crew shut down MH17 on purpose. The most logical explanation is that they did this by mistake. Even Girkin – the head of the armed unit in Donetsk – tweeted immediately afterwards that his troops shut down another plane of the Ukrainian army. The report of that is till TODAY on TASS news agency WEB site ( BTW – TASS ITAR is a Russian news agency, the closest to an official Russian official new agency ):

      http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1325017

      The facts are clear – the shooting was done by the separatists, we have their admission. Now which unit exactly, whether they were Russian soldiers, that is not so clear, but likely. And even if it was a mistake, the criminal responsibility remains. And the political responsibility and liability reaches all the way to Kremlin…

      • Joe L.
        May 19, 2015 at 3:50 pm

        I am sorry PaulCC but nothing is clear and the plane was not “shut down”, it was “shot down” – English obviously not your first language – I am guessing Ukrainian, most likely Western Ukraine? The investigation has not concluded yet and the rush to judgement before any investigation had even began suggest that they are trying to shape the story around the propaganda that they wish to spread. According to the German BND, German Intelligence, they believe that it was the “rebels” that shot down the plane, it was from a BUK that was “captured” from a Ukrainian Military Base where it was fired from (so I think this also puts into question whether the Ukrainian Military also fired the BUK Missile). Robert Parry points this out in his article (oh and please make a special note that the BND asserted that photos provided by the Ukrainian Government “have been manipulated”):

        Consortium News: “Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case” (October 20, 2014):

        “But now the narrative has shifted. The German intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND, asserted that while it believes rebels were responsible for shooting down the plane, they supposedly did so with an anti-aircraft battery captured from a Ukrainian military base, according to Der Spiegel.

        The BND also concluded that photos supplied by the Ukrainian government about the MH-17 tragedy “have been manipulated,” Der Spiegel reported. And, the BND disputed Russian government claims that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to MH-17 just before it crashed, the magazine said.”

        https://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/20/germans-clear-russia-in-mh-17-case/

        PaulCC, the investigation into MH-17 has not concluded yet but we will have to see what they conclude if they ever give out the details (I believe that Ukraine has a deal with the Dutch prosecutors that if the evidence is damning of the Ukrainian Military then they can suppress it).

        • Lee
          May 24, 2015 at 8:12 am

          Joe, L.

          You are clutching at straws to highlight a spelling mistake. It often shows that someone is just typing fast or missed a key stroke. To lead with this as a rebuttal shows how poor your argument is.

          Also, you cannot quote your own biased articles as a reference. it is not credible.

          MH-17 was shot down by Putin and his cronies. The Russian Government and its military is 100% responsible, The Ukrainians wouldn’t do it, they are more sensible and less directed by Putin the Corrupter.

        • Anonymous
          May 24, 2015 at 8:31 am

          In all of these responses, you can tell who the Russian supporters are and who support the west. And then you all go on about the others credibility, how bias they are and how honest you are.

          I am of neither side, but it’s plain obvious (thanks to a follow up story on 60 minutes) that the location was the same. There’s even a cover missing off the electricity pole that’s exactly the same. Just because the journalise couldn’t access the original film location does not mean it was not the same.

          In my opinion, Robert Parry has a lot to answer to for publishing unsubstantiated articles and has lost much credibility.

          I look forward to searching for his retraction in the coming days.

      • May 20, 2015 at 5:16 am

        The Girkin tweet doesn’t prove anything. First of all, it has to be authenticated, to know for sure it was not inserted by any interested ‘third party’. But let’s assume that Girkin did tweet that another Ukrainian aircraft had been shot down. Who told him?

        Was it someone who did the actual shooting? Since Girkin himself most certainly didn’t. Or was it someone who observed an aircraft coming down, picked up the phone to call his commander, assuming it had to be a Ukrainian aircraft, since the ‘rebels’ don’t have any themselves. And who would be mad enough to shoot at civilian airplanes………?

        Certainly in cases like this, one has to be extremely careful not to call anything a ‘fact’, before it has been established that it actually is a fact. MH17 was shot down over Ukraine. That is the only fact so far. The rest is theory. Unless you happen to be privy to information which has not been revealed yet. Like satellite images, and information received from ‘early warning’ stations which HAD to be around. And I agree with Parry, that this is the ‘Dog not Barking’, which is odd, under the circumstances.

      • Shingo
        May 20, 2015 at 7:46 am

        “You think it was in the US interest to shoot down an Iranian airliner ?”

        The captain of the ship was awarded a medal by Reagan for doing do wasn’t he?

        “Even Girkin – the head of the armed unit in Donetsk – tweeted immediately afterwards that his troops shut down another plane of the Ukrainian army. ”

        His account was clearly hacked.

        “The facts are clear – the shooting was done by the separatists, we have their admission. ”

        False. The metadata of that youtube video shows it was uploaded before the plane was hit.

    • Joe L.
      May 19, 2015 at 4:11 pm

      I am also glad to see that people are at least waking up to the fact that they are being propagandized by their own governments and MSM. It seems to me that the German people are very aware of this fact and I think something like 59% of the people polled believe that there MSM is propaganda (largely over the Ukrainian Crisis). I believe that there is actually propaganda coming from all sides at this point so it is really difficult to know the real truth but I do believe that this all started with a US/EU backed coup and did not start in Crimea (as our MSM would have us believe). Check out the ZDF skit of German Propaganda over Ukraine:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSOfQ7tgTLg

    • Lee
      May 24, 2015 at 8:23 am

      Phil R.

      you write…..”They have been without any doubt complicit in allowing the Australian public to believe that MH 17 was shot down by a Buk missile system and that it was provided to Russian separatist perpetrators by the Russian military.
      Also that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has a large military force in occupation there.”

      Umm yes, Russia has invaded Ukraine and Crimea. Facts, not verbal diarrhea spouted from this article by Parry or by Phil R.

  32. Abe
    May 18, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    The United States and the EU used the downing of MH-17 to justify a third round of sanctions against certain sectors of Russia’s economy. Canada, Japan, Australia, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine also announced expanded sanctions against Russia.

    The Russian government responded in kind, with sanctions against some Canadian and American individuals and, in August 2014, with a total ban on food imports from the European Union, United States, Norway, Canada and Australia.

    Media attention on MH-17 waned as the sanctions regimes were implemented.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry military monitoring data showed a Kiev military jet tracking the MH17 plane shortly before the crash.

    In response to an RT video report about MH-17, corporate media recruited its favorite “independent blogger” Eliot Higgins, pseudonym Brown Moses, to deny the obvious physical evidence that MH-17 was struck by 30mm cannon fire.

    Disinformation source Higgins was thoroughly discredited for his debunked “it was Assad” internet claims about the 2013 sarin attacks in Syria.

    Higgins is back, peddling more BS.

    • PaulCC
      May 19, 2015 at 6:33 am

      You need to update your facts – even Russian sources are now claiming that MH17 was shut down by a BUK missile. They only added the bit about the BUK being fired from territory held by the Ukrainian government.

      http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68332.html

      By now the 30mm-cannon nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Contact your bosses in St. Petersburg propaganda factory for the updated lie-of-the-day.

      • May 19, 2015 at 4:40 pm

        ‘Russian sources’, in this case, is a newspaper published in Russia, firmly in the anti-Putin camp. Which is not to say they can’t be right. Neither did the preceding ‘Russian’ report, which suggested a different scenario, involving a fighter-plane, have the blessing of Putin, as far as I recall. So why do you feel the need to refer your opponent to his ‘bosses’ in some fantasy ‘St. Petersburg propaganda factory’?

        Parry, referring to his American sources, claimed from the very beginning that it was (most likely) a missile, fired by Ukrainian military. Novaya Gazetta seems to confirm this reading.

        Mind you: Even if the missile is eventually confirmed, that doesn’t preclude involvement of the Ukrainian fighter jet. And missing from the entire story, as far as I’m concerned, is the lack of a proper response by several governments after they learned that ‘rebels’ shot down a military aircraft at an altitude outside the reach of a manpad. While there had been reports that ‘rebels’ seized a Buk-launcher from the Ukrainian military.

        Moreover, I came across a report, written by a Ukrainian serviceman, who had been trained on these systems. It stated that a single launcher, without a command-and-control unit, and a third unit to provide radar information, could not be used to target aircraft at higher altitudes than 20.000 ft. If it was a ‘rebel’ launcher, it seems unlikely that it was ‘guided’. Although we must allow for the possibility that a Ukrainian radar, belonging to a different unit, was practicing, and illuminating the target, causing the ‘rebel’ missile, launched towards the fighter jet, to veer off course, and hit the bigger target. But I readily admit that I lack the necessary knowledge of who this system selects its targets, and locks on to them.

        Even without ‘rebels’ holding on to such a system, there were several Ukrainian Buk-systems operational in the area. In itself more than enough reason to close the airspace above it for civilian aircraft! Ukrainians are not known for their marksmanship, since they shot down an Air Siberia jetliner over the Black Sea in peacetime.

      • Shingo
        May 20, 2015 at 7:39 am

        “By now the 30mm-cannon nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Contact your bosses in St. Petersburg propaganda factory for the updated lie-of-the-day.”

        No it has not been debunked on neocon hack. In fact, the OSCE observers who were first on the scene maintain that the angle of attack points to cannot, not missile attack, at least not missile only.

    • Abe
      May 19, 2015 at 4:13 pm

      Propaganda Factory: The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta

      The paper has been part owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Yevgenievich Lebedev.

      Lebedev is owner of four UK newspapers with son Evgeny Lebedev: the London Evening Standard, The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, and the i Newspaper, plus the London Live TV channel.

      Not so fast, sparky.

      You and your buddy Higgins in London are firing blanks.

      • stevieb
        May 23, 2015 at 11:01 am

        That conclusively nulifies the sad attempt at calling foreign and privately-owned propaganda networks, “Russian”. One can sense the frantic desperation with every schoolboy level post from the zio-communist…

  33. Colin Smith
    May 18, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    The Australian media appears the most corrupt and the most willing to lie for ideological purposes.The evidence is overwhelming that a Ukrainian Captain Voloshin took his Su-25 up to shoot down Vladimir Putin, who happened to be passing through the airspace in his Ilyushin jet at the same time. Voloshin is reported to have landed quite distraught at hitting the wrong plane. Is he still alive! Who could believe people who cannot even get the chronology of WW2 right. Whether it’s looney “Yats” with the psychopath’s eyes and virulent hatred of anything Russian, or the bloated blimp Poroshenko who’s supposed to have emptied the Treasury of all it’s gold reserves (about 30 tonnes) and loaded it onto a C-130 one night, they all lie freely and produce no evidence to back up their ravings. They are driven mad by Russophobia, even the beautiful witch Tymoshenko. Still the Dutch, proud members of NATO, conceal their investigation from public eyes, while the USA secretes it’s satellite and radar data away. Shame on all of them.

    • Declan
      May 19, 2015 at 4:40 am

      Robert Perry you really shouldn’t attack the work of other professional journalists unless you are certain you know what you are talking about. Which you don’t in this case. Here your claims of evidence being faked by Australian TV is comprehensively debunked. Sorry for all the Kremlin Bots who have already commented their support.

      https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/05/19/robert-parry-falsely-accuses-60-minutes-australia-of-using-mh17-fake-evidence/

      • Raymond
        May 19, 2015 at 5:23 am

        Oh Declan pull your head out of the Sand

        • Lee
          May 24, 2015 at 8:02 am

          Good work Declan.

          Although I am not a fan of the Australian Government, the 60 minutes journalists are credible, something Russian propaganda officers don’t have.

          It makes me proud that our Australian journalists report with ethics and facts and is very free and open have “pwned” the Russian propaganda juggernaut. Russian Govrnemnt were 100% responsible and the blame lies with Putin and the officers involved in shooting down the MH-17.

          Facts speak louder than propaganda. And the Russian Government not up to scratch on this occasion or many other occasions.

          • Anonymous
            May 31, 2015 at 4:20 am

            Oh sure , how great the Australian Media are, BS ethics as the same as US ethics , zilt

      • Max
        May 19, 2015 at 6:19 am

        “…all the Kremlin Bots…” – sure, everybody who finds the mistakes in the “Bellingcat” story (and not only this one) and/or has a different opinion than you, is a “Kremlin bot”. Must be. Cause if not, you would have to completely change your attitude. And isn’t it so much easier to blame everything on Russia/Putin? Who needs facts? Who needs evidence for Russian BUK, Russian tanks, Russian subs? Claims and acussations must do – cause we need an enemy. Without an enemy we could have peace – now, who wants that? Certainly not Nato.

        • Joe L.
          May 19, 2015 at 2:20 pm

          I know right, it is not like anyone can think for themselves and realize that the US Government, and MSM, have continually lied such as case in point the Iraq War. But hey if I use my own brain and realize that much of the supposed evidence to convict Russia is coming from “social media” rather than actual government intelligence which the tax payer pays billions for then I must be a “Kremlin Bot”. Kind of reminds me of all of the people that called people “traitors” or “anti-American” for not supporting the Iraq War and low and behold the story to take the US to war with Iraq was one big lie – Phil Donahue, Rosie O’Donnell, The Dixie Chicks etc.

          For me, anyone that calls other people “Kremlin Bots” already has a deep bias, if not a deep bigotry. I have news for them is that there are people in countries all around the world that do not buy the story that the US Government, Ukrainian Government etc. are trying to sell because the invasion stories have been debunked, or evidence of invasion, have been debunked a number of times now. Even the Germans, not Kremlin Bots, did a skit on ZDK to make fun of all of the propaganda from their MSM on Ukraine:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSOfQ7tgTLg

        • Declan
          May 20, 2015 at 2:29 am

          What mistakes are there? Like is posted in the link I linked to and in this link where the Australian news team call for Robert Perry to retract his false claims the only person who has made a mistake here is Robert Perry. He made a schoolboy error mistaking the top of the trees of a photo taken from a long distance as being vegetation that would be visible on the close up shot taken on the ground by the Australian news crew.
          If you have any actual facts to present then please do, in this discussion the only person to have posted verifiable facts is the Australian news crew, not your nor Robert Perry.

          https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/60-Minutes-Response-to-Crikey-1.png

          • Shingo
            May 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

            “He made a schoolboy error mistaking the top of the trees of a photo taken from a long distance as being vegetation that would be visible on the close up shot taken on the ground by the Australian news crew.”

            Rubbish. The amateurism was by the 60 minutes team that produced a perfect example of confirmation bias. They make a phony excuse that they produced the money shot because that is the way it is always done, but given how their case rested on this argument, one would have expected them to reproduce the same angle to show that it matched. They didn’t and we know why. They tried it and it didn’t hold up.

            What’s the point of people going to the scene if they are not going to reproduce even an approximation of the original video and instead refer people back to the same old traffic camera and google earth images we have already seen?

          • Brendan
            May 20, 2015 at 8:00 am

            The “60 Minutes” producer admits in that reply that the camera shot was from a different angle to that in the original Buk video. He offers a weak excuse for that by saying they wanted to show the whole road system, as if that image shows any relevant information.

            He also admits indirectly that the main billboard shown in the clip is different to that in the Buk video. He says that the clip shows the “Buk video” billboard – “you can see both”, he says – but it actually only shows a very small part of it, compared to the entirety of the other billboard (see the photo near the bottom of Robert Parry’s article above).

            By admitting that the “Buk video” billboard was the one on the right hand side of the screen, he also indirectly admits that the position shown in the clip is different to that in the Buk video. The Buk was in fact filmed further down the road. It’s an amazing coincidence that the part of the road shown in the program is almost exactly the same as the position incorrectly marked on a satellite photo in the Higgins/Bellincat website (which you link to above).

            The Australian “60 Minutes” team traveled half way round the world to film this program, brought “geolocation experts” to find a location, shot “plenty of footage” and then present no evidence, only misleading information about the location.

            Wrong angle, wrong billboard, wrong position.

            The program producer doesn’t feel any responsibility for all these inaccuracies and neither does he show any self-awareness by calling Robert Parry’s piece “embarassing even for his level of journalism”

          • Cracklier
            May 20, 2015 at 11:34 pm

            Sorry but most thinking Australians (there are a few of us)…..would NOT rely on anything our commercial media tells us about anything of importance. Sport & celebrities maybe but not actual news.

            If the US & its allies had any way to link this to Russia – they would have done so already…

            That they are relying on some trainspotting bloggers’ investigation from his bedroom to provide the ‘smoking gun’…& for this to be broadcast as some sort of world exclusive on a show like 60 minutes in a small country like Australia – speaks volumes in my opinion….

            I would love to see the real perpetrators bought to justice BUT I doubt this so-called “journalism” will do anything but muddy the waters further….

          • Declan
            May 21, 2015 at 1:08 am

            Shingo you have made zero points to support the Consortium news article claim that there is something/ anything about the news report that is inconsistent with it’s claimed location and its claim to be the same location as the video. Everything that can be worked out about from the Australasian video about the location it was taken is completely consistent with the location that the Buk video was taken. As shown in the link I posted which you probably didn’t look at. Which means a grovelling apology from Consortium news to the Australian team is in order.

            As to your comments about the location this particular segment of the documentary was filmed, my response is – Meh. We saw earlier in the Australian report how they were threatened by a local civilian when they attempted to film at the location where the Russian Buk was photographed hours before shooting down MH17, i think its quite understandable if they decided it was not a good idea to go knocking door to door in the apartment complex from where the Buk video was filmed in order to ask the occupants could they look through all of their windows to establish if that was the window from which the video was shot.
            I could also understand if the best location from which to deliver a monologue to camera was standing directly underneath the advertising sign rather than from a distance where the advertising sign would be a tiny square in the background.
            By all means critique the production details of the news report, what you don’t do is accuse them of lying without some pretty hard evidence to back up your claims which you certainly don’t possess.

      • Tom Welsh
        May 19, 2015 at 7:20 am

        I for one discount everything that stems from Eliot Higgins aka Bellingcat. It’s hardly surprising that, with so much chronic unemployment, a fellow should appoint himself as an authority on international affairs – especially since it can be done from home, with the aid of social media; and the MSM mysteriously accept his authority. And I would be surprised if the powers that be were not duly appreciative.

      • Michael
        May 19, 2015 at 8:48 am

        This picture includes an advertising board with the ratailer adress.
        the retailer’s location fit with a Ukrainian controled zone.

        The story has been debunked as a fake, months and months ago, go the vineyard of the saker archives on the subject.

        By the way there were several Buk system with radars operating the day of this fatal incident, and all where operated by Kiev forces. If you don’t know the buk system comprises 4 venicules, one is for these long range radar for target acquisition (about 140 miles). If you have only the rockets radar you have a range of acquisition of only 35 miles, and that means only 3.5 minutes to operate and launch.

        The story of the

        • Phill
          May 20, 2015 at 8:04 am

          I agree with Michael above, it was debunked days after Nuland or others from Brookings through the info out to their msm networks. There have been two totally seperate BUKs on trucks disseminated and both debunked, the second from memory was live dashcam with road/direction verified and destination plotted even pinged which swiss domiciled oligarch had ownership. In no way am I endorsing the BUK theory which isn’t supported by all other evidence.

      • Joe L.
        May 19, 2015 at 2:06 pm

        Probably someone that starts their comment with “Sorry for all the Kremlin Bots who have already commented their support” definitely already has a severe bias if not downright bigotry – so anyone that reads this needs to take it with a grain of salt. So let me get this straight, you put a link to the very “blogger” that award winning journalist Robert Parry points out in this article:

        “The program showed the earlier video of the truck moving past a billboard and then claiming – based on information from blogger Eliot Higgins – that the TV crew had located the same billboard in Luhansk, a rebel-held city near the Russian border.”

        The fact is that Ukraine itself has BUK Missile systems, they have the T-64 tanks, and the T-72 tanks, and all of the equipment that is supposed “evidence” that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What is truly frightening is that much of the “evidence” that keeps showing up is from “social media” rather than from the US with the largest intelligence apparatus on the planet and after the illegal invasion of Iraq based on lies then this gets my “Spidey-Sense” tingling (not too mention that supposed “evidence” has been debunked a number of times now from photos from 2008 or a Moscow Air Show). I don’t know exactly what happened but when even the German BND, German Intelligence, question the narrative of MH-17 and say that photos provided by the Ukrainian Government “have been manipulated” then we need to question everything.

      • Shingo
        May 20, 2015 at 7:25 am

        “Robert Perry you really shouldn’t attack the work of other professional journalists unless you are certain you know what you are talking about. ”

        Nor should you. Higgins explanation is pathetic, because if the camera was high enough to be looking over the tops of the trees, it would have been looking down at a steeper angle toward the intersection.

        Higgings is a pathetic propagandist who’s claims do not hold water. He doesn’t even address the fact that the area in question was not under rebel control at the time nor that the BUK was never traced as having originated from Russia.

      • stevieb
        May 23, 2015 at 10:49 am

        The more you people open your stupid mouths the easier it is to smell the horse crap..

    • Adamski
      May 19, 2015 at 5:41 pm

      Right on the money! Your comment is spot on, thank You Colin for sharing it. There is very little to non honesty left in the MSM, wether in Europe, US or Australia. It’s just more of the same. When it comes to investigative journalism of any Russia related matter, the level of deceit, lies and parroting unfounded speculations is of cosmic proportions. When they can’t pull it off themselves they invite lunatics like the Brown Moses to act as an “expert” investigator and seal the deal. Pathetic pathological liers the whole lot. Nothing that comes from the MSM these days is worth the tv set or computer monitor pixels it’s shown on. And yes, the target of the attack seemed to be Vlad’s plane, which made a last minute change of plans, ditching Rostov as its intended destination and instead flying through Belorus air space to Moscow. That move saved the life of the worlds most valuable political leader. Thank God for that.

  34. Traveler
    May 18, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Australia is slave to the US. Basically, occupied and not free.

    • Brad Owen
      May 19, 2015 at 11:55 am

      Australia, U.S., and U.K. are slaves to City-of-London, and its’ surrogates in Wall Street and Sydney Central District. Canada and N.Z. have similar set-ups. DON’T let the enemy divide and conquer us. The Five Sisters (held together in-common, by a shared Security State apparatus), are what… 450 millions strong, or there-abouts? THAT is The Wealth of these five Nations (it’s, potentially, organized and educated LABOR FORCE, and roughly ten million sq. miles of choice real estate…imagine it all green and lush), NOT the financial paper of the “Too-Big-To-Fail” Parasites in their Financial Districts. China; beware Hong Kong and any lingering ties to its’ former Colonial Master; City-of-London.

  35. zman
    May 18, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    While I find this article informative ala the ongoing push to place blame on Putin, he leaves out other pieces. Parry is going with the POV that it was a missile that brought down MH17. However, several defense analysts have gone on record, along with Russian military spokesmen, that state that the attack trajectory of a BUK missile is from above, spraying the target with shrapnel. All pictures of wreckage show the attack vector from below and to the side. Also missing in all western reports are any photos and discussion of the pilots’ cabin. Russian military and other neutral observers point to round holes penetrating the cabin from the side and exiting through the other side, with a lack of shrapnel evidence on the fuselage or wing surfaces. This is only pointing to the method of attack, the most damning for me, vis-a-vis responsibility, is the total lack of US sat data…which, even without any other qualifiers, tells me the Ukrainians did it.

Comments are closed.