More Video Fakery on MH-17

Exclusive: Australia’s “60 Minutes” program refuses to admit the obvious: that it messed up in determining the location where the “getaway” video was taken after last July’s Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down. Instead, the show presented an update with more deceptive video, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

After being caught red-handed presenting misleading video about the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down, Australia’s “60 Minutes” program could have acknowledged its obvious error and apologized to its viewers. Instead, the program has resorted to hurling insults toward me for noting the discrepancies and engaging in more video sleights-of-hand to compound the journalistic malfeasance.

In an update posted on YouTube on May 24, the program’s host Michael Usher acknowledged that the original amateur video of a possible BUK anti-aircraft missile battery after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of MH-17 did not match up with the program’s video attempting to replicate that scene in the eastern Ukrainian city of Luhansk.

But Usher insisted that was just because his crew couldn’t get access to the location where the “getaway” video was shot. He dismissed the obvious differences as simply a case of using a different camera angle.

Yet, then, Usher pulled two fast ones on his viewers. The first was to present a view of the intersection in Luhansk taken by a traffic camera “just before the shooting” and then matching it up with video taken by his crew. Usher noted that his crew’s video contained many of the same landmarks, including a church in the background.

But that’s irrelevant to the question of whether the July 17 “getaway” video matched up with the same intersection. Usher is trying to trick you as in a shell game by pretending that the fact that he and his crew found a scene matching what you see in a traffic camera is the same as finding the scene matching the “getaway.” They’re two entirely different points and nothing significant in the “getaway” video matches the scene of Usher’s intersection.

Usher then moved to his second sleight-of-hand by showing the one thing that supposedly does match up: a non-descript utility pole. In the update, he claimed that his crew found that matching pole along the roadway in Luhansk. Yet, except for some unexceptional electronic device strapped to the pole there is nothing else that looks the same.

Indeed, the key landmark in that part of the “getaway” video is a house in the background to the left of the pole. But Usher’s video doesn’t show a house. Instead, Usher’s video added an insert showing the pole from the “getaway” video that conveniently obscures the spot where the house should be.

At this point, one has to wonder how premeditated Usher’s manipulation of the program’s viewers has become. You would think that showing the house would have been the slam dunk proof that Usher’s crew did find the right location. Instead, the program obscures exactly that spot.

Also, in the long-range view from the traffic camera, what you see is a commercial intersection with no house matching the house in the “getaway” video. The “getaway” scene after the MH-17 shoot-down clearly depicts a much woodsier setting than Usher’s intersection.

And, look at the two images of the poles and the surrounding areas. Except for the fairly routine electronic devices strapped to the poles, there really isn’t anything that looks the same. Below the pole in the “getaway” video there appears to be one band, yet in Usher’s there appear to be two. And, note the intense foliage to the right of the pole in the “getaway” video. It’s not there in Usher’s scene.

Yet, as Usher’s update rushes these images past the viewers, it’s hard for them to grasp all the quick editing moves that seem designed to deceive them. These deceptions are what Usher offers to seal the deal with his viewers.

Those camera tricks and the flurry of smug insults delivered by Usher (referring to skeptics of his presentation as “Kremlin stooges” and “Russian puppets”) reveal a newsman and a news show that are less than objective or professional.

If Usher had real evidence showing that he had found the spot where the “getaway” video was taken, why did he include something as irrelevant as the traffic-camera video while pretending that it was somehow probative, when it wasn’t?

And, why is his key evidence a non-descript pole that sits on a roadway that doesn’t match with the scene in the “getaway” video? And, why did his producers insert that “helpful” inset that obscures what would have been the only meaningful landmark in the “pole scene” the house that doesn’t appear to be there?

Initially, I had thought that blogger Eliot Higgins simply had given Usher and his team bad coordinates and they had made a serious but honest mistake. Generally, in journalism, before we accuse someone of mass murder even a demonized figure like Russian President Vladimir Putin we like to have real evidence, not misleading images. [See’s “Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?” and “You Be the Judge.”]

I had assumed that Usher and his team may just have gotten overly excited and jumped to a faulty conclusion. However, with the update and the additional fakery it now appears that they are engaged in a willful fraud.

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.

85 comments for “More Video Fakery on MH-17

  1. cracked
    May 30, 2015 at 17:44

    The poles are not the same at all. The original one is circular. The others have been cut with hexagon cross section.

  2. CodyJoeBibby
    May 28, 2015 at 13:34

    The Atlantic Council praises “the ingenuity of our key partner in this endeavor, Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat. The information documented in this report draws on open source data using innovative socialmedia forensics and geolocation”.

    They are right there, the geolocation is nothing if not innovative.

  3. Abe
    May 28, 2015 at 12:40


    Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat are at the center of a Propaganda 3.0 disinformation campaign by the Pentagon and Western intelligence.

    The Atlantic Council, a security policy think tank, has released a pdf report online titled, “Hiding In Plain Sight: Putin’s War in Ukraine”.

    Eliot Higgins, key author of the report, is listed as a Visiting Research Associate at the Department of War Studies at the King’s College in London, UK.

    On page 1 of the report, the Atlantic Council acknowledges Higgins’ central role in advancing the Pentagon and Western intelligence disinformation campaign.

    The Atlantic Council praises “the ingenuity of our key partner in this endeavor, Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat. The information documented in this report draws on open source data using innovative socialmedia forensics and geolocation”.

    The Atlantic Council report claim that “Russia is at war with Ukraine” and is summarized in the following key statement on page 8:

    “Separatist forces have been relying on a steady flow of Russian supplies, including heavy weapons such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and advanced anti-aircraft systems, including the Buk surface-to-air missile system (NATO designator SA-11/17) that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014. 26”

    The Atlantic Council’s claim that Russia supplied a Buk missile that shot down MH-17 has a single footnote. Footnote 26 directs the reader to the Bellingcat website and a pdf report by Higgins titled “MH-17: Source of the Separatist’s Buk”.

    On page 3 of the November 2014 Bellingcat report, Higgins claims:

    “It is the opinion of the Bellingcat MH17 investigation team that there is undeniable evidence that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on July 17th and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne on a transporter. The Buk missile launcher was unloaded in Snizhne approximately three hours before the downing of MH17 and was later filmed minus one missile driving through separatist-controlled Luhansk.

    “The Bellingcat MH17 investigation team also believes the same Buk was part of a convoy travelling from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade in Kursk to near the Ukrainian border as part of a training exercise between June 22nd and July 25th, with elements of the convoy separating from the main convoy at some point during that period, including the Buk missile launcher filmed in Ukraine on July 17th. There is strong evidence indicating that the Russian military provided separatists in eastern Ukraine with the Buk missile launcher filmed and photographed in eastern Ukraine on July 17th.”

    Higgins’ claim of “undeniable evidence” (November 2014 report by Higgins) have become the Atlantic Council’s claim that “pieces of evidence create an undeniable—
    and publicly accessible—record” (May 2015 report by Atlantic Council).

    Higgins is a deception operative.

    Higgins “fact checks” the disinformation produced by the Pentagon and Western intelligence regime, rubber stamps it with the Bellingcat “digital forensics” seal of approval.

    This is what Propaganda 3.0 looks like.

    Founded in 1961 at the height of Cold War, the Atlantic Council is managed by a Who’s Who of Pentagon and Western intelligence, including:

    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
    In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama’s new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel.

    In addition, Atlantic Council members Susan Rice left to serve as the administration’s ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke became the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Eric K. Shinseki became the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Anne-Marie Slaughter became Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

    Senator Chuck Hagel stepped down in 2013 to serve as US Secretary of Defense. Gen. Brent Scowcroft served as interim chairman of the organization’s Board of Directors until January 2014.

    The Atlantic Council has influential supporters such as former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh (Fogh of War”) Rasmussen, who called the Council a “pre-eminent think tank” with a “longstanding reputation”. In 2009, the Atlantic Council hosted Rasmussen’s first major US speech.

    The Atlantic Council hosts events with US policymakers such as Secretary of State John Kerry, and sitting heads of state and government such as former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in 2008, and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in 2014.

    The Atlantic Council hosts military leaders at its Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. Its Commanders Series includes talks by former General George Casey and former Admiral Timothy Keating.

    • NoMoreWar
      May 29, 2015 at 00:10

      When I started reading your comment, I thought you were going to provide some evidence that one or more parts of Eliot’s analysis were flawed, or contain a mistake.

      Like the evidence Eliot presents that Russia has been shelling thousands of rounds of GRAD and Tornado, and artillery over the border into Ukraine on multiple occasions.
      Or the evidence that Eliot presents that Russian military vehicles (including Pantsir and the infamous BUK 3×2) are found inside Eastern Ukraine.

      Not to mention the tracking of Russian soldiers who fought and died in Eastern Ukraine.

      But instead you just gave a political analysis of the background of the Atlantic Council and a couple of unfounded ad hominem opinions (such as “Higgins is a deception operative.”).

      Disappointing, really.

      • Abe
        May 29, 2015 at 12:36

        Higgins is the back door man for all the Pentagon and Western intelligence tripe that could never make it through the front door.

      • Abe
        May 29, 2015 at 14:18

        NoMoreWar just gave us a neat recitation of Atlantic Council talking points from their recent Propaganda 3.0 report, full of fake “evidence” supplied by Higgins, Bellingcat and clones.

      • Abe
        May 29, 2015 at 15:15

        My description of Higgins as a deception operative is based on an accurate analysis of what he does, not an opinion about who he is.

        Therefore, my description of Higgins, Bellingcat and clones as deception operatives is not ad hominem argument.

    • Abe
      May 29, 2015 at 12:33

      Whenever one piece of Higgins fakery is exposed, he shifts to another.

      That you, “Eliot”?

  4. quelconque
    May 28, 2015 at 10:37

    Once one strips away the emotive soundtrack, the interviews with relatives of victims, the stock footage and the half-baked assumptions there’s really not much of substance left. Just lot’s of questions….

    If we put aside the problems of forensic evidence – I mean proper ‘professional’ forensic evidence – and accept that all the video presented is relevant to the case, there is still the yawning lack of an explanation as to why the early analysis of the images focuses on the markings – 3×5 or whatever it was, but later, when we are apparently seeing only the right side of the BUK in later images, there appear to be no markings, and the issue is disregarded. Are we supposed to take their word for it that it’s the same launcher? Was there only one in the area at the time? How do we know?

    We see an image of a BUK going south in Snizhne – that seems verifiable – but we don’t know which BUK it is and the field that it supposedly goes into to fire a missile is difficult to identify. The ‘Why else would it be going out there’ clearly doesn’t work. And even if it were true that a BUK missile was fired near Snizhne and viewed from Torez, which seems to have been debunked long ago, why would it then be taken back into Luhansk for the photo op the following morning when the more obvious route would have been to travel north from Snizhne and then go east on the E50 or E40 and avoid Luhansk altogether?

    Even if it had gone up to Luhansk, there’s no easy explanation for why it would have ended up travelling SE on that particular road which is way off it’s route.

    If it’s true that the transporter was heading SE on the stretch of road identified in the programme, it would seem reasonable to think we would be able to identify the small tarmac road on the right hand side, at right angles to the main road, with trees on either side and a utilities pole on the south east corner of that entrance, which can be seen in the video. There appears to be nothing, in any online satellite imagery I can find, in the vicinity of Luhansk cathedral on the south side of the road, or either side for that matter, that fits that description.

    In any case, we still have no way to confirm that even those two images are of the same vehicle. And we still have no clue who is driving the transporter or the BUK, so we are no nearer an answer unless we accept the assertion that the transporter is unique in the area and was stolen by rebels. More questions.

    But the thing I find most curious is the photo (at 18.52) of the piece of the fuselage with many holes in it (with red and blue livery). A similar photo with the piece of wreckage leaning against a concrete pole was circulating on the internet last year, but shot from a different angle. At that time the presenter in the video says “Shrapnel marks clearly evident when we filmed the wreckage at the crash site.” But what they are showing are photographs, not filmed footage. Are we to believe that the Dutch investigators left these pieces of fuselage at the site? If they were still there when the 60 Minutes crew went to film, why didn’t they film them? Why use photographs?

    • NoMoreWar
      May 29, 2015 at 01:10

      quelconque said “Was there only one in the area at the time? How do we know?”

      That is key, and an excellent question.

      From the evidence that is publicly available, there is actually evidence of 2 BUK systems in reach of downing MH17 on the 17th of July.

      One is BUK 3×2 on that trailer of that Volvo, moving from Donetsk to Snizhne on the morning of the 17th, documented by multiple videos, pictures and eye witness accounts.

      Another one is a BUK on airbase A-1428 for which the Russian Defense Ministry provided this satellite image as evidence that it was there on at least July 14 :

      If you know of more BUKs evidenced around July 17, in reach of downing MH17, please let me know.

    • Abe
      May 29, 2015 at 12:42

      Yes, there were complete Buk missile systems with active radar on the Ukrainian side of the line. The Russians have shown that.

      The Ukrainians want to focus on billboards and fabricated “evidence”.

      Keep it coming.

  5. NoMoreWar
    May 28, 2015 at 03:59

    Parry, did you just fake a screenshot ?

    “A screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes” update supposedly showing a utility pole in the “getaway” video….”

    That blue sign on the pole on the right, with the red cyrillic letters is NOT visible anywhere in the “60 minutes” update video….

    You just put that in yourself, didn’t you ?

    • CodyJoeBibby
      May 28, 2015 at 04:15

      the blue sign is visible at 2:56 on the update video.

      Parry’s shot is taken from the video.

      • NoMoreWar
        May 28, 2015 at 04:43

        At 2:56 in the update video
        we see Parry’s picture with the faked blue sign.

        Talking about a circular argument.

        • CodyJoeBibby
          May 28, 2015 at 04:55

          That’s not Parry’s photo. Parry doest have any photos of his own.

          That’s 60 Minutes shot of the power pole with the one with the blue sign in the background.

          • NoMoreWar
            May 28, 2015 at 10:49

            You are right about the screenshot. I’m sorry.
            It was late last night.

          • NoMoreWar
            May 29, 2015 at 00:55

            Robert Parry, my apologies.
            I was mistaken about that screenshot and was premature in blaming you of “faking” it.

    • Abe
      May 28, 2015 at 10:54

      The Bellingcat fanboys, which include Washington and EU “policy makers”, are easily boggled by Higgins’ “open source intelligence analysis” (aka mischief with Google maps and digital image manipulation).

      Higgins’ charade provides Propaganda 3.0 cover for “foreign and security policymaking”.

      • CodyJoeBibby
        May 28, 2015 at 13:22

        how can Eliot Higgins who speaks no Russian or Arabic, conduct social media investigations in Russian or Arabic media?

        that’s another question.

  6. Abe
    May 27, 2015 at 19:51

    On July 24, 2014, Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat in claimed to have “Compelling Evidence Russia Lied About the Buk Linked to MH17”

    The July 21 briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defence contained the following statement:

    “media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11”

    Higgins claimed that “images from a variety of sources strongly suggested this was a clear case of deception by the Russian Defence Ministry”.

    Investigation may prove that the Russian government was in error about the location of the video, but that does not prove a “clear case of deception” or that the Russians were “lying”.

    Higgins did not accuse Arsen Avakov of a “clear case of deception” when he posted the video from “covert surveillance units” of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and Ukrainian Ministry of Interior.

    Higgins did not accuse the Ukrainians of “lying” when they claimed the vehicle was “moving in the direction through Krasnodon”.

    Higgins and Bellingcat spun a possible minor error on the part of the Russians into a wholesale rejection of the Russian data.

    Other accusations made by Higgins and Bellingcat against the Russian Defence Ministry briefing may be dispensed with ease.

    Relying on fake “fact checkers” like Higgins and Bellingcat, Western media and government officials have refused to examine the Russian data.

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 20:09

      Check the comments at

      The Bellingcat fanboys are really screaming now.

      Hilarity ensues.

    • Abe
      May 28, 2015 at 11:04

      Paul – May 27th, 2015

      Hi Elliot,
      I lost my parents in the MH17 tragedy.

      Thanks for exposing this one. Robert Parry is doing everyone a great disservice by accusing 60 Minutes of fakery without carefully checking the images.

      It might be helpful to show people this image, which is a photo of the location that shows three different features from the BUK video which are clearly identifiable:
      htt ps://i.img FFw .jpg
      (original image taken from ht tp://static.panor 158.jpg)
      One of these features is the power pole with the distinctive box feature shown in the 60 Minutes rebuttal.
      The video was clearly taken from a slightly lower perspective than the still photo, through trees close to the apartment building.

      Paul Guard


      bellingcatadmin – May 27th, 2015

      Hi, thanks for your comment, I’m currently working on a more detailed post on the Luhansk Buk video that will clearly show the original Buk video was filmed in Luhansk, that 60 Minutes visited that location, and that the Russian MoD lied about the video in their July 21st MH17 press conference, and that Robert Parry is clearly wrong in his accusations against 60 Minutes. We’ll also be publishing an article on Sunday evening showing another example of the Russian MoD lying in their July 21st press conference, to the point of fabricating evidence.


      Paul – May 27th, 2015

      Sounds good, Eliot, thanks.

      Robert Johnson – May 27th, 2015

      Will there be any new material or will this be based on the same photos of Luhansk already seen?

      Wouldn’t it be better for someone just to visit the location and put the controversy to rest once and for all by filming all around it?


      bellingcatadmin – May 27th, 2015

      Part of the piece is looking at the images produced by the 3 groups who have visited the area since July 17th, which includes the Luhansk local who took photographs there, Correctiv, and 60 Minutes Australia.

    • NoMoreWar
      May 29, 2015 at 00:44

      From your comment, the Russian Defense Ministry said : “..This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street…”

      But is was NOT taken in Krasnoarmeisk. It was taken in Luhansk.

      So the Russian Defense Ministry was mistaken, and on this grave matter therefore “deceptive” at best and lying at worst (if the really had no clue where this video was taken).

      But even worse, the Russian Defense Ministry did not provide evidence that the billboard is “advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street”.
      In fact, Pictures from locals show that the billboard does NOT mention 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street at all.

      So the Russian Defense Ministry simply verifiably LIED about that billboard on that intersection in Luhansk.

      Robert Parry, can you let that sink in for a second ?

  7. Abe
    May 27, 2015 at 19:04

    According to the the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, there were Ukrainian Air Force planes in the sky above Donetsk, and there was increased activity of Ukrainian 9S18 Kupol-M1 radar of the Buk missile system in the immediate area where MH-17 crashed on July 17, 2014.

    The information was presented at a special briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defence on July 21, 2014

    If correct, this information grossly complicates any claim that a BUK-M1 / SA-11 “Gadfly” Surface-to-Air Missile was launched by Russia or separatist forces in Ukraine.

    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 July 23, 2014, 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.

    The Russians identified Ukrainian military aircraft in the airspace near MH-17.

    Ukrainian Air Force jets would have been the proximal targets for an autonomous BUK-1 missile launch.

    Therefore, if we assume that MH-17 was destroyed by a Buk-1 missile (a scenario that has not been proven), then the most reasonable explanation for that scenario is that the perpetrators belonged to the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force, who used their BUK-1 radar and command components to avoid destroying their own aircraft.

    • NoMoreWar
      May 29, 2015 at 00:30

      Abe said “According to the the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, there were Ukrainian Air Force planes in the sky above Donetsk”

      Yet when you actually look at the radar evidence that the Russian Defense Ministry provides, there is NO indication of ANY planes near MH17, Ukrainian or not.

      In fact, the dots on their radar images appear only AFTER MH17 already slowed down significantly, and was breaking up into pieces.

      Which means the Russian Defense Ministry used the pieces of MH17, WHILE 298 were falling to their death, as an argument to blame Ukraine for this disaster.

      Really, it does not get more hypocritical than that, and I don’t understand why you fail to realize that.

    • Abe
      May 29, 2015 at 18:05

      At the July 21, 2014, Special Briefing on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation asked, “What was the mission of the combat aircraft on the airway of civilian aircrafts almost at the same time and same altitude with the civilian craft? We want to have this question answered.”

      The Russian Ministry stated that “video of the Rostov Aerial Center of the Joint Air Traffic Management System can corroborate the information”.

  8. Brendan
    May 27, 2015 at 18:58

    Reposting – This row between journalists over who’s lying is distracting attention from a far more relevant question. That is about what the Luhansk location proves. The underlying assumption about a Buk travelling through Luhansk is that it proves the guilt of the Russians or their east Ukrainian allies.

    For a start, there’s no evidence that the video was taken after MH17 was shot down on 17 July 2014. We have to take the word of the Ukrainian authorities on that.

    If the official Ukrainian account of that video really is true, it raises a number of questions about what it shows the Russians or rebels doing, if was really was their vehicle in the video. Why were they transporting the Buk in that place, at that time and in the way they did?

    If you believe that version, the Russians or rebels must have taken a very indirect route on their way from Snizhne to the Russian border, transporting their huge weapon of mass murder, with its remaining missiles uncovered, in daylight, through the local capital. Also, that part of that city was at least partly controlled by the Ukrainian government in mid-July.

    That is simply very hard to believe. The question should therefore be whether the official Ukrainian story is a fake, even if the video was shot in Luhansk.

    • Antidyatel
      May 27, 2015 at 20:19

      I have the same opinion.wasting time on discussing minute details of a video that proves nothing is distraction from the more important issue. The official story doesn’t hold water independent of the bands in the lamp post

  9. Brendan
    May 27, 2015 at 18:53

    This argument between journalists over who’s lying is distracting attention from a far more relevant question. That is about what the Luhansk location proves. The underlying assumption about a Buk travelling through Luhansk is that it proves the guilt of the Russians or their east Ukrainian allies.

    For a start, there’s no evidence that the video was taken after MH17 was shot down on 17 July 2014. We have to take the word of the Ukrainian authorities on that.

    If the official Ukrainian account of that video really is true, it raises a number of questions about what it shows the Russians or rebels doing, if was really was their vehicle in the video. Why were they transporting the Buk in that place, at that time and in the way they did?

    If you believe that version, the Russians or rebels must have taken a very indirect route on their way from Snizhne to the Russian border, transporting their huge weapon of mass murder, with its remaining missiles uncovered, in daylight, through the local capital. Also, that part of that city was at least partly controlled by the Ukrainian government in mid-July.

    That is simply very hard to believe. The question should therefore be whether the official Ukrainian story is a fake, even if the video was shot in Luhansk.

  10. Abe
    May 27, 2015 at 16:11


    The articles by Robert Parry about video fakery mention “blogger Eliot Higgins”.

    In March 2012, using the pseudonym “Brown Moses” Higgins purportedly began “investigative” blogging on the armed conflict taking place in Syria, claiming this to be a “hobby” in his “spare time”.

    Higgins’ “analyses” of Syrian weapons were frequently cited by MSM and online media, human rights groups, and Western governments seeking regime change in Syria.

    Higgins’ accusations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons were proven false, but almost led to war.

    Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology observed that “although he has been widely quoted as an expert in the American mainstream media, [he] has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack. In addition, the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges.”

    Despite the fact that Higgins’ accusations have repeatedly been disproven, he continues to be frequently cited, often without proper source attribution, by media, organizations and governments.

    On July 15, 2014, the day of the airstrike on the separatist-held town of Snizhne in eastern Ukraine, and three days before the MH-17 crash, Higgins launched the Bellincat website.

    Vice News, Rupert Murdoch’s 70 million dollar Gen Y-targeted media channel, crowed about how “Citizen Journalists Are Banding Together to Fact-Check Online News”.

    In fact, Bellingcat collaborates directly with the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

    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 also 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

    The 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”

    Higgins and Bellingcat serve as a channel for Pentagon and Western intelligence deceptive information to more effectively penetrate the MSM, online and social media.

  11. Abe
    May 27, 2015 at 13:51


    Ukrainian businessman Arsen Avakov is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine.

    Between 2005 and 2010, Avakov was Governor of Kharkiv Oblast. Charged on 31 January 2012 with illegally transferring land, Avakov was placed on the international wanted list of Interpol on 21 March 2012. He was detained in Frosinone, Italy late March 2012. An Italian court placed him under house arrest as a preventive measure on 12 April 2012.

    In October 2012, Avakov was elected into the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Ukraine, on the list of Yulia Tymoshenko’s “Fatherland” Party. This led to a court ruling on 10 December 2012 that canceled the restriction measures against him (detention and a warrant for his arrest). He returned to Ukraine the next day, on 11 December 2012.

    On February 27, 2014, following the overthrow of the Yanukovich government, Avakov was appointed Acting Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. He described pro-Russian separatists as “terrorists”.

    Avakov orchestrated efforts to crush popular opposition by means of mass killings carried out by the ultra-right. The first crackdown came after a secret April 12-13 visit to Kiev by CIA Director John Brennan.

    On April 13, 2014 Avakov issued a decree authorizing creating a new paramilitary force from civilians up to 12,000. Anton Heraschenko, Avakov’s deputy, was tasked with overseeing the process of establishing of the new security force created from civilian volunteers.

    The Azov Battalion was formed on May 5, 2014. Among its patrons were member of the Verkhovna Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky. The battalion was involved in combat in Mariupol, then briefly relocated to Berdyansk.

    On June 10, the battalion dismissed deputy commander Yaroslav Honchar and distanced themselves from him after Honchar made criticizing statements about looting and debauchery in Azov battalion.

    Avakov was central to the allegations of a “Russian invasion” of Ukraine. On 11 June, Avakov said “we have observed columns passing with armoured personnel carriers, other armoured vehicles and artillery pieces, and tanks which, according to our information, came across the border and this morning were in Snizhne”. He claimed that Ukrainian forces had destroyed part of the column.

    Reuters correspondents claimed to have seen three tanks in Donetsk city. The US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research also claimed that Russia had sent tanks and other heavy weapons to the separatists in Ukraine, saying “We are confident that these tanks came from Russia.” None of these accusations was substantiated.

    In addition to the Ukrainian ground troop casualties, the Ukrainian Air Force suffered numerous losses of both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. On 14 June, the worst death toll took place when separatist militia, armed with 9K38 Igla (Needle) MANPADS (man-portable air-defense system), shot down an Il-76 transport plane near Luhansk Airport with 49 crew members killed.

    Pressure against the Ukrainian government increased as the public was growing weary of the escalating casualties, military equipment losses and cost of the ATO miltary actions.

    On June 20. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko announced a fifteen-point plan for peace. Russian president Vladimir Putin offered some support for the plan, but called for Poroshenko to bring the separatists into negotiations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Poroshenko’s peace plan “look like an ultimatum.” Poroshenko previously refused to enter into negotiations with armed separatists.

    On June 21, Russia charged Avakov and Dnepropetrovsk Region Governor Igor Kolomoyskyi (who controlled Ukraine’s notorious Aidar Batallion) with war crimes. The Russian Investigative Committee requested that Avakov be placed on Interpol’s wanted list for “the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare, aggravated murder, the obstruction of professional activities of journalists, and abduction.”

    The ceasefire had little actual impact on clashes between government and separatist forces, with at least five government soldiers killed during the ceasefire. By July, the peace plan had fallen by the wayside.

    After a brief lull following the insurgent withdrawal from the northern part of Donetsk Oblast, fighting continued to escalate sharply in the eastern parts of Donetsk Oblast.

    On 13 July, shells landed on the border town of Donetsk in Rostov Oblast, a part of Russia. One civilian was killed in the shelling. Russian officials blamed the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the shelling, whilst Ukraine denied responsibility and accused insurgents in Donbass of having staged a false flag attack.

    Russia said it was considering launching airstrikes against government targets in Ukraine as retaliation for the shelling. Ukrainian forces went on to make gains around Luhansk, ending an insurgent blockade of Luhansk International Airport.

    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.

    Ukrainian and American 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, 2014, an airstrike on the separatist-held town of Snizhne in Luhansk left at least eleven people dead and eight injured. Separatists blamed the Ukrainian Air Force for the attack. The Ukrainian government blamed Russia for the airstrike, claiming that Ukrainian planes had carried out no flights since the An-26 transport plane was downed.

    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.

    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.
    This coincided with a fierce offensive by Ukrainian government forces in Luhansk.

    On July 18, when Avakov published the alleged “Buk” video on his Facebook account, Ukrainian government forces intensified their push into Donetsk and Luhansk cities.

  12. Abe
    May 27, 2015 at 12:44


    The article refers to “the original amateur video of a possible BUK anti-aircraft missile battery after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of MH-17”.

    In fact, the original video was not produced by an “amateur”.

    The video and virtually everything said about it originated from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and Ukrainian Ministry of Interior, known to be in collaboration with Washington and Western intelligence services waging a propaganda war.

    On 18 July 2014, Arsen Avakov, Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, published to his Facebook account:

    Today, July 18, at 04:50 am, covert surveillance units of the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior recorded a tow truck loaded with a track-mounted missile system, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. Uncovered missiles can be seen on the video recording. Two missiles are in place – the middle one cannot be seen.

    Analysis of this and other collected information is ongoing. Presumably this is the missile system “BUK” that yesterday fired on the civilian aircraft Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur.

    The criminals are trying to hide the traces of this heinous crime. They will fail. The SBU and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior have already collected and are continuing to collect more and more incontrovertible facts and evidence pointing to the authors of this tragedy from the terrorist organization DPR/LPR and its Russian Putin patrons.

    Following the conclusion of the investigation of the events, the Ministry of Interior will publish a complete report with respect to the information. This fragment I consider necessary immediately to publish.

    Video: The militants are transporting a “BUK” missile system toward the border with the Russian Federation.

    Original text:

    Описание: Подразделениями скрытого наблюдения МВД Украины сегодня 18 июля в 4.50 утра зафиксирован тягач с загруженным гусеничным ракетным комплексом , двигающийся по направлению через Краснодон, в сторону границы с Российской федерацией. На видеозаписи видны расчехленные ракеты. Две ракеты на месте – средняя не просматривается.
    Идет анализ этой и другой собранной информации. Предположительно это именно тот ракетный комплекс “Бук”, произведший вчера выстрел по гражданскому самолету Амстердам -Куала-Лумпур..
    Преступники пытаются скрыть следы этого чудовищного преступления. Не удастся. СБУ и МВД Украины собрали уже, и собирает все больше неопровержимых фактов и доказательств, указывающих авторов этой трагедии из террористической организации ДНР/ЛНР и ее российских путинских покровителей.
    По итогам расследования событий МВД опубликует полный отчет по информации. Этот фрагмент считаю необходимым опубликовать немедленно.
    Бойовики вивозять ракетний комплекс “БУК” до кордону із РФ

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 14:12

      Q: Why do mainstream and online media, and fake “citizen journalists” like Higgins and Bellingcat, constantly refer to the video as “evidence”?

      A: Because they are directed to do so by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and Ukrainian Ministry of Interior, acting at the behest of the Pentagon and Western intelligence.

      The so-called “getaway” video is ammunition in the Propaganda 3.0 war.

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 18:18

      The source for the geo-location coordinates used by Higgins and Australian “60 Minutes” was Arsen Avakov’s Facebook page on July 22, 2014:

      Что б присечь пустіе разговоры – координаты съемки : Координати місця, де була зафіксована військова техніка:
      48.545760°, 39.264622°

      Higgins and his “investigation team” at Bellingcat simply rubber stamped Avakov’s coordinates.

      All of which proves exactly nothing about the veracity of the video, let alone what happened to MH-17.

      So much for Higgins’ ballyhooed “open source” investigations.

  13. Joe L.
    May 27, 2015 at 12:07

    If anyone has not seen this video, I highly suggest watching it. It is from a comedy skit on Germany’s ZDF which pokes fun at the blatant propaganda used to “blame Russia” for everything that is happening in Ukraine. I believe that I saw a poll that something like 57% of the German public now believe that their mainstream media is propaganda and this is largely due to the coverage of the Ukrainian Crisis.

    • F. G. Sanford
      May 27, 2015 at 21:06

      Priceless! We’re fighting for free speech, but in Russia, not here!

  14. Gregory Kruse
    May 27, 2015 at 08:29

    It’s great to see so many comments here. Maybe Parry is getting some of the attention he deserves. I saw a gross propaganda piece on CNN (at the Y) about mobile crematoria vehicles used by the Russian military, and the caption read, “Destroying evidence?”

    • Antidyatel
      May 27, 2015 at 08:45

      That is funny, because it was documented in August that Ukr army brought four closer to the combatline. It was linked by many to evidence removal after Illovaisk disaster

  15. CodyJoeBibby
    May 27, 2015 at 03:28

    It’s clear the lamp posts aren’t even the same.

    As Parry points out, the one in Lugansk has 2 bands and the one on the video only has one.

    What sort of idiot would attempt to geolocate a scene from a standardised object like a lamp post anyway?

  16. Andrew Nichols
    May 27, 2015 at 01:18

    It’s worth noting that this Channel 9 MH17 docufiction sunk without trace here in Aus. None of the other media like Murdochs Australian or even the rabid federal govt even bothered to mention it. Shows how little value it was. Probably just the initiative of a rabid antirussian individual journo who has gotten excited over the abysmal Brown Moses rubbish.

    • Stefan
      May 27, 2015 at 06:22

      Glad to hear that, thanks for the info.

    • Colin
      May 27, 2015 at 06:39

      Correct, Andrew, 60 Minutes here in Australia has not been respected by the public for at least 20 years, and Michael Usher’s fairy tale is a good example of why.

      • Scott
        May 27, 2015 at 07:18


        • Colin
          May 28, 2015 at 07:50

          A very inciteful comment, Scott. Any other gems to add?

  17. Paul
    May 27, 2015 at 01:03

    I lost my parents in the MH17 tragedy.

    Robert Parry is doing everyone a great disservice by accusing 60 Minutes of fakery without carefully checking the images.

    The video of the BUK is definitely taken in Luhansk. The location is here:

    Here is a photo of the location (from which shows three different features from the BUK video which are clearly identifiable.
    One of these is the power pole with the distinctive box feature shown in the 60 Minutes rebuttal of Robert Parry.
    The video was taken from a slightly lower perspective than the still photo, through trees close to the apartment building.

    Please, Robert, admit you are wrong on this one.

    Paul Guard

    • Joe L.
      May 27, 2015 at 10:59

      Tell me something, if the “rebels” did in fact shoot down MH-17 – then why did they hand over the black box? If I were the rebels in Eastern Ukraine and I knew that I shot down MH-17 then I would never hand over the black box and instead I would have destroyed it while making the excuse that it was destroyed in all the fighting. Instead they handed it over… doesn’t that make you think? Isn’t it questionable that 60 Minutes is too lazy to match up the BUK video and their new images to create the slam dunk? I am sorry but everyone should be questioning 60 minutes and the Ukrainian/US Governments since they continually use photos from 2008 or from a Moscow Air Show to prove of a Russian invasion TODAY!

      I frankly am thankful that Mr. Parry is questioning all of this. Mr. Parry is a Pulitzer Prize Finalist and George Polk Award Winning Journalist who first broke the Iran/Contra Scandal for the Associated Press (Oliver North etc.). This is compared to a “blogger” and a news agency too lazy to match up their images to the originals. Sorry but I will believe Mr. Parry.

    • Joe
      May 27, 2015 at 11:34

      Studying your photos and video, I find similarity but definite differences in the scenes photographed. The photos without the truck show a small house in the distance with an old stockade fence extending from the house toward the left, which is not in the photos with the truck. Even worse, the photos without the truck, and the aerials, show wooded residential area in the background, while the photos and video with the truck show water and a distant coastline in the background. Nearly every utility pole in the area resembles the one in the truck photos. There is resemblance, but no link with the truck photos.

      • Joe
        May 27, 2015 at 11:51

        Also the video is made from a low angle, but shows the tops of bushes in the foreground. The aerial of the scene you wish to link has no bushes in the foreground.

        Also the billboard signs are different (of course they might have changed) and part of the frame of the billboard in the video appears to have been tampered sloppily from grey to a bright green to match the one in the aerial. But regardless of these discrepancies, the video clearly came from a coastal or lakeside scene overlooking water and a distant coastline or harbor jetty. See your lower photo especially. That just isn’t the same scene.

        I would say that someone was looking around for a similar utility pole on a corner (not hard to find) with a billboard and a little house nearby, and there must be hundreds of such scenes in Ukraine. Apparently they found a similar scene where they wished, and thought that no one would notice that the video overlooks water.

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 27, 2015 at 16:32

      Paul, you have my deepest sympathy over your lose. It is never easy losing loved ones, but especially a hard thing when losing loved ones in a tragedy such as MH17.

      I know it maybe tough reading what Mr. Parry has to say on the subject of the downing of MH17, but wouldn’t Mr. Parry’s questioning only lead to a more concrete case. I mean, would not any investigation only prove more if questioned from a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ point of inquiry? Remember Robert Parry wasn’t believed back in the 80’s when he first uncovered the Iran/Contra scandal. Besides all that it isn’t beyond the American government to play fast and loose with their ‘Cover Story’. Not all of us Americans buy into what we are told. Consider the list; JFK, MLK, RFK, USS Liberty, Flight 103, Iran/Contra, CIA smuggling drugs, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, and the list goes on. In fact, when was the last time the US told the world’s people the truth. So, please forgive any inquiry of almost anything that is considered official US position…much of it is a lie!

    • Abe
      May 27, 2015 at 17:32

      argumentum ad miserecordiam

      An appeal to pity is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

      • Abe
        May 27, 2015 at 17:43

        Sincere condolences for all those who lost loved ones in the MH-17 crash.

        All the more reason to not be distracted by logical fallacies.

    • Antidyatel
      May 27, 2015 at 20:04

      Why do you think that the video proves anything?

    • Anonymous
      May 27, 2015 at 20:33


      My deepest condolences for the loss of your parents. Both a bizarre and disgusting event.

      I pray for you and all the friends and families that the truth is revealed this summer.

      I am sure Mr. Parry is being very careful with his writings as he aware of the significance of his investigations and the impact to the MH17 families.

      Please recall that the Danish PM actually thanked the separtists for the care and the dignity shown to the passengers.

      The fact that a surface to air missile vapour trail was not visible in a big deal. Also, the investigators refuse to release the autopsy of the pilots.

      May I ask a question? Are you privy to any information that others are not? Perhaps we can better understand your perspective.

      Thank you.

    • Austin
      May 30, 2015 at 20:02

      Sorry for your loss Paul but I also believe Robert Parry on this one.

      You should watch the RT doco videos on mh17 for a perspective from the “other side” so to speak.

  18. Antidyatel
    May 26, 2015 at 23:00

    Can I repeat this analysis here that I left in the earlier article? Before any circumstantial evidence, like the video, can be used, a main event has to be establishe. Otherwise what does this video collaborate

    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.

  19. May 26, 2015 at 19:40

    Robert Parry sounds like the conspiracy exposing journalist he claims not to be when dismissing video evidence from 9-11 on the strange collapse of WTC tower 7, and the implausible symmetrical destruction of both main WTC towers. Mr Parry, it’s good to see you taking a more objective look at video for a change. Perhaps it’s time to revisit evidence at what thousands of architects and engineers say at:
    Thank you very much.

    • Jay
      May 26, 2015 at 20:05

      One step at a time, and there’s way toe much distraction from the obvious in the 911 research to be worth a look, example assertions that bombs brought down the WTC towers and building 7.

      So it’s easy, and good, enough to concentrate on a series of lies about events in Ukraine.

    • Stefan
      May 26, 2015 at 20:28

      Nevermind about the technical details for now, declassify the 28 pages instead (and the most important questions I believe will be answered), let’s see why they are are classified, the time has come for the american people (and the world) to see what’s in them.

      I suspect that it has alot of incriminating information about the so called “ally” (liability) Israel in them – regarding the criminals behind 9/11.

      • Jay
        May 26, 2015 at 20:48


        And so it begins, there’s zero evidence for those claims about Israel and that day.

        The obvious problem with the story told about the attack is there for all to see, no bit of classification needed.

        • Stefan
          May 27, 2015 at 07:02

          What do you refer to when you say “those claims”?

  20. Greg Maybury
    May 26, 2015 at 19:33

    There can be little doubt the “60 Minutes” report at the very least has left many with nagging doubts about how they arrived at this conclusion. It also brought into sharp relief the manner in which of the MSM has reported this tragedy from the off, and its larger role in supporting official narratives without due diligence and without the accountability that should accompany the lack thereof. This, not just with MH-17, but with more events than we have time/space herein to contemplate. (Iraq WMDs anyone? 9/11 anyone?, to name just two of the MSM’s Greatest Hits/Misses!)

    One wonders what the official MH-17 investigative team will make of the “60 Minutes” ‘expose’ as they try to determine going forward who the real culprits (or perpetrators) were, assuming after all that is the point of the exercise. This, to say nothing of those authorities and agencies charged with the responsibility of taking effective action against those individuals and groups accountable for this crime?/tragedy?. Which is to say, with all the resources and information that presumably are available to them, the official team 10 months after the event in question thus far have failed (or “refused”) to provide a definitive account of the disaster most of us can accept as authentic and verifiable.

    And yet seemingly out of the blue, a team of self-styled “citizen investigative journalists” using open-source data and presumably not endowed with an unlimited budget comes up with the “answers”. They then engage the services of the “60 Minutes” brand (in Australia, not America!) as the MSM medium through which to reveal those findings to the international community, and in the process, not simply trumping the investigative team, but making them look like a bunch of plodders.

    One also wonders if the open-source folks came up with a very different conclusion (and we know what sort of “different conclusion” we’re talking about here), whether the “60 Minutes” folks would have been as eager to get on board with such revelations. About this we can only speculate of course; nonetheless, an enticing “what if” counterfactual to be sure.

    But such an outcome would have I feel truly qualified as a “groundbreaking” adventure in investigative reportage — a high-wire act of an entirely different kind to be sure. All things being equal, for many that really would have enhanced “60 Minutes” “shop-soiled” rep.

    And who knows, it may have gone some way toward redeeming in the eyes of a few discerning news consumers the overall image and credibility of the MSM in general in faithfully reporting important news in a truly objective, fair, balanced, responsible, accountable and ethical manner!

    See link below for an interesting letter from the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Australia in response to enquiries (from an unidentified source) regarding the MH-17 investigation. (N.B.: Document courtesy of Gumshoe News reader Christopher Brooks.)

    See Link Below for additional perspectives on the MH-17/”60 Minutes” story.

  21. Branko R
    May 26, 2015 at 18:31

    Keep it up, Robert! It’s great to see you pick them apart. What a nasty piece of work they are.

  22. Joe L.
    May 26, 2015 at 18:08

    One last thing that I find very curious about MH-17, and also makes me question the MSM narrative, is it was the “rebels” that handed over the black box for investigation to begin with. I would think that if these rebels were so spurious and guilty of shooting down MH-17 – then why in the hell would they ever turn over the black box? I would think that most people would only turn over the black box if they knew that they were innocent so that it could prove their innocence. I also think that had the “rebels” been guilty, and maybe they are, it would have been very easy to destroy the black box and claim that it was destroyed in the fighting. I just find this very curious if the “rebels” are so guilty.

    • Antidyatel
      May 27, 2015 at 01:20

      Or why did Ukr army launched a desperate assault on the crash location preventing inspectors reaching it?

  23. Rob Roy
    May 26, 2015 at 17:58

    Joe Tedesky, well said. I learn something every time I read Mr. Parry. Also, Yuri, I agree…a foolish comment from Nariman N.

  24. Joe L.
    May 26, 2015 at 17:55

    Mr. Parry, I would love to see you do an article about the original claims made, maybe in point fashion, about what has occurred in Ukraine and the evidence that we know now. For instance, MSM claiming that there were no Neo-Nazis in Ukraine etc. OR that Crimeans “voted at gunpoint” even though now we have Pew Research Center, GFK, and Gallup polls which prove otherwise. It seems to me that much of the bluster that the MSM were claiming was “evidence” has largely been debunked at this point.

    I would also find it interesting to see if you believe that US NGO’s also played a roll in the coup d’état as they have in Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt and a whole mess of countries – as I do (Natalie Jaresko).

  25. Joe L.
    May 26, 2015 at 17:45

    For me, overall I think that the narrative that our media has tried to portray has broken down considerably now.

    1) Our journalists largely start the “Ukrainian Crisis” with the Maidan and denying that there are any Neo-Nazis or fascists in Ukraine. But now we have seen stories from 2012 where the EU were very critical of Svoboda for that very reason. BBC Newsnight did a video which shows the Neo-Nazis on the Maidan. Even now we have multiple articles about the Azov Battalion and even Amnesty International condemning the Neo-Nazi Battalions of, I believe, ISIS style beheadings.

    2) Our media portrayed that when Crimea was annexed that everyone “voted at gunpoint”. Now we have polls from the Pew Research Center, Gallup, and GFK (as pointed out in a Forbes article from March 2015) which all clearly show that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans are happy to be Russian again meanwhile wanting Ukraine to recognize this fact.

    3) Our media, the US government, and the Ukrainian government have constantly claimed that Russia was “invading” Ukraine. Yet, over and over again both the US Government and Ukrainian Government have both used photos from 2008 and even the Moscow Air Show to prove of a Russian invasion TODAY! The NYT article about bearded men was debunked and a retraction written.

    4) As for MH-17, the US Government and Ukrainian Government blamed Russia (and the rebels) even before any investigation had even started and presented NO EVIDENCE except for “social media” – as Matt Lee of the Associated Press points out to the US State Department when he sarcastically asked Marie Harf if she could provide him with a “YouTube” video. Now we even have the article in Der Spiegel which cites the German BND, German Intelligence, that photos provided by the Ukrainian Government of MH-17 “have been manipulated” (to be fair the BND also discounted Russia’s claims of a Ukrainian Jet shooting down MH-17).

    5) Also, one of the main reasons supposedly for the overthrow (coup d’état) of Yanukovych was over corruption, so I do find it curious that Ukraine’s new Finance Minister is not only an AMERICAN but also was charged with “insider trading” while working for USAID in Ukraine.

    So obviously the US and Ukraine are lying trying to create the narrative based on “emotion” rather than real evidence. Also, I think the argument could be made that Russia is also lying about some information.

    Overall though, I don’t start this narrative with Crimea but rather with the US/EU pulling off a coup d’état in Ukraine, as they have done in many countries (the coup actually resembles the attempted coup in Venezuela 2002). I believe in 2012, USAID created a Cuban Twitter to create dissent in Cuba, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy were both involved in the attempted coup in Venezuela 2002, and even USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy etc. were involved in funding opposition figures and protesters in the Egyptian coup d’état against Morsi.

    • dahoit
      May 26, 2015 at 18:30

      Yeah,I saw that photo of the Russian jets somewhere,and they said it was an exercise against our Arctic exercise(in stupidity).I clearly remembered the formation from the WW2 celebration,as I was impressed by it.
      I despise the MSM.

      • Joe L.
        May 26, 2015 at 18:47

        Yeah, there are just a whole mess of things that have been debunked or clear misinformation about Ukraine or Russia that has been spread at this point that anyone with a brain should, at the very least, question what the MSM and our government’s are telling us. It has just sunken into just childishness at this point – I mean running a story about Putin putting a blanket on the first lady of China OR kissing the stomach of a child etc. Also the hypocrisy is also “glaring” meanwhile the US is currently bombing in 7 countries, has over 75 covert operations around the world, illegally invaded Iraq killing between 1/2 Million to 1 Million people (also Canada and the US are also illegally bombing in Syria) and even annexed Hawaii in 1893, I believe. I think overall the stupidity of this new “Cold War” just makes me cross-eyed – it is devoid of recent history and any context of our “western” missteps since WW2.

  26. Stefan
    May 26, 2015 at 17:19

    It is indeed willful fraud.
    The evidence is highly unplausible, yet the fakery is being continuing to being pushed by what should be “journalists” with the highest standards of due diligence.

    We expect journalism at least to strive for objectivity, and adjust past discrepancies to new data and scrutinise every piece of information, without wearing a certain type of hat. What ought to be a major bastion of of hope against corruption, has been a loyal servant to political hoodlums and hellraisers.

    Shameful, and very alarming.

  27. Nariman Namazov
    May 26, 2015 at 17:04

    Mr. Parry, I hope Russians at least pay you well for this spiritual suicide.

    • Yuri Orlow
      May 26, 2015 at 17:35

      What sort of a foolish comment is that??!

      • May 26, 2015 at 17:55

        I agree, Yuri.

      • dahoit
        May 26, 2015 at 18:26

        Obviously someone with some skin in the game(?)who hates Russia.
        Yes,the lack of photos of the smoke trail with today’s ubiquitous cellphone photo capability is obviously a (non) smoking gun.
        Still gets me on 9-11,how no one took cell photos of the Pentagon incident,with DC’s rather lowrise landscape.I know they weren’t much around,but digital cameras were big then also.

        • Jay
          May 26, 2015 at 20:45


          Digital cameras weren’t big in the fall of 2001.

          The small ones were still unusual, and the big DSLRs were extraordinarily expensive.

          Cellphones didn’t really have cameras, and certainly not video cameras.

          Technically the Pentagon is not in DC.

    • michael
      May 26, 2015 at 20:21

      Maybe look at the evidence and information and comment on that; it would be wonderful if you refrained from nebulous emotive comments and kept them for mainstream media!

    • Johnny Walker
      May 26, 2015 at 22:59

      I hope the CIA is paying Nariman Namazov well for his spiritual suicide.

  28. Brendan
    May 26, 2015 at 16:59

    “Initially, I had thought that blogger Eliot Higgins simply had given Usher and his team bad coordinates and they had made a serious but honest mistake …
    I had assumed that Usher and his team may just have gotten overly excited and jumped to a faulty conclusion. However, with the update – and the additional fakery – it now appears that they are engaged in a willful fraud. ”

    They did make a mistake in the program because of bad coordinates, apparently from Eliot Higgins. Usher did also engage in fraud, not in the original ‘geo-location’, but in the coverup of that mistake.

    They got the general area correct but not the exact spot, and that resulted in discrepancies in the images. The part of the road that Usher points to (at 9:51 in part 2 of the program) happens to be the exact spot marked incorrectly in Higgins’ Bellingcat website since last July. That must be because “60 Minutes” got the coordinates either from Higgins or the same source as he got his.

    If Usher wanted to present his evidence more clearly, he could have used the photo here instead of the one from the traffic camera: . Although it’s taken a lot higher up than the original Buk video, the angle is much closer than that of the traffic cam. If you copy it, you open it later and zoom in on a lot of details, including the house in the background.

    If Usher had shown that, however, it would have also shown how far off the location and angle of the “60 Minutes” shot was. It even showed the wrong billboard. What he said in the update confirms that, if you compare the shots of the billboards in the program with the previously unshown footage. However, he hides that error in the update, where he does not mention the error in the location, only saying that it “was simply shot from a different angle” .

    The inaccurate location in the program seems to have been just a mistake, but by covering it up in the update, Usher went from mistake to fake.

  29. Joe Tedesky
    May 26, 2015 at 16:06

    Mr. Parry I think this is a complement to you. If these hacks were to acknowledge you as a great journalist, I would start worrying. You Sir, are in a league of such quality that I must commend you for all the great writings you have produced. I look forward everyday to what next article may appear on this site. Keep up the good work, we need you!

    • JPS07
      May 26, 2015 at 17:26

      My thoughts exactly

  30. Gene Coyle
    May 26, 2015 at 16:02

    The articles on Australia’s 60 Minutes are valuable. Thanks.
    Gene Coyle

    PS Ray McGovern is a priceless asset.

  31. inshort
    May 26, 2015 at 15:55

    The most convincing evidence against a Buk missile was made last summer in the months of August or September when it was mentioned that a Buk missile would have left a long tail of white cloud or smoke that would have stayed in the air for at least ten minutes… No one ever mentioned such a cloud and no one every photographed such a cloud.

  32. May 26, 2015 at 15:34

    Looks like the global media is part and parcel to the NWO, paid and bought for indeed!

Comments are closed.