You Be the Judge

Exclusive: An Australian news show bristled at being caught broadcasting misleading images designed to prove Russian President Putin was responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 last July. The program says it simply opted for “a wide shot” to give its audience the fuller “layout,” reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Australian news show “60 Minutes” has angrily responded to my noting discrepancies between the footage that it used to claim it found the spot in eastern Ukraine where a BUK missile launcher passed after the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down last July and the video taken that day.

Earlier in the “60 Minutes” broadcast, the show made a point of overlaying other video from last July 17 with its own footage to demonstrate that it had found the precise locations passed by a truck suspected of hauling the missile battery eastward before the shoot-down. But the program deviated from that pattern regarding the most important video, which the program claimed proved that Russia had provided the missile that shot down MH-17 and that missile battery was making its getaway through Luhansk.

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”)

On that crucial point, the program separated the original video of a BUK anti-aircraft missile battery, apparently taken the night after the shoot-down, from the scene in which correspondent Michael Usher claims to have located the same site in Luhansk.

The separation of the two scenes made it difficult for viewers to note the many discrepancies. Indeed, almost nothing in the two scenes matched. In my article about these differences, I posted the two images from the TV show side by side so readers could decide for themselves.

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)

In the “60 Minutes” program, Usher offered no explanation for why the pattern of using overlays was broken in this one instance. Nor did the program make any effort to explain the multiple discrepancies in the two images.

In reacting to my article, however, the show issued a statement saying that in deciding where locations were it relied on calculations by blogger Eliot Higgins “done from his house in Leicester,” England. The show then explained the discrepancies between the earlier video, as posted on social media, and the show’s footage in Luhansk, Ukraine, this way:

“We opted to do our piece to camera as a wide shot showing the whole road system so the audience could get the layout and see which way the Buk was heading. The background in our piece to camera looks different to the original Buk video simply because it was shot from a different angle. The original video was obviously shot from one of the apartments behind, through the trees — which in in summer were in full leaf.”

So, the show is acknowledging that it intentionally deviated from the previous pattern of using overlays to demonstrate how precisely its team had located earlier scenes in question. But it’s simply not true that by offering this “wide shot showing the whole road system” that the audience would “get the layout and see which way the Buk was heading.”

All you see is Usher standing on open ground gesturing to a billboard. How any Australian viewer would get a deeper understanding of the geography of Luhansk from this “wide shot” is a mystery. And you don’t get much sense of “the whole road system” either. In other words, the explanation sounds more like an excuse or a cover-up.

Given the pattern of the rest of the show, wouldn’t it have made more sense to try to recreate the angle of the original video to prove the actual location as best you could rather than opting for a different angle and simply relying on Usher to make an assertion? There’s an old saying in journalism, “show, don’t tell,” but this was a classic case of telling, not showing.

And this was not some minor point. This was proof cited by the program to say Russian officials were lying when they 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 and cited the billboard scene in Luhansk as the final proof that Russian President Vladimir Putin was responsible for killing 298 people aboard MH-17.

If the show wanted to truly nail down this significant point and was really interested in giving its viewers “the layout” of the scene in Luhansk, wouldn’t it also have made sense to have footage of the apartments where the original video was supposedly shot? That would have provided some explanation for the obvious discrepancies in the two images. Instead, the show simply broke the two video scenes up in a way so a casual viewer wouldn’t be able to detect the discrepancies.

The Australian show also takes issue with me writing that Usher appeared to be standing in “an open field.” The show protests that “he is on a patch of grass by the road” although it sure looks like an open field in the “wide shot” giving us “the layout.”

The show further protests my characterization of the scene in the original video as “overgrown,” saying “it was simply shot through trees in the foreground.” But note the trees and bushes along the right of the image and in the background. Beyond the positioning of this overgrowth, there appears to be almost nothing comparable between the two images, including the positioning and shapes of the billboards.

Yet, instead of grappling with these differences or trying to recreate the angle of the original video as closely as possible, the show opts for some meaningless “wide shot,” makes it difficult for anyone watching the show to compare the two scenes that flash by fairly quickly, and simply asserts as flat fact something that is still dubious that Usher and his team had located the right spot.

That strikes me as journalistically negligent if not willfully misleading. But look at the images. You be the judge.

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 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.

103 comments for “You Be the Judge

  1. Abe
    May 26, 2015 at 12:13

    Given the fact that the Dutch Safety Board Report provided so little data, physics, engineering and math produce nothing but more speculation.

    Fortunately, we do not need to speculate.

    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.

    The American satellite has accurate video of the destruction of MH-17.

    At free fall speed, an object takes 23.65 seconds to fall 9000 feet (2743 meters).

    Add forward momentum and wind resistance and the MH-17 aircraft would have been visible above the clouds for a minimum of 23 seconds after an attack.

    Ample time for satellites to record the demise of MH-17.

    Unfortunately, the main accuser, the United States, refuses to release the satellite video evidence.

    • Antidyatel
      May 26, 2015 at 19:50

      “Given the fact that the Dutch Safety Board Report provided so little data, physics, engineering and math produce nothing but more speculation.”

      Maybe. But it allows to discard unworkable theories from the speculation spectrum. Hence propaganda shills are forced to change story and thus, collaps.

    • Antidyatel
      May 26, 2015 at 21:13

      There is also no need to waste time on videos that are of secondary relevance. Even if location is correct, there are still too many unknowns to make any conclusions about that video. Particularly who’s BUK is it. There are already indications that on that day this junction was under Ukr control. But even then that is based on Kiev’s maps. How can people even consider this? There were at max 10,000 rebels in July 2014. You divide it by the claimed controlled territory and you get a fraction of rebel per square kilometer. In reality rebels were not uniformly distributed, but mainly concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, and surrounding forces of two cauldrons. There was no control of any territory as such. Anyone could go around at ease

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 11:33

      My point is that what happened in the sky was clearly visible for 9,000 feet.

      All the attention has been focused on the ground.

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 11:50

      “there are still too many unknowns to make any conclusions about that video. Particularly who’s BUK is it.”

      There are still too many unknowns to “conclude” that it was a BUK.

      • Abe
        May 27, 2015 at 14:24

        More specifically, there are still too many unknowns to “conclude” that it was a BUK missile that destroyed MH-17.

        • antidyatel
          May 27, 2015 at 19:15

          That could be answered by just publishing black box transcript. Black Box are not designed to react to missiles. They stop recording only on impact. So we could hear enough to make judgement about the explosion or if it was fighter jet cannon. But somebody doesn’t want us to hear it. And Dutch already covered themselves in blood by saying that there was nothing interesting on that recording.

  2. Antidyatel
    May 26, 2015 at 01:13

    I hope I’m not late for the party. Was banned from Guardian eventually ;)

    One thing that everyone is omitting is physics. And physics/engineering +simple mathematics can handle the issue using available data without a need of unverifiable photos or fake journalist claims.
    So what we know:
    Ukr/USA claims on location (Snyzneye), type of weapon (BUK-M1). Limited data from Dutch report: precise location of the hit point, direction of the plane prior the hit, pilot was informed to look out for another aurliner in this airspace corridor. And specs of Boeing or actual data on its speed

    Let’s go to details. Boeing was flying directly at Snyzneye. Practically a perfect straight line. Ground distance from hit point to alleged BUK location is 24km. Plane was flying at 10km, so the shortest distance the rocket had to fly is 26 km, assuming straight line. In reality the trajectory would be parabolic, so distance will be longer, but let’s assume bast case scenario for Ukrs. Speed of the BUK-M1 missile is just below 800 m/s. It is the old model, implicated by Ukr. Latest BUK-M3 model has rockets reaching 1,300 m/s. But I will again be kind to Ukrs and assume 1,000 m/s, just because it is easier for arithmetics. So already now we can get the lowest estimate on rocket travel time – 26 seseconds. Now, according to BUK-M1 specs it needs minimum 15 sec to lock on target. So we get a minimum estimate for the time Boeing had to be within radar range of the system before it is hit – 41 seconds. Boeing speed is 250 m/sec. That gives more than 10 km for Boeing’s traveling distance before it was hit. As we know it was travelling by straight line more than 1 min before the hit, from Dutch flimsy report. So we get 34 km of ground distance as the most favourable estimate on the distance between Boeing and BUK for scenario to happen. It might look as a perfect match for 35 km, as some sources claim radar capability of this particular BUK launcher. The problem is that 35 km is the stretch for low flying targets. For 10 km targets the limit is closer to 32 km. Plus if one takes away my simplifications on missile speed (I’m also ignoring the acceleration part for missile reaching the max speed) and missile trajectory, the 35 km limit will also be passed. All this calculation means that for this particular BUK in this particular location to hit Boeing at the particular spot would require BUK to launch the missile before they lock on target And only then pinning the rocket to Boeing. I heard such responses from Ukrs on that calculations, last line of defence really. But I’ll leave it to their conciseness and to Occam’s Razor.

    Second point that one can take from this is the fact that a 5 meters long missile with violent plume behind it is launched 24 km from in-front the plane and approaches it for at least 26 seconds. And we know that pilot had to be conscious of the situation around him due to the warning from ATC about another airliner in vicinity. And we are asked to beleive that in all 26 seconds pilot didn’t say at least WTF. It would be a smoking gun against rebels if he did say it. But I guess black box is not corroborating the theory. Hence missile came from a blind spot for the pilot.

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 11:45

      The devil is in the details.

      “Let’s go to details. Boeing was flying directly at Snyzneye. Practically a perfect straight line.”

      That detail, for one, was not independently confirmed.

      What is true is that the Dutch Safety Board only reported the Air Traffic Control radar data provided by the Ukrainian government.

      The Dutch Safety Board did not evaluate the Russian radar data.

      The Russians have repeatedly called for an independent investigation.

      Washington and Kiev won’t allow it.

      Again and again, the whole world is asked to simply take Kiev and Washington’s word for it.

      Speculation based on inaccurate data is worthless. Garbage in, garbage out.

      • Antidyatel
        May 27, 2015 at 19:49

        “That detail, for one, was not independently confirmed.”

        That is the detail given by accusing party. If that detail is true than their version of events is impossible and they should change the narrative. If it is false, then which other details of their’s are false as well. Witness discredited

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 11:47

      “Was banned from Guardian eventually ;)”

      Why provide bona fides?

      • Antidyatel
        May 27, 2015 at 19:58

        My history there is still available under the same nick Antidyatel. So yes, it can be considered as some kind of badge of honour. ;))))
        It’s amazing that from being one of the most neutral papers for decades, Guardian is now trying it’s best to prove that they are more “trustworthy” than Dailybeast. Accidently their editorial policies took 180 turn after they gave the platform to Edward Snowden.
        Pity. They gave the best argument in 1973 against all “Stalin the monster” type of books by revealing that Robert Conquest was a paid “academic” working for propaganda department in Foreign Office. Assuming that his Great Terror is a corner stone of all Anti-Soviet books (just go through reference lists) in logical world it will make people think. But we know that logic is missing in this world and emotions rule

      • Abe
        May 31, 2015 at 23:41


  3. Abe
    May 25, 2015 at 15:11

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


    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.


    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.


    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”


    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.


    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.


    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.

  4. SteveK9
    May 25, 2015 at 08:30

    Whoever shot down the plane, it is very, very likely they did so by accident. What would either side have to gain by doing so? I know conspiracy fans might say it was done on purpose by Ukraine to blame Russia, but frankly I find that as preposterous as the idea the Russia would shoot down a passenger plane from Malaysia on purpose.

    So, I’m not that interested frankly.

    I would note that when the US presents no evidence, it seems likely that what evidence we do have (satellites) does not support the story we have to tell.

    What is very surprising is that a passenger jet would have been allowed to fly over an area, where the Ukraine government was attacking rebel cities from the air, and the rebels had shot down a couple of jet fighters already.

  5. dolp
    May 22, 2015 at 18:37

    Robert, your are obviously wrong, why not just admit that and move on?

  6. Stefan
    May 21, 2015 at 18:34

    From what kind of bizarre reality must one adhere to inorder to take this fraud Eliot Higgins even remotely serious. Exactly who takes this guy seriously? Who sinks to such a low level as to call him an “expert”?

    It is mind boggling – is this planet earth?

    Eliot Higgins’ work is a long string of willful fraud, that is the only conclusion one who has followed lie after lie produced and/or promoted by this hack.

    • Stefan
      May 21, 2015 at 18:36

      –Should be an edit option– but anyway, you get the gist of it I hope.

    • Abe
      May 21, 2015 at 18:51

      Who takes Higgins seriously?

      Well, for one, apparently Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, the company that’s mission statement from the outset was “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”.

      • boggled
        May 21, 2015 at 19:47

        Who takes Putin and the Kremlin leadership or Kremlin sponsored media seriously?
        Almost everyone of the satellite images were proven fake, they ran the crucified child lie story, they killed Nemotsov, their media has so many lies there is a website totally dedicated to exposing those lies weekly- stopfake , Russian troops not involved in Crimea’s occupation or referendum or murdering civilians there, no Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine fighting – just ignore those guys that got lost, the Russian soldiers buried in Pskov, the recent ones’s on all media – , no Russian lethal aid in ‘separatist’s’ hands, no Russian military destroying Ukrainian border checkpoints, no Russian military firing across the border, I think you get my jist Abe.
        Mr. Parry thank you for clarifying your viewpoint that you are full of questions, however did you really need to write an article saying you could produce a 60 Minute’s segment a little differently and in your opinion better, because it would include a direct photo comparison of the video with the BUK MISSING ONE MISSILE and the identical shooting angle then they did? Did you ever think that someone might not have given the 60 Minute’s crew permission to go to that exact location? or maybe they were allowed to film only what certain people allowed them to film? or maybe that couldn’t for there own safety?
        Yes, I agree with you, they should have done a direct comparison.
        Why go to Ukraine from Australia to produce an 11 minute segment if your not going to shoot from the exact angle of the video? Maybe they collected the other video and investigative parts and just included that as an afterthought, who knows what editing goes into an 11 minute segment?
        Anyways, they had a lot of info to go over in 11 minutes, and yes, they could have improved on that one part.
        The rest of it was great reporting and investigative work and you could have said that.
        Abe, if you want propaganda and daily lies, stick to Kremlin sponsored and CENSORED media.
        The rest of them in CIVILIZED countries are funded differently, but not directly from governments. And they will call government to account when it screws up.
        I have yet to see NTV, RT, Russia0ne, Rossiya24, or others do that.
        And no, I am not anti Russian, but I will admit wholeheartedly that I am not supportive of Russia current leadership, their control of their media and their brainwashing of their sheep such as you, and their blind followers.
        I am slowly becoming anti Russian though because of their changing of history and trying to promote Stalin as some great guy. He was responsible for 60 million deaths while in office. Some were policies like Holodomor, other were the secret agreements with Hitler to divide Eastern Europe, and others like proclaiming him as a great liberator.
        When the dust settles, what does a liberator do? He leaves a country he helped out to it’s people to make future decisions.
        What did Stalin do? Those Eastern European Countries just traded one occupier for another.
        And we could even go further into that time when Russia ATTACKED Finland?
        Maybe another time.
        Russia has a lot to make up for, and the illegal annexation and funding, supplying, sending SOF, and supplying intelligence to the terrorists in Donbas is not helping Russia to be looked at as changing its ways.
        You want to hate the West, fine. Give up your Apple products, give up your computers, your mobile phone, your automobile, flying in airplanes on vacation. Most of today’s inventions are thanks to the West.
        If you do not like the West, give up all it gives to you.
        You will find yourself in an igloo in Siberia eating seal and cooking with blubber. or some mud hut alongside OBL and his 20 wives.
        You want to discredit everyone else and you have an ax to grind of some sort with the West and the modern civilized world, and by doing that you discredit yourself proclaiming a bunch of conspiracy theories and half baked stories as truths to support your flawed opinions.
        Get over yourself, your not doing yourself any favors.
        One last item, Higgins and Usher have provide more truth and honesty then Russian MOD or Russian media, ie Kremlin mouthpieces.
        Even now, Russian MOD is changing its tune to where it is a BUK that shot down MH17.

        • Abe
          May 22, 2015 at 02:50

          The Ukrainian propaganda website Stopfake belongs to the National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”, one of the many all-too-eager Ukrainian recipients of cash from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) since March 2014.

          Allied with Bellingcat, Stopfake uses the same faux fact-check disinformation strategy that Higgins employs.

          • boggled
            May 22, 2015 at 06:55

            Who cares who it belongs to, they are fighting against a large propganda machine and a Kremlin that has long had it’s secret history its kept from people in the Russian ‘sphere of influence’.
            Most Russians do not know the real facts of Holodomor or Stalin even today.
            The Kremlin denies, so the Russian populace believes it blindly even though the WHOLE WORLD knows the relevant facts.
            The only Russians that know are the ones that venture outside of Russia, and when they come back they are labelled enemies, extremists, or blackballed to do business or work in Russia thanks to the FSB with all their former agents from the KGB and Stalin’s former intelligence network.
            Regardless of who funds Stopfake, they would not be there if there were not sensationalized and manufactured stories, like the crucified child of Slavyansk, by various Kremlin sponsored and controlled media such as LieNews, Sputnik, et al.
            If there was not lies and propaganda put out by the Kremlin, there would be no need for a business like Stopfake.
            They along with other bloggers have repeatedly exposed the large lies put out by the Kremlin as facts to their own people and to the world.
            So if you want to believe some half baked conspiracy theory about Mermaids existing or a Megaladon or a Tooth Fairy, go ahead.
            To me, anything sponsored by the Kremlin or facts put out by the Kremlin and the Russian MOD have to be taken with a grain of salt.
            They are unreliable, and other sources from Ukraine and ‘Western MSM’ have proven they are 10 times more reliable reporting facts and doing competent at doing investigative journalism.
            They may not get all their facts right but they themselves do not manufacture stories to feed their viewership.
            The Kremlin does.

          • Abe
            May 22, 2015 at 13:15

            Lo and behold, boggled drops in. Careful, comrade, your head may explode from bagpiping Bellingcat.

        • The Kulak
          May 24, 2015 at 22:15

          Eliot Higgins is still a lying scumbag. 60 Minutes while attacking the Russian Defense Ministry’s presentation about the Ukrainians posing their own BUK using the billboard as a piece of evidence omits that Kiev released fake pics of their own BUKs. This was acknowledged by

          60 Minutes lies by omission to its audience, presents Eliot Higgins as a credible expert, when he has been debunked and caught in numerous lies. The claim that all critics of Higgins are ‘Russian agents’ or dupes and the slurs against Parry are contemptible. Higgins hid the fact that the Syrian rebels had chemical weapons of their own, putting the lives of journalists at risk. Higgins lied or changed his story on the ranges of the rockets at East Ghouta numerous times and to this day when confronted about it pretends he didn’t accuse the Assad and only Assad regime of shooting the missiles, only that he let readers come to their own conclusions while constantly changing his story as new information came in to the foreordained conclusion.

          60 Minutes doesn’t tell its audience that Der Spiegel, the respected German newsmagazine, still blamed the rebels for the shoot down but suggested it was a mistake, using a seized BUK without all of the necessary radar, which completely contradicts Higgins’ thesis. The Der Spiegel report that Kiev put out numerous fake pics of their own BUKs as the separatist or Russian BUK is also omitted.

          The reason WesternMSM gets away with lie after lie is that they are predominantly lies of omission, not commission.

          Robert Parry should make his own video calling BS on Aussie 60 Minutes, exposing Eliot Higgins previous record of fraud and challening them to admit their primary ‘geolocation expert’s’ history of BS.

  7. Abe
    May 21, 2015 at 17:16

    “You have journalists, these barefoot scribes coming together with the geeks…”

    Yep, sounds like a circle jerk, er, hackathon.

    On November 12, 2014, Google Ideas in partnership with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (a George Soros funded organization) and Google for Media hosted a day-long workshop.

    Google has been pimping Higgins and Bellingcat (see minutes 1:20-30)

    • Abe
      May 21, 2015 at 17:34

      The Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) was founded in 2006.

      Set up to support regime change projects stretching from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, the OCCRP lists among its “investigative centers” and “independent media”, The Kyiv Post and Slidstvo.Info in Ukraine, and Novaya Gazeta in Russia.

      Higgins and Bellingcat collaborate directly with OCCRP.

      OCCRP gives out an annual Person of the Year Award to the person or organization who it believes has done the most during the year to promote organized criminal activity or advance corruption. In 2014 it awarded that honor to Vladimir Putin “for his efforts to make a criminal/political/military/industrial complex and integrate organized crime into state policy”.

      • CodyJoeBibby
        May 22, 2015 at 08:42

        Higgins’ Bellingcat crony Aric Toler works for yet another Soros funded propaganda outlet, RUNet Echo.

        And doesn’t Soros also make donations to The Guardian which pimped Higgin’s crap in the first place, and Radio Free Europe which The Guardian is now in partnership with as though Radio Free Europe is journalsim?

    • Abe
      May 21, 2015 at 17:46

      At the grandiose “Investigathon” in New York in November 2014, the geeks were googley eyed as Higgins sputtered his way through “War and Pieces – Social Media Investigations”.

      Google Ideas even features the video on their YouTube page for your viewing pleasure:

      But don’t worry about Google ’cause their not evil.

      • Abe
        May 21, 2015 at 18:12

        About their (version of) not evil:

        In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their “Don’t be evil” culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: “We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.”

        Google appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: “You can make money without doing evil”

        Apparently you can make money promoting propaganda and be not evil. That’s post-conventional thinking for you.

  8. Abe
    May 21, 2015 at 14:46

    VICE News, Rupert Murdoch’s 70 million dollar Gen Y-targeted sock puppets, jus’ loves them some terrorists, so long as they are opposed to the governments of Syria and Russia.

    The lurid propagandists at VICE have been happily embedded with anti-Syrian forces (including ISIS) and anti-Russian forces in Ukraine.

    And it’s funny how three days before the MH-17 crash, Vice crowed about how “Citizen Journalists Are Banding Together to Fact-Check Online News”

    In the article, Higgins announced the arrival of Bellingcat.

    Then BOOM, MH-17 is all over the News and Higgins is at the ready with his laptop in Leicester.

    So um, ‘case you ain’t got the drift, why the hell hasn’t some enterprising journalist investigated Higgins?

  9. Abe
    May 21, 2015 at 14:35

    Not only does the Australian 60 Minutes program website page for MH17 : A Special Investigation” feature a link for more information about the work of Bellingcat, they also highlight “Geo-location expert Eliot Higgins” with an “Extra Minutes” extended interview:

    The regime changers are doubling down on Higgins.

  10. Abe
    May 21, 2015 at 12:23

    Let’s not forget that the MH-17 catastrophe was used to justify a third round of sanctions back in July 2014.

    The sanctions have punished Germany and the EU far more than they have harmed Russia.

    So one may easily suspect that the BND report on MH-17 was a feeble effort to head off just the sort of the economic call-to-arms that George Soros announced.

    The EU governments and Germany in particular are none too eager to “wake up” and “save Ukraine” from the predicament that western oligarchs like Soros landed it in last February.

    Many Germans still recall what happened seven decades ago when they were told that “Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence.”

    Soros’ screed in the November 20 2014 issue of The New York Review of Books was a demand for Europe to underwrite Washington’s Ukrainian adventure, or else:

    “Sanctions against Russia are necessary but they are a necessary evil. They have a depressive effect not only on Russia but also on the European economies, including Germany. This aggravates the recessionary and deflationary forces that are already at work. By contrast, assisting Ukraine in defending itself against Russian aggression would have a stimulative effect not only on Ukraine but also on Europe. That is the principle that ought to guide European assistance to Ukraine.

    “Germany, as the main advocate of fiscal austerity, needs to understand the internal contradiction involved. Chancellor Angela Merkel has behaved as a true European with regard to the threat posed by Russia. She has been the foremost advocate of sanctions on Russia, and she has been more willing to defy German public opinion and business interests on this than on any other issue. Only after the Malaysian civilian airliner was shot down in July did German public opinion catch up with her. Yet on fiscal austerity she has recently reaffirmed her allegiance to the orthodoxy of the Bundesbank—probably in response to the electoral inroads made by the Alternative for Germany, the anti-euro party. She does not seem to realize how inconsistent that is. She ought to be even more committed to helping Ukraine than to imposing sanctions on Russia.

    “The new Ukraine has the political will both to defend Europe against Russian aggression and to engage in radical structural reforms. To preserve and reinforce that will, Ukraine needs to receive adequate assistance from its supporters. Without it, the results will be disappointing and hope will turn into despair. Disenchantment already started to set in after Ukraine suffered a military defeat and did not receive the weapons it needs to defend itself.

    “It is high time for the members of the European Union to wake up and behave as countries indirectly at war. They are better off helping Ukraine to defend itself than having to fight for themselves. One way or another, the internal contradiction between being at war and remaining committed to fiscal austerity has to be eliminated. Where there is a will, there is a way.

    “Let me be specific. In its last progress report, issued in early September, the IMF estimated that in a worst-case scenario Ukraine would need additional support of $19 billion. Conditions have deteriorated further since then. After the Ukrainian elections the IMF will need to reassess its baseline forecast in consultation with the Ukrainian government. It should provide an immediate cash injection of at least $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed. Ukraine’s partners should provide additional financing conditional on implementation of the IMF-supported program, at their own risk, in line with standard practice.”

    Ukraine will defend Europe against Russian aggression? One could hear the laughter all the way from Berlin.

    You see, the Europeans have this irritating habit of not heeding their master’s call.

    Perhaps another catastrophe will be engineered to properly motivate them.

    The Ukrainian adventure appears to be a permutation of the Brzezinski stratagem, the purpose of which is to make the European Union, and Germany in particular, economically “bleed for as much and as long as is possible.”

  11. AB Hobart
    May 21, 2015 at 10:04

    Those that are interested in the competing claims should go to the Bellingcat website of Eliott Higgins, they discuss the 60 minutes programme and also refer back to their july 2014 article.
    Clearly Michael Usher is pretty clueless, he manages to identify, or stand in front of, the wrong billboard, on the far side of the road with a truck passing in front of it whilst in the home video the buk launcher emerges from behind the disputed billboard.
    I guess to be fair to him in the preceding clip in the car driving in the opposite direction to the posited path of the launcher he does seem to point across to the correct side of the road.

    Leaving aside that any responsible journalism should have matched photographic angle, or explained why they could not, it is interesting to look at the Bellingcat images of the july article which leave this question.
    There is a third billboard further down the road on the same side beyond the turnoff.
    It is shortly beyond the second of two telegraph poles, the first being on the corner of the turnoff.
    The home video includes a wider angle view at the start and at the end pans to the right following the launcher down the road. Both telegraph poles come well into view with sufficient clearance to the right that the third billboard, I believe should be visible above the near field trees.
    But it is not visible and I think that is a major discrepancy.

    • Brendan
      May 21, 2015 at 15:57

      The mistake that the 60 Minutes team appears to have made is that they got the incorrect location from Bellingcat. The Bellingcat site identifies the correct billboard, but on the same page they mark the “Buk video” position inaccurately on a satellite image.

      In the report, Michael Usher points to that same (incorrect) spot (to the left of the right hand billboard) as the place where the Buk passed by (9:51 in the video I linked to above). It’s just too much of a coincidence that Bellingcat and Usher made exactly the same mistake.

      Whatever Usher was pointing to in the car, the next shot showed the camera panning upwards on the “wrong” billboard, followed by a short clip of a truck driving past it. The correct billboard isn’t shown at all until after that, when a tiny part of it is shown in Usher’s piece to camera. That piece shows the wrong billboard in full.

      The producer’s reply downplays how much that billboard is shown relative to the correct one. He says that “you can see both” billboards.

      If he had just admitted that the location was inaccurate but on the correct road, there would be no big deal. Instead he seems to be digging himself into a hole by giving factual details that are different to what his team appeared to present.

      He offers a very unconvincing excuse when he says the scene was shot that way to give the viewers a layout of the whole road system. A professional cameraman could easily have shown that layout if Usher had stood to the right of the correct billboard, instead of to its left. He could have used a combination of slow zooming and right panning to show both the road layout and the path of the Buk as seen in the original video.

      That would have shown, at the very least, thecorrect billboard, the turn-off to the right, probably a lamp post and possibly more identifying features from the Buk video. There was no need for 60 Minutes to shoot the wrong billboard and wrong position from the wrong angle.

    • Brendan
      May 21, 2015 at 16:42

      Regarding the third billboard beyond the turnoff, I think it’s obscured by trees. There are an extra one or two poles to the right of the ones at the turnoff, and the third billboard is probably to the right of them behind where the trees are. The video camera was much lower down than the rooftop location of the other photos, so the trees will blocks of the view.

      • AB Hobart
        May 23, 2015 at 03:28

        Brendan; agree.
        Looking again at the satellite photo (better than google earth) plus street level photo on bellingcat july 2014 article the two telegraph poles included within most of the home video footage include the corner pole at corner main road and right side off road with the second on the near side of the off road not further down the main street (the interval between them versus corner billboard matches that). The second telegraph pole further down the main street probably appears very briefly at the start of the video with only the top visible. So the third billboard would be obscured by trees that also obscure most of that telegraph pole.
        So I would have to say to Robert Parry that I think the location – on the basis of bellingcat data rather than au 60 minutes effort – is correct.
        Where is your evidence that Luhansk was not rebel territory on 17/18 july ?

        • CodyJoeBibby
          May 23, 2015 at 10:53

          the video looks nothihg like Luhansk.

        • Brendan
          May 23, 2015 at 16:33

          Cody, I could point out a whole load of things that the video and the Luhansk photo have in common but you would dismiss them as speculation.

      • Brendan
        May 23, 2015 at 04:30

        “Where is your evidence that Luhansk was not rebel territory on 17/18 july ?”
        See the first link in another comment I posted:

      • Brendan
        May 23, 2015 at 04:31

        Also here: 13 Jul 2014 “LNR is melting – Ukrainian army get to the airport”

    • Brendan
      May 21, 2015 at 16:49

      It’s all a storm in a teacup anyway about whether the images in the program are misleading or confusing. It can be shown that the location is at least approximately correct, but by being so defensive, the producer has made a bigger issue out of the discrepancies and has undermined his own credibility.

      What’s far more significant is the fact that the location in Luhansk proves the opposite of what Eliot Higgins and 60 Minutes claim, as I have explained elsewhere.

      What the presenter Michael Usher says about the location being “in the middle of separatist-held territory” is simply untrue, at least on 17 and 18 July. Because of that and other reasons, his claim that the Buk was travelling on its way back to Russia is simply unbelievable.

      • CodyJoeBibby
        May 22, 2015 at 06:17

        it can not be shown that the location is correct without showing us on the ground that it is, i.e. that it looks at least similar to the video.

        • Brendan
          May 22, 2015 at 06:38

          I think that the best way to visualise the scene is to look at the photo on this page:

          Now imagine that the camera position moves downwards and to the right to where the video was shot from.

          Higgins/Bellingcat, and later the 60 Minutes, appear to have got the two billboards mixed up and thought that the position of the video camera was a little bit to the left, instead of to the right of the photographer. The 60 Minutes scene was shot in front of the nearest billboard (behind the trees in the photo) in the direction of the one across the street.

          • CodyJoeBibby
            May 22, 2015 at 08:53

            yes fine, but to me the two scenes look nothing alike.

            no amount of talk is going to convince me otherwise until i see for myself, as filmed by someone on the ground.

            i’ve already seen all the photos you’re citing.

          • AB Hobart
            May 23, 2015 at 04:11

            Thanks Brendan.
            Interesting HRI article
            Suggests site of video not rebel held territory at the time.
            Don’t elaborate on why Kiev initially said video from krasnodon – presumably because rebel held.

          • Brendan
            May 23, 2015 at 16:14

            Krasnodon is deep in rebel-held territory, halfway between its northern and southern boundaries, and close to the Russian border. You can see Krasnodon in this map showing rebel territory, from Ukr. govt. website from 22 July 2014:
   (click on “Big size”)

            To the north-west of Krasnodon you can also see, not very clearly marked, Luhansk and its airport. Far to the south-west you can see Savur Mohya, which is near Schnizne and the alleged launch site of the Buk missile. The Buk appears to have have taken a very strange route on its way to Russia!

  12. They Knew
    May 21, 2015 at 08:42

    Hmm…Mr. Eliot Higgins’s “Bellingcat” is sponsored by Open Society Institute
    & Soros Foundation Network.

    OCCRP is made possible by

  13. onno
    May 21, 2015 at 07:33

    Thank you all with these great contributions to MH 17. It illustrates again and again the lies that are being printed and broadcasted day in day out in MSM just to brainwash the people. Former US President Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: You can lie to ALL the people some time and you can lie to some people ALL the time, but you can never lie to ALL the people, ALL the time. But regretfully that was BEFORE the time of radio and TV

    Since Abraham Lincoln democracy is down the drain and governments, especially Washington, uses these powerful media like TV and Radio to brainwash the people and make them believe that MSM propaganda is the ONLY NEWS. Thank God I have found Consortium News, Robert Parry and all those commentators who bring all their own investigations and comments. Maybe there is some hope that people will wake up someday !!!

  14. Will Wiley
    May 21, 2015 at 02:54

    The other highly suspicious fact is that every single photo or video is either unsourced or comes directly from the Ukrainian intelligence. Which mean that possibly every single photo or video comes from the SBU.
    Doesn’t 60 Minutes have anything that can be sourced to someone other than the SBU?

  15. Will Wiley
    May 21, 2015 at 02:44

    We are asked to believe that following the plane being shot down the separatists took the BUK without any cover on it through an area that was possibly/probably controlled by Kiev forces on July 17-18. It’s hard to believe.
    Add to this the fact that without the accompanying radar system it would have been impossible to detect and shoot down MH17.
    The only ones who had both BUKs and BUK radar systems were the Ukrainians themselves. But the Ukrainians are part of the investigate team and are not being investigated. 60 Minutes should be investigating the only ones who had the means. The Ukrainian military, who in that part of the country were not answering to Kiev but to an oligrach.

  16. James O'Neill
    May 20, 2015 at 23:38

    Abe @ 5.10pm. An excellent comment. I would just add one thing. Even if we assume (and it is a very big “if”) that the film shown on 60 Minutes was in fact a Russian BUK carrier heading east minus one missile, it is a very big leap to say that the “missing” BUK was the one that was fired at MH17.

    The evidence that no BUK missile was fired that day is in fact by far the strongest hypothesis. The issue can be readily resolved. Forensic examination of fuselage by the Dutch will disclose precisely what hit the plane. That analysis has been done. It will not be released because the agreement of 8 August 2014 between Ukraine, Belgium, Netherlands and Australia precludes the publishing of any results of the investigation unless all four countries agree. Ukraine will obviously not agree to the publication of results that show that MH17 was brought down by a combination of 30mm cannon fire and an air to air missile fired by an Ukrainian SU25 as the evidence overwhelmingly shows. Therefore we can expect more of these BS exposes by 60 Minutes and their ilk.

  17. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 21:27

    In an August 2, 2014 article written by Higgins entitled “MH17 Missiles Can’t Hide From These Internet Sleuths,” Higgins claims to have concluded that Russia or the anti-Kiev rebels must have shot down the plane with a Buk missile launcher – a weapons system also in the possession of Kiev’s military. What is his evidence? It’s a series of photographs published in various media outlets that he cannot corroborate in any way. Instead, this “sleuth” is making his case based on faith – faith that the photographs were taken where and when they claim to have been, and show what they claim to show.

    Of course, it has since been publicly acknowledged on more than one occasion that photographs purporting to show Russian military incursions into Ukraine have been fabricated and/or misrepresented causing tremendous embarrassment for US and European governments that have repeatedly claimed to have such evidence. But our dear BM is unfazed by such revelations. Instead, he seems to simply shriek louder. Rather than leaving analysis of MH 17 to aviation and military experts, he peddles his “opinion.” Rather than acknowledging the bias in his own reporting, to say nothing of the limitations of armchair technical analysis, he continues to grow his image, and with it, the lies, omissions, and distortions he propagates.

    And so we return to the new “study” by Higgins and his Bellingcat group of “digital detectives.” They are obviously front-and-center in the western media because their conclusions are aligned with the US-NATO political agenda. They are a de facto arm of the western corporate media and military-industrial complex, providing the veneer of “independent analysis” in order to penetrate the blogosphere and social media platforms where the mainstream narrative is being questioned, scrutinized, and discredited. Bellingcat and Higgins’ names should be known to everyone, but not because their analysis is worthwhile. Rather, they need to become household names so that those who understand how western propaganda and soft power actually works, will be on the lookout for more of their disinformation.

    Perhaps The Guardian should also be more careful in how it presents its information. By promoting Higgins and his discredited outfit, they are once again promoting disinformation for the purposes of selling war. The US almost went to war with Syria (which it is doing now anyway) based on the flawed intelligence and “analysis” of people like Higgins. Naturally, everyone remembers how The Guardian, like all of its corporate media brethren, helped to sell the Iraq War based on complete lies. Have they learned nothing? It would seem so.

    But those interested in peace and truth, we have learned something about propaganda and lies used to sell war. We who have called out these lies repeatedly – from Iraq in 2003, to Syria and Ukraine today – we once again repudiate the false narrative and the drumbeat for war. We reject the corporate media propagandists and their “alternative media” appendages. We stand for peace. And unlike The Guardian and Higgins, we stand on firm ground.

    Lying About Ukraine…Again!
    By Eric Draitser

    • Anonymous
      May 21, 2015 at 15:38

      ” But those interested in peace and truth, we have learned something about propaganda and lies used to sell war. We who have called out these lies repeatedly – from Iraq in 2003, to Syria and Ukraine today – we once again repudiate the false narrative and the drumbeat for war. We reject the corporate media propagandists and their “alternative media” appendages. We stand for peace. And unlike The Guardian and Higgins, we stand on firm ground.”

      Nah!!! We’re just Putin boot lickers, Russian apologists, Kremlin trolls, delusional fools… Did I miss any? Just using the names I’ve been called so far!

  18. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 21:08


    Faux “investigative blogger” Eliot Higgins’ Bellingcat site launched a “Ukraine Vehicle Tracking Project” to “to determine whether any military equipment was being transferred across the border, or if there were clear indications of Russia military equipment being present in East Ukraine.”

    The Bellingcat project, timed to coincide with the release of Atlantic Council’s “Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine” and the English translation of Boris Nemtsov’s “Putin. War”, was recently featured on the American Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) website:

    “Higgins and his team of investigative citizen journalists started using the visualization platform Silk to show the wave of military equipment being rolled into Ukraine, ostensibly from Russia.”

    Contact PBS and ask them why they’re highlighting a propaganda site that touts a “Russian invasion” of Ukraine.

    • Brendan
      May 21, 2015 at 06:18

      Eliot Higgins has been popping up eveywhere lately “verifying” information about the MH17 shoot-down. He featured a few weeks ago in a German public broadcasting TV ‘documentary’. He made assertions about positively identifying a Russian Buk launcher in Ukraine, but the evidence was not presented. That program also came to the conclusion that the Russians did it.

      • Abe
        May 21, 2015 at 13:36

        Das Erste (“The First”), or Erstes Deutsches Fernsehen (“First German Television”), is the principal publicly owned television channel in Germany.

        Higgins and what the Das Erste broadcast glorifies as “Rechercheteam” (investigative team) Bellingcat appear on the video at minutes 17:30-19:00 and 37:00-40:10.

        It’s official: German and American public television has been recruited by the regime change propagandists.

        Masquerading as independent researchers and investigative reporters, the regime change propagandists employ a “You Be the Judge” rhetorical posture.

        Higgins began blogging in 2012, providing a consistent flow of ammunition for the regime change projects in Syria, Libya and Ukraine.

      • Brendan
        May 21, 2015 at 17:04

        There’s also a “fact-check” from the same “investigative team” to prove that MH17 was shot down by the rebels or Russians, and not the Ukrainian army. In English on the website of Deutsche Welle, Germany’s state-subsidised international broadcaster. Unfortunately, not a single one of the ‘facts’ stands up to scrutiny.

        • Abe
          May 21, 2015 at 19:48

          Agreed, Brendan. The Deutsche Welle fact-check is inaccurate in each and every one of its four points. I will post a detailed analysis.

    • Abe
      May 21, 2015 at 16:37

      Higgins and Bellingcat are in bed with the Atlantic Council, an august group managed by:
      Michael Hayden (Board member) – CIA Director 2006–2009
      Robert Gates (Honorary Director) – CIA Director 1991–1993
      Leon Panetta (Honorary Director) – CIA Director 2009–2011
      William Webster (Honorary Director) – CIA Director 1987–1991

  19. martin
    May 20, 2015 at 20:52

    ALL Australian mainstream media is a closed shop and captive to the wishes of our second-rate politicians who wield ultimate power (Murdoch influenced), over who has the right to be heard at the national level. Consequently, it is populated by mostly second rate journalists who repeat the garbage spewed out by programs such as this 60 minutes episode. Any dissenting voices are promptly ‘run off’ (sacked) and therefore lose their livelihood such as the recent case of Scott McIntyre who recently commented truthfully on the history of the ANZAC story – check it out.

    It should be plain to all who have a brain bigger than the size of a grapefruit that if the powers that be can’t release relevant data over MH17 such as flight control comms and black box recordings immediately as in the case of the Germanwings crash then they almost certainly have something to hide. The Australian case is compounded by our leading politicians on all sides coming out immediately following the crash blaming the Russians without a skerrick of real evidence to back their claims – they are a disgrace to the nation.

    Kudos to Robert Parry for pointing out the obvious.

    A better medium for balanced Australian news can be found at for those interested.

    • PHIL R
      May 21, 2015 at 15:29

      Exactly Martin! The Australian MSM is just appalling!

  20. Stefan
    May 20, 2015 at 18:36

    Part of my profession is to reconstruct 2D to spatial 3D, based on well established mathematical algorithms and equations, through sophisticated software for this purpose.

    Through eyeballing the data itself, I am almost certain the two locations are different. Only an amateur would claim that these images depict one location.

    I would never be able to reconstruct the image as to have it fit the proposed location, and if I get to it, I will do a reconstruction as to provide strong evidence for the discrepancy.

    • Michael
      May 23, 2015 at 13:06

      Please do, because it looks to me as if the heights of the two billboards from the ground are clearly inconsistent, and I see a rising landscape to the rear in the original but none in the Aussie photo.

      • Brendan
        May 23, 2015 at 14:01

        “I see a rising landscape to the rear in the original but none in the Aussie photo.”
        The road is an overpass over the end of a motorway. The two different images could have different slopes because they were shot on different parts of the road.

        “it looks to me as if the heights of the two billboards from the ground are clearly inconsistent”
        The pole for the billboard is on its left and shared with its twin billboard (see the photo above of the billboard across the street as an example). That means that the pole is out of sight in the Buk video, so you can’t really judge its height above the ground. The billboard might look lower down than it really is because of the angle of the shot.

  21. Gregory Kruse
    May 20, 2015 at 17:53

    Australian “60 Minutes”: We manipulate; you decide.

  22. Yuri Orlow
    May 20, 2015 at 17:20

    My apologies to “Current Affair” which was named in my previous email – I meant “60 minutes”. Having said that, however, both programs are tarred with the same brush – small wonder that I confused the two names – but credit must go where credit is due, and THIS prize for the latest great lie and whitewash definitely belongs to “60 minutes.” Perhaps another time, “Current Affair.”?

  23. Yuri Orlow
    May 20, 2015 at 17:15

    It is patently obvious to any thinking person in my country, Australia, that “Current Affair” is a joke, and a slur on the profession of journalism. Almost certainly tied in with Rupert Murdoch’s agenda. Perhaps this article by Consortiumnews should be sent to a very good TV segment in Australia called “Media Watch”, on ABC TV, manned by ethical journalists and others who are in the business of exposing idiots like those on “Current Affair.” It would be great to see the work of Cons. on our screens in OZ as opposed to the other daily garbage.

    • Phil R
      May 20, 2015 at 18:09

      I get that same impression Abe.
      I’m starting to sense a slight shift in the USA’s position. They were opposed to the whole Minsk 2 accord, weren’t part of it and apparently were very disparaging of Germany and France for being involved.
      Now Kerry is saying it’s the only way forward and that Poroshenco would be ill advised to re ignite hostilities?????
      It looks to me like the USA has painted themselves into a corner.
      Their European allies are unlikely to engage in a war with Russia over Ukraine.
      If they fully back Ukraine and mobilise their forces to ethnically cleanse Ukraine so that new elections can be held free from any significant pro Russian vote, Putin will step in as he has said he will.
      America is most likely to back down in my view. If they do that they will have to do something about the regime they have put in place, it is an embarrassment to them.
      In that case I would not be at all surprised to see the USA burn Poroschenko and Yatsenyuk and the whole rotten lot of them!
      Some ” new evidence ” in the case of MH 17 might surface then that points the finger of blame at the Ukranian regime.

  24. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 17:10


    On 30 July, 2014 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.


    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.

    At free fall speed, an object takes 23.65 seconds to fall 9000 feet (2743 meters).

    Add forward momentum and wind resistance and the MH-17 aircraft would have been visible above the clouds for a minimum of 23 seconds after an attack.

    Ample time for satellites to record the demise of MH-17.

    Yet not one single photographic image of the doomed aircraft above one of the most continuously monitored areas of the planet.


    The shifting narrative about MH-17 has been a Saint Vitus Dance performed in order to direct attention away from the most likely suspects: the Ukrainian Air Force.

    Here’s what we can reasonably assume based on the available evidence and various scenarios presented:

    If MH-17 was shot down by a BUK-1 M-1 surface-to-air missile, most likely it was launched from a Ukrainian missile launcher, NOT a Russian missile launcher.

    If MH-17 was shot down by a Ukrainian BUK-1 M-1 surface-to-air missile, most likely it was NOT fired by an autonomous mobile launch vehicle manned by pro-Russian separatists, but by a full BUK-1 missile system complex including a target acquisition radar vehicle, a command vehicle, and a launcher vehicle manned by trained Ukrainian Air Force operators.

    If MH-17 was downed by a military aircraft, most likely it was a Ukrainian Air Force jet using 30 mm cannon, air-to-air missiles, or some combination thereof.

    In the face of reason, all the US, the EU, and Ukraine can do is scream, “It was the Russians and/or the separatists!” and hope no one notices the obvious.

    Suffice it to say, the prime suspect for the downing of MH-17 remains the Ukrainian Air Force (regardless of whose command it was following), not Russia or the eastern Ukraine opposition forces.

    • Abe
      May 20, 2015 at 17:21

      Thus far the Russians have withheld their direct satellite images of the death of MH-17, generously offering Washington an out from this obviously insane charade. Perhaps we’ll see some scapegoat shoved forward and summarily dispatched.

  25. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 16:18

    According to clear satellite images provided, on July 16th, the Ukrainian Army positioned 3-4 anti-aircraft BUK M1 SAM missile batteries close to Donetsk. These systems included full launching, loading and radio location units, located in the immediate vicinity of the MH17 crash site. One system was placed approximately 8km northwest of Lugansk. In addition, a radio location system for these Ukrainian Army missile batteries is situated 5km north of Donetsk. On July 17th, the day of the incident, these batteries were moved to a position 8km south of Shahktyorsk. In addition to this, two other radio location units are also identified in the immediate vicinity. These SAM systems had a range of 35km distance, and 25km altitude.

    From July 18th, after the downing of MH17, Kiev’s BUK launchers were then moved away from the firing zone.

    Unlike rebel fighters, the Ukrainian military is in possession of some 27 BUK missile systems capable of bringing down high-flying jets, and forensic satellite imagery places at least 3 of their launchers in the Donetsk region on the day of this tragedy. Yet, Washington and NATO will not inquire about the possibility that any of these system had targeted MH17.

    Although the exact altitude position of MH17 is not yet know for every given second of its final minutes, it’s clear that a Ukrainian combat jet was in its shadow. Suffice to say, Kiev had a number of combat aircraft capable of engaging MH17 at within a wide range of altitudes, as well as firing air-to-air missile at short range (3-5km)either upwards, or downward angles using laser guided targeting which is standard on many of these models.

    Another Smoking Gun: Kiev government officials insisted on July 17th that, “No military aircraft were available in the region”. Based on available data detailed above, this appears to be a lie, indicating that a cover-up was taking place.

    Again, it’s important to note here that at the moment when MH17 was allegedly was hit for the first time, at around 5:23pm Moscow time, the passenger jet was also within the range of several Ukrainian BUK batteries deployed close to Donetsk and as well as the Ukrainian Army’s BUK system positioned on the day just 8km south of Shakhterskoye, only a few miles from the eventual crash site at Grabovo.

    MH17 Verdict: Real Evidence Points to US-Kiev Cover-up of Failed False Flag

  26. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 16:12

    Two major propaganda canards have been feverishly peddled by the mainstream media in recent weeks:

    1) allegations against Syrian president Bashir Assad that the Syrian government used so-called “barrel bombs” against opposition forces

    2) allegations against Russian president Vladimir Putin that a Russian Buk-1 missile launcher (operated by a Russian crew or pro-Russian separatists) shot down flight MH-17 over eastern Ukraine

    In both propaganda efforts, disinformation source Eliot Higgins, pseudonym Brown Moses, has jumped to the fore.

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

    As noted by journalist Phil Greaves:

    Bloggers such as Higgins promoting themselves as working from an impartial standpoint are actually nothing of the sort and work in complete unison with mainstream journalists and western NGO’s – both in a practical capacity, and an ideological one. As noted at the Land Destroyer blog and others; Higgins was initially pushed into the limelight by the Guardians’ former Middle East editor Brian Whitaker, a “journalist” with the honour of being a lead proponent of almost every smear campaign and piece of western propaganda directed at the Syrian government, while wholeheartedly promoting the Bin Ladenite “rebels” as secular feminist freedom fighters and repeatedly spouting the liberal opportunist mantra of western military “action”, which realistically means Imperialist military intervention. Whitaker and Higgins played a lead role in bolstering corporate media’s fantasy narratives throughout the joint NATO-Al Qaeda insurgency in Libya during 2011, with many of the anti-Gaddafi claims they propagated subsequently proven to be speculative at best, outright propaganda at worst.

    Syria: Media Disinformation, War Propaganda and the Corporate Media’s “Independent Bloggers”
    By Phil Greaves

  27. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 15:52

    Eliot Higgins is a deception operative.

    Higgins’ analyses of the August 21st 2013 chemical attack in Syria have been thoroughly discredited.

    All evidence relating to the chemical attack in Syria indicates it was carried out by opposition forces.

    For extensive analyses see

  28. Ron
    May 20, 2015 at 14:07

    Just as in the lead-up to the Iraq war, it seems in this case farming out propaganda work helps to make a lie exists throughout the world and thus seem true.

  29. They Knew
    May 20, 2015 at 14:04

    In this picture you can see a part of the MH-17 fuselage as it is sited at Gilze-Rijen airbase, the Netherlands. Anyone who can find a single sign of shrapnel damage due to a BUK missile, please raise your hand!

    Greetz from a Dutch guy.

  30. Joe L.
    May 20, 2015 at 13:57

    Is it me or does this remind anyone else when the US Government, Ukrainian Government, and news publications such as the New York Times were claiming that photos of “Bearded Men” were exactly the same and that this was proof that Russia was invading Ukraine – even though the bearded men did not even look remotely alike. Of course, the New York Times wrote a retraction not on its’ front page but instead on page 9, I believe. Robert Parry is right to question these images because if this is the exact same area, I don’t think that it would have been difficult to recreate the original July 17th image but instead 60 Minutes shows a totally different image and tell us to “trust them”.

    Bearded Men images:

  31. Abe
    May 20, 2015 at 13:48

    The recent Australian news / Higgins imbroglio is a red herring (most likely a media prelude for Kiev’s offensive operations in Donbass).

    The presence of Ukrainian Air Force planes in the sky above Donetsk on 17 July grossly complicates any claim 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.”

    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.

    Ukrainian military aircraft were identified 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.

    Nonetheless, if we assume that MH-17 was destroyed by a Buk-1 missile, the most reasonable explanation is that the perpetrators belonged to the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force.

  32. bfearn
    May 20, 2015 at 13:23

    I think it is usually a mistake to assume that the mainstream media is trying to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    JFK, MLK, Pan Am 103, MH 370, TWA800, Waco TX, Murrah Fed building, Iraq WMD, Iran nukes and good old 9/11, etc. etc.

  33. Tom Welsh
    May 20, 2015 at 13:16

    Rather like the rumours that went around London during WW1 that Russian soldiers had landed from troopships. Asked how they knew the soldiers were Russian, wtinesses notoriously replied that “they had snow on their boots”.

  34. Brendan
    May 20, 2015 at 13:13

    The “60 Minutes” producer admits in his 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 also 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 on the other side of the road (see the photo in Robert Parry’s article).

    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 along the road (to the right of the right hand billboard). 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.

    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 images near 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 sense of self-awareness by calling Robert Parry’s piece “embarassing even for his level of journalism”

  35. F. G. Sanford
    May 20, 2015 at 13:11

    The discrepancy is easy to explain. In the first image, the billboard is viewed from a tall building overlooking the crime scene. In the second image, the billboard is viewed from the grassy knoll. It is obvious that the shooting trajectory from the tall building was very difficult. It was partially obscured by trees in the path of the almost magical camera angle. But that picture couldn’t have been shot from the grassy knoll, because the shot had to come from behind the billboard. In the original picture, this is clearly the case. Mr. Usher merely tried to present his viewers with a clearer view of the billboard, which was obviously easier to visualize from the front, even though the original picture was shot from the book dep…er, the tall building. But on another note, has anyone seen the image of the three seconds edited from CNN footage on the MH-17 crash site? A guy bends down and picks something up. It’s round, about 3.5 inches long and about 1.125 inches in diameter. One end was pointy. Now, I’ve never actually seen a 30mm cannon projectile in person, but I imagine that’s what they look like.

    • Joe L.
      May 20, 2015 at 13:43

      I’m sorry but there are just too many discrepancies between the two images. Why can’t I see the second billboard to the right of the other one? There are so many wires and other poles visible in the newer image than the old one. And if this is the same area then why didn’t they simply recreate it, create the slam dunk for their documentary? At the very least this is “very sloppy” work if they truly wanted to prove that the BUK Missile System was in this area. Please also don’t tell me that it would have been difficult to recreate the original image, if they truly are in the same area. I am a graphic designer by trade and often have to recreate angles, lighting etc. to do Photoshop work on an image often replacing one image with another. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy… and this leads me to discount the 60 minutes story because they could have taken a few minutes to create their slam dunk image but instead they leave images behind which are up for speculation – this makes me question the validity of what they are claiming.

      • F. G. Sanford
        May 20, 2015 at 14:17

        Joe, read my comment again. The sarcasm disclaimer really shouldn’t be necessary. Obviously, Usher’s version of the story is totally bogus. But the CNN part is actually true.

        • Joe L.
          May 20, 2015 at 14:29

          Sorry about not getting the sarcasm. Sometimes when I use sarcasm in e-mail it can be misconstrued. Overall I just find this all very fishy. If 60 Minutes truly was in the right area, it is unthinkable that they would not recreate the original image to drive their story home – the fact that they didn’t leads to credulity problems with their overarching assertions and Mr. Parry is very right in questioning their claims.

          Overall the MH-17 story is a tragedy regardless of whom is responsible for shooting it down – the Ukrainian Military, the rebels, or Russia. This is definitely not the first time that something like this has happened, I believe the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean flight or something like that years ago and the US shot down an Iranian flight as well. Seems to be a lot of speculation into this flight though and I am guessing that is much more than probably the other flights combined. I just wonder if we will ever really know the truth once the investigation has concluded. Since the assertions that Russia was guilty of shooting down MH-17 even before any investigation had even begun does make me wonder if we are seeing a “Wag the Dog” type fabrication where evidence is shaped around a fictional narrative.

          But hey, I believe that all of this started with the US/EU pulling off a coup in Ukraine but for most of our MSM sadly the story started with Crimea – irrespective of history.

    • Abe
      May 20, 2015 at 14:17

      Magical Camera Angle:

      I have this feeling man, ’cause you know, it’s just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that’s true, it’s provable. It’s not … I’m not a fucking conspiracy nut, it’s provable.

      A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media.

      I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there.

      And you’re in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, “Roll the film.” And it’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it’s from the grassy knoll.

      And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, “Any questions?” “Er, just what my agenda is.” “First we bomb Baghdad.” “You got it …”

      – Bill Hicks

  36. May 20, 2015 at 12:58

    To add to Bryan Hemming’s post, I would like to re-post the following from a previous thread:

    Just so that everyone understands the quality of bellingcat’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.

  37. May 20, 2015 at 12:48

    Eliot Higgins, who blogs as ‘Brown Moses’ on a site called Bellingcat, has a bit of a history. Despite being quoted as an expert anallyst by newspapers such as The Independent and The Guardian, he is known fo producing this sort of stuff. I wrote a little about Bellingcat, and its backers, on my blog last September.

  38. Joe L.
    May 20, 2015 at 12:31

    One other thing that I find interesting when I look at the two images is that if the reporter is standing beyond the trees or bushes then should he be covered in shadow? Look at the angle of the sunlight on his face and arm, this would suggest that if he was standing beyond the trees that the sun is somewhere behind those bushes or trees – if we are to believe that 60 Minutes took the shot in the exact same area. At the very least this is very questionable journalism since if they wanted the slam dunk then they could have “easily” recreated the original setup of July 17. The fact that they didn’t or could not suggests that they were either not in the right area or this is amateur hour.

    As a graphic designer, I have had to replace product items in a group shot – for instance replacing a can of corn with a can of beans. I take my camera and recreate the exact angle, lighting etc. of the can and then place it in over top of the original can so that for the average person they would not be able to tell that the new can did not belong in the shot. If this news team was in the exact spot as July 17th then they were extremely sloppy not to recreate the July 17th image – angles, lens and all.

    • Phil
      May 21, 2015 at 18:57

      I appreciate you’re not a forensic expert but I’d be interested in your take on the Paris Match photo. You see anything odd in it?

      • Erik S
        May 24, 2015 at 02:54

        Although not invited I dare say: Scale, proportion, angle, perspective, focus, exposure, overlay…. everything is wrong with the Paris Match photo. Possibly ID marks on the launcher also have been blurred?

        I suspect that the launcher image in itself may be found with its original background somewhere else on the web. Probably as a still taken from video.

  39. Joe L.
    May 20, 2015 at 12:16

    To me, the two images don’t even look remotely alike which kind of reminds me when the media was trying to tell us that “bearded men” were the same in two different photos to supposedly prove that Russia was invading Ukraine. Then the photos were debunked and the New York Times wrote a retraction.

    Look at the photos, in the July 17th photo there are a bunch of trees and the billboard is much larger which suggests to me that it is a closer photo plus I don’t see the other signage to the right of the billboard (as the other image has). If this truly was the same area then wouldn’t the reporter be standing before a bunch of trees, there would not be a bunch of poles, nor would there be the signage to the right of the image. If this truly was the correct area then why didn’t 60 Minutes Australia recreate the exact image so that there would not be any question? To me, these areas look totally different unless trees were ripped out, poles were added, and alternate signage was added to the right of the original signage since last July – I highly doubt that. The only thing that I think that they did get right is that the angle of the billboard looks the same.

    Seems to me that this is another case of “bearded men”!

  40. M.Suithoff
    May 20, 2015 at 11:58

    These billboards are completely different , the first one is supported in the middle the second at both ends.

    • May 20, 2015 at 12:10

      Although Robert may have a point,about the location. If you look at the footage you will see that the post that appears to be supporting the billboard is in fact separate. From the angle of the still photograph it does look like the billboard has a leg support attached at the end. But if you watch the footage you will see the truck passes behind the billboard and infront of the ‘support leg’, this demonstrates they are not joined.

    • Brendan
      May 20, 2015 at 12:43

      That’s not a supporting pole, it’s a lamp post much further back on lower ground. It can be located in a satellite photo.

    • Michael
      May 23, 2015 at 12:44

      They’re at different heights from the ground as well. Poles don’t correspond either.

      • Michael
        May 23, 2015 at 12:47

        And isn’t the landscape to the rear rising in the original and not in the latter?

Comments are closed.