Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

Exclusive: The new accusation of Russian complicity in 2014 Malaysia Airlines shootdown was based on Ukrainian intelligence intercepts that were selectively interpreted while contrary information was ignored, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The key conclusion of the Dutch-led criminal inquiry implicating Russia in the 2014 shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 relied heavily on cryptic telephone intercepts that were supplied by the Ukrainian intelligence service and were given incriminating meaning not clearly supported by the words.

The investigators also seemed to ignore other intercepts that conflicted with their conclusions, including one conversation that appeared to be referring to a Ukrainian convoy, not one commanded by ethnic Russian rebels, that was closing in on the Luhansk airport, placing Ukrainian troops deep inside rebel territory.

A Malaysia Airways' Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

A Malaysia Airways’ Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

That conversation was among five that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) released in seeking the public’s help in identifying persons of interest in the MH-17 shootdown. The callers seemed to be discussing information from Moscow regarding the movement of a convoy, but they describe it as a “Ukrops” or Ukrainian troop convoy.

“B: I am saying about the confirmation of the convoy that is going in the direction of the airport… Moscow/Moskva has confirmed… they see it. Is it err… whatsit… Ukrops convoy?

“A: The convoy that is going in the direction of the airport? Yes.

“B: And how did it go through?

“A: Most likely through Sabovka,” which the JIT interprets to be the town of Sabivka, about five miles west of Luhansk and about 92 miles northeast of Donetsk, the two rebel capitals. The Luhansk airport is about 20 miles south of the city center.

In other words, if this intercept from JIT is correct, the Ukrainian military was operating near the highway routes that the alleged Russian Buk missile battery would have been using. The conversation then picks up, referring to a possible battle for the airport:

“B: So, the convoy was confirmed. Where the convoy can be from?

“C: I don’t know where it is going from. It’s from west, isn’t it?

“B: It’s somehow going from west. From west. Fucking one and a half kilometres from the airdrome.

“C: From the airdrome?

“B: Yes.

“C: It can’t be one and a half kilometres from the airdrome because there is a populated locality there, there are positions there. Probably… I don’t know. Will now try to do something. … I think we will be receiving information soon… our groups have left.

“B: Uh-huh.

“C: Ok. Well, if they come in the airport, will fight at the airport. What else can we do?

“B: Ok. I got you.”

Although it’s difficult to know precisely what these callers are discussing, the conversation seems to refer to a potential battle for an airport, not the deployment of a Buk missile system.

Also, if Ukrainian forces had penetrated that deep into rebel territory, it is difficult to exclude that a Ukrainian Buk battery might have traveled along the southerly route H-21, which skirts Donetsk and then heads east toward the JIT’s claimed firing site in a field near the town of Pervomaiskyi. H-21 then bends north toward Luhansk airport and the city of Luhansk.

The Ukrainian Buks

The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn’t address questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO) intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down. A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels.

A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier.

A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier.

Although the location of the Ukrainian Buk systems would seem to be crucial to the investigation — at least in eliminating other suspects — JIT operates under an agreement with the Ukrainian government that lets it veto the release of information. Ukraine’s SBU intelligence service, which represented the Kiev government in the JIT, also has among its official responsibilities the protection of secret information that could be damaging to Ukraine.

Regarding JIT’s claim that the Buk missile system crossed over from Russian territory, the video report states: “All telecom data and intercepted telephone calls that have been examined by the investigation team demonstrates that the Buk/TELAR (the self-contained operating system) was brought into Ukraine from the Russian Federation.”

But as evidence the JIT cites one phone intercept, which – according to the JIT’s translation – does not use the word Buk though referencing a piece of equipment that can move on its own or be transported by truck. That could be a Buk system but could apply to many other weapons systems as well.

In the intercepted call, one speaker said, “it crossed, crossed the line.” The narrator of the JIT video report then adds, “The Buk/TELAR crossed the line, in other words, it passed the border.” But there are two assumptions here: that the unidentified weapon is a Buk and that the “line” means border. That could be the case but other interpretations are possible.

Another key point, the disputed location of the so-called “getaway” video of a Buk missile system missing one missile, is simply asserted as fact without an explanation as to how the JIT reached its conclusion placing the location near Luhansk.

While the Western mainstream media has given the JIT great credibility, the JIT itself has acknowledged a dependency on Ukraine’s SBU, which shaped the inquiry by supplying its selection of phone intercepts.

Yet, the SBU is far from a neutral party in the investigation, nor does it have clean hands regarding the Ukrainian civil war that followed a U.S.-backed putsch ousting elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, and sparking an uprising among ethnic Russian Ukrainians who represented Yanukovych’s political base in the east and south.

Since then, the SBU has been on the front lines of crushing the rebellion by using controversial tactics. In late June 2016, the United Nation’s Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic accused the SBU of frustrating U.N. investigations into its alleged role in torture and other war crimes.

Simonovic criticized the SBU for “not always providing access to all places where detainees may be kept. … OHCHR (the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights) also continues to receive accounts about torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary and incommunicado detention by the SBU, especially in the conflict zone.

“Torture and threats to members of the families, including sexual threats, are never justifiable, and perpetrators will be held to account sooner or later. … War crimes, crimes against humanity and grave breaches of human rights cannot be the subject of an amnesty.”

Yet, the SBU strongly influenced the direction of the JIT, which included Ukraine along with the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Malaysia. The JIT agreement gave Ukraine veto power over what would be released – even though Ukrainian military units were among the logical suspects in the MH-17 case,

Relying on Ukrainian Intelligence

Earlier this year, an internal report describing the JIT operation revealed how dependent the investigators had become on information provided by the SBU. According to the report, the SBU helped shape the MH-17 investigation by supplying a selection of phone intercepts and other material that would presumably not include sensitive secrets that would implicate the SBU’s political overseers in Ukraine. But the JIT seemed oblivious to this conflict of interest, saying:

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as he arrives for a metting in Kiev, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016. (State Department Photo)

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as he arrives for a meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016. (State Department Photo)

“Since the first week of September 2014, investigating officers from The Netherlands and Australia have worked here [in Kiev]. They work in close cooperation here with the Security and Investigation Service of the Ukraine (SBU). Immediately after the crash, the SBU provided access to large numbers of tapped telephone conversations and other data. …

“At first rather formal, cooperation with the SBU became more and more flexible. ‘In particular because of the data analysis, we were able to prove our added value’, says [Dutch police official Gert] Van Doorn. ‘Since then, we notice in all kinds of ways that they deal with us in an open way. They share their questions with us and think along as much as they can.’”

The internal JIT report continued: “With the tapped telephone conversations from SBU, there are millions of printed lines with metadata, for example, about the cell tower used, the duration of the call and the corresponding telephone numbers. The investigating officers sort out this data and connect it to validate the reliability of the material. …

“By now, the investigators are certain about the reliability of the material. ‘After intensive investigation, the material seems to be very sound’, says Van Doorn, ‘that also contributed to the mutual trust.’”

Another concern about how the SBU could manipulate the JIT investigation is that the long assignments of investigators in Kiev over a period of more than two years could create compromising situations. Kiev has a reputation as a European hotbed for prostitution and sex tourism, and there’s the possibility of other human relationships developing between Australian and Dutch investigators and Ukrainian intelligence officers.

According to the JIT report, four investigating officers from Australia are stationed in Kiev on three-month rotations while Dutch police rotate in two teams of about five people each for a period of a “fortnight,” or two weeks.

The relative isolation of the Australian investigators further adds to their dependence on their Ukrainian hosts. According to the report, “The Australian investigators find themselves a 26 hour flight away from their home country and have to deal with a large time difference. ‘For us Australians, it is more difficult to get into contact with our home base, which is why our operation is quite isolated in Kiev’, says [Andrew] Donoghoe,” a senior investigating officer from the Australian Federal Police.

The SBU’s assistance, however, did not lead to a rapid resolution of the MH-17 mystery, now more than two years old. The Dutch Safety Board report last October placed the spot of the suspected missile launch within a 320-square-kilometer area, including both government and rebel positions.

According to the Dutch intelligence service finding also released last October, the only anti-aircraft missiles in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, capable of hitting a plane flying at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian military.

There’s also the dog-not-barking mystery of the curious silence from the U.S. intelligence community. Although Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to know the firing location immediately after the shootdown, the U.S. government went silent after CIA analysts had time to evaluate U.S. satellite, electronic and other intelligence data.

A source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that they saw the attack as a rogue Ukrainian operation involving a hard-line oligarch with the possible motive of shooting down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official plane returning from South America that day, with similar markings as MH-17. But I have been unable to determine if that assessment represented a dissident or consensus view inside the U.S. intelligence community.

For its part, the Russian government has denied supplying the eastern Ukrainian rebels with a Buk system although the rebels did possess shorter-range, shoulder-fired MANPADs.

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

115 comments for “Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

  1. mobile_actor
    October 2, 2016 at 11:49

    Reality check: president Vladimir Putin’s official plane rout was thousand kilometers aside – across Poland. Look at a map: where is Poland and where is Donetsk region.

  2. SaltyGrease
    October 1, 2016 at 17:37

    One thing not mentioned in the many excellent articles here regarding MH-17: Does the Russian military not posses a tarp? Maybe a nice, big, green canvas number with which to cover the highly secret missile launcher as they truck it through populated areas in broad daylight?

  3. Abe
    October 1, 2016 at 15:45

    The most troubling gaps are between the ears of the JIT members who apparently are unable to count shrapnel, tell their left hand from their right, distinguish north on the compass from south, or identify the port engine from starboard engine of the aircraft.

    Four MH17 Questions – The Answers to Which Prove the Dutch Police, Ukrainian Secret Service, and US Government are Faking the Evidence of the MH17 Shootdown
    By John Helmer

  4. October 1, 2016 at 12:04

    Good writing by Robert Parry. In my own writing on MH17, on, in 2014, before I was set up in a malicious bomb hoax prosecution, I concluded that the missile which brought down MH17 was not a Russian-made Buk, but the Chinese HQ-16A version, which is truck-mounted, with a separate radar. A Chinese PLA HQ-16 unit was known to be practising high-altitude intercepts from about April 2014. The HQ-16 is air-portable and can be carried in a PLA Air Force IL-76.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      October 1, 2016 at 20:48

      It was not malicious if you were incompetent enough to believe that Germany has planning to bomb the 2012 London Olympic Games. I read about you on Wikipedia just now.

  5. F
    October 1, 2016 at 03:26

    Another troubling gap came out yesterday. JIT claims to have technical proof of it’s launch trajectory by conducting secretly held detonation-tests in Finland. The secrecy was about contracts Finland made with the Russians, while buying their missiles, to not expose technical data to other countries. The JIT submitted a request to use the technical data in their final report, but Finland refused this. Finding out at the presentation of the JIT that they did use the technical data, Finland is very disappointed and does not allow to use any data of the test for the investigation.

    So the JIT still can not prove the trajectory and the angle of the rocket, unless they would investigate a new test. They also seem to be lying about the year the test is performed. They claim it’s done ‘two years ago’, while Finland claims the test was done in 2015. This makes a big difference, since arms factory Almaz-Antey conducted multiple detonation tests in 2015 but were fully ignored by the DSB and the JIT. The trouble for JIT here is, the Almaz-Antey tests are the only reliable ones available, but are in total contradiction with the conclusions of the JIT. The tests of Almaz-Antey are all available on Youtube, including presentations of their conclusions, which were ignored by the media and researchers abroad.

  6. Doctor Dog
    September 30, 2016 at 13:39

    I consider the following : when this false flags are made, ( I hope any normal, reasoning persons know that it is false flag, even before any investigation), perpetrators usually like to point, to lead to some false explanation, thus taking inquiry in the wrong direction, until it can´t get out of a mess. This is what happened with this case, I think. Try to think as a person that was given the order to make false flag. How he would proceed? Because it is not only important to shoot the plane, but it should crash into the territory claimed to be rebel´s. This point I need not to explain, just imagine what will the situation be if plane crashed on Ukrainian territory, or on Russian one. But the plane flies over that disputed territory only a couple of minutes (say 5), so only in that period , plane can be targeted. To shoot it, it seems, one have to have an extremely professional crew, many people, and all of them russofobes or socially depraved, so they will not speak about the downing. Besides, nothing guarantees that plane will be shot down; imagine badly made rocket, not finishing the plane, wrong calculations, and so on. So, what I will do if I was asked by my government to make a flase flag:
    I will simply arrange the way to put the warhead in the plane, to be activated by transmission through detonator. Or I would combine explosive with the elements from warhead. When plane will be precisely in a right place, push the button.( maybe from the accompanying plane). If the thing doesn´t work,take out bomb, and try it again, nobody will know. Minimal use of time and effort (just gain access to the plane,) and the result is almost guaranteed. After the crime, start speaking about BUK. That will do. What do you think?

  7. Carroll Price
    September 30, 2016 at 11:47

    So, what is new? From day one, it was a given that Russia would be blamed for the shoot-down. Which, of course was the purpose of it being done.

  8. Jide Salako
    September 30, 2016 at 11:23

    “The recent civilian radar provided by the Russians is said to contradict their original military secondary data, that showed military aircraft in the sky.The new data doesnt show military aircraft. Is civilian radar able to detect military aircraft?”

    Can someone address this please?

    • Kiza
      September 30, 2016 at 11:51

      Please see my answer to a lady above. If it is not clear enough I will try again.

      • francesca
        September 30, 2016 at 17:53

        Thanks for that
        Another question. More of a legal one
        In the unlikely event of a trial,will the defence have full access to all the evidence , with natural justice overturning the non disclosure agreement?
        I suspect this will go on and on, the propaganda value to the western powers is too great to have the truth , either way it turns out, to be exposed

        • Kiza
          September 30, 2016 at 18:56

          I am not a lawyer (obviously), but I could imagine two possible legal uses of the JIT report peppered with Bellingcat and SBU facts:
          1) legal process by the families of the victims in their domestic courts or in the European Court of Justice (they are mutually exclusive)
          2) some sort of international tribunal in The Hague (less than a proper court) on war crimes in Ukraine but only those perpetrated by Russia (immunity for the Ukro Nazis).

          Obviously, neither of the two options would have access to the oh so secret US military intelligence or the similar ESA intelligence that JIT was privy to. It really depends on how many cangaroos jump in such a court or tribunal if the JIT report will be accepted as reliable police report. The Tribunals in The Hague usually peruse low quality judges because they are not permanent employment and being “international” they have a higher propaganda value than national courts. I would also expect the German and the Dutch courts to be a little resistant to the Bellingcat digital and online sleuthing. Therefore, the most logical next propaganda step by the sponsors of this affair would be to establish the said International Criminal Tribunal on The War Crimes in Ukraine.

  9. Jide Salako
    September 30, 2016 at 09:15

    must confess that whilst I hoped the Ukro-nazis would be fingered as the culprits at best and that the case would linger in limbo and unresolved at worst, this worrying course of action that Amerika has resorted to convinces me that it has reached the point of no return, it’s soul is hopelessly lost and WWIII is inevitable.

    Anyone with half a brain and that has followed this so called “investigation” can clearly see that there was no investigation. The events over the course of 2 years and 2 months clearly show that Russia had been adjudged guilty right from the very minute that plane was brought down.

    An “investigation” that was shrouded in top secrecy and in which a NDA was signed between the involved parties; an “investigation” in which data from the very manufacturer of the said missile, Almaz Antey, was disregarded (it’s like having a Boeing airplane crash and having no input from Boeing!); an “investigation” in which the only radar data provided from the country that ceaselessly called for an open and fair investigation (Russia) and one which was based on facts, was totally ignored; an “investigation” in which the radars of most likely culprit and the embodiment of a conflict of interest, Ukraine, were conveniently non-functional on that day (over a war zone!); an “investigation” in which fictional and sensational “social media and common sense” submissions that have long been debunked and discredited were provided as “evidence”; an “investigation” that has failed to release the details of what transpired between air traffic control and the aircraft or the that of the flight data recorder and/or voice cockpit recorder; an “investigation” that has been conveniently “concluded” at a time the Hegemon’s “moderate” headchoppers are faltering and there is an ever desperate and urgent need to demonize Russia and keep her in check.

    The people that run Amerika are indeed very dangerous, reckless and utterly desperate. Like both Iraq invasions, the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, the Libya “humanitarian” intervention, the UN aid convoy attack and the baba of them all, 911, the psychopaths in Washington do not care for facts, rule of law or science.
    The slow march towards WWIII continues unabated.

  10. Truth
    September 30, 2016 at 08:21

    So Jews ensconced in the US Department of State destroyed Ukraine and stole the Government, and killed 10,000+. And the world just shrinks away from telling it like it is.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      October 1, 2016 at 20:43

      Where did Jews come into this? No one was talking about Jews. I hate it when people deviate from the topic.

  11. Robert
    September 29, 2016 at 20:49

    I’m not an expert and for now I only have seen parts of the presentation of the JIT once but some things I noticed while watching were , besides facts already mentioned by other comments ;
    – The telephone conversations were very clear(for the most part) ,that is without background noises. So were these all done indoors away from traffic etc?
    – The test with the BUK warhead was done with flat sheets of metal placed around the warhead. Shouldn’t this have been done with curved sheets of metal with the curves facing to the warhead ? I don know , but it seems to me like this would generate different impact holes and patterns especially as you can see the sheets fold inward by the explosion?
    -The two hollow topped off conical parts shown at the BUK comparison have different hole sizes at the top .
    – Why the different colorations of the fields on the satellite images shown. (the overview and detail images, difference between the white and green patches )
    -What’s the dark-brown line around the plowed piece of land ? looks like a path or small road which wasn’t there before. Why make a path around the plowed part of the field?
    Don’t know if this has relevance or not , just the thoughts crossing my mind seeing the videos.
    besides ;
    Shortly after the crash Kerry stated the US knew exactly how , what , where, who did it .
    So where is this evidence , it would have saved the investigation years of time and without the JIT having to rely so heavily on ‘social media’.
    If the East Ukraine forces didn’t think of their conversations being listened to , the Russians surely would have . Were they really that stupid using real names of people and places instead of codewords , and using the word BUK ?

    • F
      September 30, 2016 at 03:28

      “Shortly after the crash Kerry stated the US knew exactly how , what , where, who did it .”

      In an article from Parry some days after the crash, he wrote that he heard from a source, US intelligence services have satellite images of the BUK-system and infrared images of the launch and the explosion. The images show the BUK-system and soldiers in what appeared to be Ukrainian uniforms. The field was also scattered with bottles and the soldiers appeared to be drunk.

      This was when Kerry and Powers were telling the media they had all the proof. When they later assessed for sure it was the Ukrainian army they all of a sudden said they had only proof from social media. There was also a press briefing saying the Americans thought Russia had nothing do it with it, and there is no proof for it which makes their statement of “having nothing” even more stronger.

  12. Abe
    September 29, 2016 at 20:42

    The logically challenged Eliot Higgins predictably insists that “the story had changed completely” in the recent Russian Defence Ministry conference.

    Higgins is wrong yet again.

    Journalist John Helmer has addressed the discrepancy introduced by the Utyos-T civilian radar data:

    “How was it possible for Utyos-T to detect and map these trajectories west and south before and during the MH17 flight, if the generals now claim that the system lacked range or capability to detect objects west or south in the last minutes? How was it possible for the Utyos-T radar tracking to miss what Gen Kartapolov’s presentation revealed on July 21, 2014? Is it possible that the military intruder, identified as an Su-25, could remain under the Utyos-T radar, and then at detectable height and range be invisible? Even if the July 21, 2014, radar evidence purports to be for minutes after the aircraft detonation, what can explain invisibility for minutes beforehand?

    “Finally, if all one had for evidence from the Russian side was the Utyos-T radar data, what can have caused the aircraft’s destruction without being visible for 15 minutes before that happened?

    “Independent Dutch and German analysts who have been investigating the MH17 case since it began do not reply on the record. A German analyst, who does not wish to be identified, comments: ‘My point of view is: Russia doesn’t answer to Western propaganda. The Bellingcats of the world distorted the MoD press conference from July 21,2014 by saying Moscow suggested that an SU-25 shot down MH17. The official Moscow never claimed it… of course Ukraine military planes were in the air that day. Most probably some of them under 5 km, below the Russian radar (that’s why inhabitants could see them under the layer of clouds). With the exception of this one plane, which rose above 5 km 1.35 minutes after the shooting. At the press conference today [September 26, 2016] they said that they show ‘random’ primary radar reflections of the disintegration of MH17, but not the surveillance after this, which continued for at least 4 minutes. So they held back less valuable material. Less valuable in Moscow’s eyes.'”

    It is important to bear in mind that a legal case is pending. Both sides will be positioning their evidence. Moscow appears to be holding its cards fairly close, unwilling to be baited by the likes of Higgins and Bellingcat.

    Higgins is left to shriek that he and Bellingcat are personally under attack from Moscow. Hilarity ensues.

  13. francesca
    September 29, 2016 at 17:03

    Maybe someone can help me here?
    The recent civilian radar provided by the Russians is said to contradict their original military secondary data, that showed military aircraft in the sky.The new data doesnt show military aircraft. Is civilian radar able to detect military aircraft?Equally, would it be possible to detect a missile?
    Any one care to explain to me why this whole lengthy , expensive, drawn out charade of social media evidence has been perpetrated on grieving relatives of MH17 victims, when the US claimed irrefutable evidence from day one. Why go through this painful waiting game when the “proof” was already there. Please don’t tell me the US couldnt reveal their satellite capabilities for security reasons. When Ukraine shot down a civilian aircraft previously,and denied it, the US were perfectly willing to show their radar data to the world.
    Frankly, Ukraine’s claims of radar down for maintenance, and military radar simply turned off “because no Ukrainian aircraft were flying that day”is beyond satire!They were trumpeting an imminent Russian invasion at the time, and had moved up Buk systems to counter that threat. And they left the country bereft of warning systems?Please, the insult to intelligence is unbelievable

    • Kiza
      September 30, 2016 at 11:30

      Civilian radars can detect military aircraft, but it is not as simple as that – three other factors are involved: size of object, distance of object and transponder on the object. Civilian radars for air traffic control rely heavily on transponders of the civilian aircraft, which send flight parameters and id to the air traffic control radar. Military radars have the capability to identify planes using transponders, even the military planes have transponders sometimes turned on, but military radars also have a significantly higher power to be able to detect any flying object (a small military plane with a transponder off). When the recently recovered data from the Russian lower power civilian radar did not show any military jet in the vicinity of MH17 flight path, the Western propaganda outlets pounced at this “discrepancy” with the military radar data the Russians presented in a press release earlier. But it is quite possible that this civilian radar would have been able to show three civilian flights very far away (due to their transponders and their size) whilst it may have not been able to indicate a military jet (transponder off and smaller) in the same area. The power of electromagnetic radiation (radar) reduces very sharply with distance (fourth degree), thus the Russian civilian radar could indicate the absence of a BUK missile launch from Donbas (relatively small but close to the radar), could also indicate distant airliners (large and with transponders), but may not have detected a distant military jet (small and transponder turned off).

      In the most general, radars are analog devices whilst most people in the West now think in a digital way – it is either there or it is not, yes or no, one or zero, there is no “it depends” (on the three factors that I mentioned).

      • Kiza
        September 30, 2016 at 12:11

        P.S. This was an explanation about the so called surveillance radars (civilian and military). But military also operate another quite different type of radar called the targeting radar, which is the radar that a BUK battery must have and no Bellingat video ever shows. All Belingcat videos, obtained from SBU, show only the missile vehicle, uncovered (I have never heard of a secret military transport in the middle of the day, plus without even a tarpuline over the vehicle or a more serious proper camouflage), as if wanting to show a missing missile to the SBU cameras in waiting.

        The “Russian BUK transportation” videos and photos by Bellingcat/SBU are such a terribly crude and stupid propaganda manipulation that neither Bellingcat nor SBU camera operators deserve the money they have been paid for it. But again this is the standard of the Western propaganda now – every act of terrorism is presented to the domestic audiences with similar sloppiness.

        • Kiza
          September 30, 2016 at 12:40

          One more thing about the “Russian BUK transportation” videos. It is always a single missile vehicle travelling uncovered in the middle of the day and without any escort. It resembles a cattle transport more than a military transport.

          A real BUK transport would have involved several vehicles: for missiles, for radar, for command, and at least one jeep in front and one behind. All payloads would have been covered and camouflaged and would have been travelling preferably at night. This is how all militaries operate.

          • AndJusticeForAll
            September 30, 2016 at 13:50

            Kiza you are wrong. There are Buks of upgraded type with a radar on board, although it has limited capability of 120 deg coverage and no aircraft type recognition. If its positioned correctly it can lock a target and guide a missile on its own. The fact that it is transported un-camouflaged can say that they were sure its safe and they want to show that they have it. There was escort of several civil cars.

          • Kiza
            September 30, 2016 at 18:27

            It must have been the cost cutting in the Russian Military – they had a few millions of dollars to purchase the latest BUK model (with integated radar) but came $50 short to purchase a tarpaulin to cover the payload of a secret transport through a foreign country. They travelled escorted by civilian vehicles (probably honking, no sound in the videos). Then they took a scenic route through all the populated places to ensure that no Ukrainian with a mobile phone misses to take a shot or video of the secret transport. Calling all the morons, welcome to Bellingcat and JIT investigations!

  14. AndJusticeForAll
    September 29, 2016 at 15:02

    To me the quality of JIT findings is proportional to Mr. Parry’s and his admires attempts to dismiss them.

  15. Cheryl
    September 29, 2016 at 14:30

    I am so sick and tired of official Washington, MSM, Hillary DNC, etc.say its the Russians fault. Blame it on the Russians everything is the Russians fault. Geeze

  16. Yonatan
    September 29, 2016 at 13:30

    Which Buk system was it anyway? 321? 312? 322? Maybe the evil Rooskies went the tortuitous route in order to give themselves time to paint over the number several times.

  17. Abe
    September 29, 2016 at 12:49

    ThreatConnect, a Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP) provider that makes millions in the US Department of Defense and Intelligence Community market, is now shrieking that Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat are targets for “Russian perfidy”.

    In its chronicle of “malicious activity” allegedly targeting Bellingcat, the ThreatConnect advertisement masquerading as a news article highlights Bellingcat “communications with the JIT”.

    • Kiza
      September 30, 2016 at 11:02

      You must admit that Higgins is very good at self-promotion, just as if he were a former salesman (of female lingerie). But wait, he is a former salesman. Maybe he was selling lingerie to the NATO cross-dressers before, thus it was not such a big career move to start selling their (dis)information products to others.

      Those vile Russians, they shoot-down civilian airliners and then hack into Bellingcat computers to punish the honest researchers of their crimes.

  18. Joe L.
    September 29, 2016 at 11:26

    I already knew that the conclusion was undoubtedly going to blame Russia due to the flawed investigation from the get go. Maybe the rebels did do it but for the fact that a possible suspect in the investigation was part of the investigation itself, that being Ukraine, makes me doubt everything in the report. I also still have many questions that I don’t believe I will ever get answers about.

    1) Why was a civilian airliner allowed to fly over a war zone where aircraft had been downed only the week before?

    2) Why was a possible suspect in the investigation, Ukraine, allowed to provide information for the investigation along with having a veto over any information presented? That’s like having possible dirty cops or possible criminals investigate themselves.

    3) We know that American satellites were watching Ukraine closely and I believe it was a relatively sunny day on the downing of MH-17 – so if the US had the smoking gun on Russia then why didn’t it use it instead of using “YouTube” videos and social media as Matt Lee of AP pointed out at the State Department briefing?

    4) If the rebels in Eastern Ukraine are guilty of shooting down MH-17 then why did they hand over the black box to begin with? I don’t know about you but if I murdered someone, I am not going to hand over the knife. If the rebels are guilty then why didn’t they destroy the black box or make it disappear?

    It just seems to me that a conclusion was drawn hours after the downing of MH-17 and any evidence that was gathered was not to prove who was guilty but rather to support the preordained conclusion – that Russia was guilty. This being from the overuse of “social media” instead of actual intelligence, the use of supposed “independent” bloggers who are linked to the Atlantic Council and NATO (also being funded by USAID), allowing one of the possible suspects an incredible amount of power over the investigation itself etc. Well, I think the Empire always needs an enemy, the Military Industrial Complex is happy, and a wedge is being driven between Europe and Russia to make way for the TTIP agreement which I am sure will see American (and Canadian) liquefied natural gas flowing throughout Europe in the years to come. Now if the Empire can just get rid of Assad then they can secure the pipelines there so that their allies in the Middle East can also take advantage of the windfall by supplying energy to Europe all sold with the mighty US Dollar.

    • Bruce Grant
      September 29, 2016 at 15:17

      Hi Joe L.

      Thank you for an interesting, logical and well written argument. You seem to be in a very small minority, but I applaud your intelligence and the direction of your thoughts.

      If only more people would behave as you… again thank you, Sir!

    • Abe
      September 29, 2016 at 20:20

      MH 17 Inquiry (6 Episodes) – YouTube channel

      The video episodes are professionally written and produced.

      Bruce Grant, what is your professional background?

      Please provide more detailed information, including website URL (Russian and/or English) and email, for journalists who wish to contact the research group that produced the MH 17 Inquiry video series.

    • F
      September 29, 2016 at 23:59

      “Why was a civilian airliner allowed to fly over a war zone where aircraft had been downed only the week before?”

      On the day of the MH17 downing, there had been –according to the DSB– 160 planes flying over this warzone. This is from 00:00 until the time right after the crash, about 14 hours later. That’s 2400 minutes for 160 flights, an average of 15 flights each hour. So, on the day of the downing and in the days before july, 17th a plane was flying over this warzone average every 4 minutes.

      Ukrainian army had their own BUK-system setup in the area. Multiple systems according to the Russian Mod and the Dutch MIVD, but there’s proof of at least one, which was broadcasted in a daily UA-report and uploaded to Youtube The one on 4:56 would be Lieutenant Colonel Vladislav Seleznyov, also ATO spokesman for Crimea, and behind a lot of publicly made accusations and misinformation against the Russians.

      The UA also had to know that if the rebels would catch one of these BUK’s they would use it against their jets, which were bombing civilians in the east. A day before the downing, july 16th, 2 jets bombed appartments and killed 11 civilians in the pro-Russian village of Shizhne. The Russians were blamed.

      Then check this message which is (original) from the 16th, also from the same spokesman as in the video, a day before the downing of MH17: “BREAKING: UKR ATO spox Vladyslav Seleznyov says Kyiv has proof that Buk/SA-11 AD systems entered Ukraine from Russia — Interfax” and make the conclusion that the chances of a big catastrofe were huge.

      But instead, Ukraine held it’s airspace open and it’s pretty obvious if it wasn’t MH17 that would be shot down, it would be another plane that was flying over average every 4 minutes.

      One can also assume, since it’s the same spox, the message a day in front could be part of something sinister. Facts are: They had the BUK installed, they claim the Russians have one and a day after, MH17 was shot down.

      • F
        September 30, 2016 at 00:12

        Just to add this thought? Why did no other intelligence agency around this world did not pick up this publicly made statement of an Anti Terrorism Organisation-spokesman?

        I can not believe such a message is not noticed or triggered anyhow by any intelligence service.

        What I could imagine is that the intelligence services never took the Ukrainian accusations against Russian involvement serious, because they were propaganda and “not much to worry about”. So, in fact the outcome of the investigation team JIT from a few days ago, was already setup as propaganda a day before the downing of MH17?

        • F
          September 30, 2016 at 00:32

          To be clear. My post of 12:12 am is a follow up on a message posted on 11:59 pm. This message has a few links in it, and therefor it’s awaiting for moderation at this moment.

  19. Jarno Jakonen
    September 29, 2016 at 11:12

    The MIVD report does not in fact say that the only BUK belonged to the Ukrainian side, but only that the Dutch intelligence services at the time had no knowledge of other weapons capable of bringing down a passenger plane. The context of the report was to determine possible culpability of Dutch intelligence in mis-assessing the risk of flying civilian aircraft in the area, not to establish the whereabouts of the BUKs.

    Mr. Parry, I’m sure you were aware of this, yet you misleadingly used the MVID report twice in the article. I expected a journalist of your caliber to be a little bit more careful with deliberately twisting the truth. We are entitled to our own opinions of course, but not our own facts.

    • Abe
      September 29, 2016 at 12:24

      Robert Parry is factually accurate in his use of the MIVD report.

      Page 23 of the MIVD report defines the term “powerful anti-aircraft systems” and explicitly states that a number of these systems were possessed by the Ukrainian armed forces and located in the eastern part of the country:

      “The general impression with regard to anti-aircraft defence systems was that the Russian armed
      forces possessed advanced systems that had been installed in the territory of the Russian Federation close to the border with Ukraine. These systems had sufficient range to be able to hit a civil aircraft at cruising altitude, which is a height of at least 7.5 kilometres.24 Anti-aircraft systems that have sufficient range to reach this height are referred to hereafter as powerful anti-aircraft systems.

      “According to the MIVD’s information, the Ukrainian armed forces mainly possessed outdated resources, including, however, certain powerful anti-aircraft systems. A number of these systems were located in the eastern part of the country.”

      • Bruce Grant
        September 29, 2016 at 15:13

        Yes… he is factually accurate! But, The Russian forces gave information that the odds on hitting such a target from their border proximity positions had a tiny probability of achieving a ‘hit’ and it is far more expedient to use air-to-air missile, fired from close range with pin-point accuracy at a far lower cost in man-power and materials!

        It was a MiG 29 that shot down flight MH17 and was witnessed by quite a few people with NO axe to grind!

        • AndJusticeForAll
          September 29, 2016 at 15:48

          @ Bruce Grant even Russians now are saying that there was no any other aircraft near MH-17. So, version with MiG 29 can be dismissed.

        • Abe
          September 29, 2016 at 16:10

          There is no “but…” concerning the factual accuracy of Parry’s report.

          The JIT thesis is factually untenable. No speculation is necessary in order to point that out.

        • Abe
          September 29, 2016 at 19:55

          MH 17 Inquiry (6 Episodes) – YouTube channel

          The video episodes are professionally written and produced.

          Bruce Grant, what is your professional background?

          Please provide more detailed information, including website URL (Russian and/or English) and email, for journalists who wish to contact the research group that produced the MH 17 Inquiry video series.

      • Jarno Jakonen
        September 29, 2016 at 15:57

        Abe, you seem to miss the point. I’m not disputing that MIVD did not have any knowledge of powerful anti-aircraft systems in hands of rebels at the time. But the report pertains to information that MIVD had at the time or just prior to the incident, not what we know now in retrospect when more evidence has surfaced. To rephrase this as “According to the Dutch intelligence service finding also released last October, the only anti-aircraft missiles in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, […] belonged to the Ukrainian military” is misleading, because a casual reader who does not check the original report would be left with an impression that this was the final position of the MIVD as of October 2015, which is not the intent of the original report.

        It would be the same situation as if reporting “the police had no knowledge of the suspect being armed” as “according to the police, the suspect was not armed”. Can you see the difference?

        • Abe
          September 29, 2016 at 16:32

          The position of the MIVD as of October 2015 is stated clearly in the report quoted above. Parry is absolutely correct in his phrasing of the facts.

          Furthermore, since the MIVD report correctly identified the Ukrainian armed forces as possessing powerful anti-aircraft systems located in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, then the Ukrainian military can be easily identified as an armed suspect, certainly in terms of means and opportunity.

          Thus the JIT report is a situation of an armed suspect supervising a police investigation.

          You and most of Western media seem determined to miss the point.

          • Kiza
            September 30, 2016 at 09:50

            I have been thinking exactly the same – an armed suspect supervising a police investigation with a right of veto over what’s in the police report. Obviously, only the crooked police would take part in the investigation and report writing under such conditions.

            But please see my parallel with the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton – such approach is not unique in the West were “nobody is above the law” but then the law bends according to the person/people involved. Just imagine if this happened under Yanukovitch – would his democratically elected government been able to avoid blame for not closing the airspace over a war zone? There would have been endless Western screeching.

    • Abe
      September 29, 2016 at 13:09

      Jarko Jakonen, you misleadingly accuse a journalist of very high caliber of deliberately twisting the truth. I’m sure you were aware of this. I believe there is a name for such behavior.

      We are entitled to our own opinions, but I expect Consortium News readers to be more careful.

      • Jarno Jakonen
        September 29, 2016 at 16:05

        The name for such behaviour is “constructive criticism”. I do hope that mr. Parry will read my message and that it was a honest mistake to be corrected rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. I do apologize for my choice of words.

      • Abe
        September 29, 2016 at 20:13

        Yeah, very poor “choice of words” JJ, honestly. Please do try to be a bit more constructively careful in your deliberations, so that some fool doesn’t end up fallaciously seconding your, um, “point”.

    • AndJusticeForAll
      September 29, 2016 at 15:40

      Jarno Jakonen I second you. He keeps twisting MIVD report in last 6 articles as I can recall.
      Abe you have issue with logic my friend. MIVD had only positive information about manpads in possession of proxies and no assertive information about SAMs. it is also said that Russians had SAMs near Ukrainian border in that region as well. Saying that ONLY Ukrainians had SAMs is a fallacy.

      • Abe
        September 29, 2016 at 16:45

        There you go again, Bellingcat fanboy.

        AndJusticeForAll has been trolling the comments section of Consortium News articles on Ukraine and MH-17 for several months now.

        Typical game playing from this character includes loud accusations of “lies” and “manipulation” whenever Robert Parry exposes the baseless claims of Eliot Higgins, Australian “60 Minutes”, the Atlantic Council, the New York Times and other “hybrid war” propaganda megaphones.

      • Abe
        September 29, 2016 at 17:33

        “According to the MIVD’s information, the Ukrainian armed forces mainly possessed outdated resources, including, however, certain powerful anti-aircraft systems. A number of these systems were located in the eastern part of the country.”
        – October 2015 MIVD report, page 23

        “A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time […] belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels.”
        – Robert Parry

        The phrases “in the eastern part of the country” and “in eastern Ukraine” are factually equivalent for all but the logically challenged who are unable to read a map.

        • AndJusticeForAll
          September 30, 2016 at 09:08

          and what did it say about Russian SAMs near Ukrainian border?

          • Abe
            September 30, 2016 at 12:02

            Buk SA-11 Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) meet the MIVD definition of “powerful anti-aircraft systems”.

            The October 2015 MIVD report clearly states that the Ukrainian armed forces possessed a number of powerful anti-aircraft systems located in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

            The basic fact makes Ukraine a reasonable armed suspect.

            The JIT report ignores the basic fact because Ukraine is a member of the JIT with veto power over what would be released.

        • Abe
          September 30, 2016 at 11:43

          “Since the beginning of the unrest in Eastern Ukraine, the question arose whether the Separatists were receiving material support and training from the Russian Federation. It was fitting that attention would be devoted to this matter in the MIVD’s investigation. Even though there was information pointing to the fact that the Separatists had been supplied with heavy weapons by the Russian Federation, there were no indications that these were powerful anti-aircraft systems.”

          – October 2015 MIVD report, page 23

          • AndJusticeForAll
            September 30, 2016 at 13:36

            we are getting closer. read further.

    • F
      September 30, 2016 at 02:56

      How could they have not know it? The Ukrainian ATO spokesman said a day before the downing that the Russians crossed their border with a BUK/SA-11 AD system. The message has been on Twitter also, before the downing of MH17. How could intelligence services miss out on such a message? How is the term “SA-11 AD systems” ignored by Twitter?

      16 jul. 2014 – UKR ATO spox Seleznyov says Kyiv has proof that Buk/SA-11 system entered Ukraine from Russia
      17 jul. 2014 – Downing of MH17
      28 sept. 2016 – JIT says has proof that Buk/SA-11 system entered Ukraine from Russia and shot down MH17

  20. Fred
    September 29, 2016 at 09:06

    How much you people getting paid to push Russian propaganda?

    • Dato
      September 29, 2016 at 10:19

      We are all self-motivated.

    • van dieman
      September 29, 2016 at 10:23

      What’s wrong Fred? Can’t refute the article so you attack the author?

    • Bruce Grant
      September 29, 2016 at 15:06

      I see! You are a specialist on Russian affairs! What a pathetic comment! We are an independent group pursuing facts, not hearsay and stupidity, such as has been generated by the media in both US and UK!!

      If a country is innocent of a ‘charge’ then I shall do what I can to debunk such a groundless charge!

      Grow up Fred!

  21. ltr
    September 29, 2016 at 08:02

    This is wrong and dangerous but who will listen? We have begun a new Cold War:

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin’s behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.

    • Dato
      September 29, 2016 at 10:19

      The NYT.

      Now a sad pay-to-play-infomercial presstitute outfit:

    • Bruce Grant
      September 29, 2016 at 14:54

      It is a great shame that you seem to blindly believe all that the NY Times prints! Claiming that the missile is Russian… claiming that Putin gave the orders… claiming that Putin wants war! This is one of the problems that many Americans face… blind faith and a corrupted system. Look at evidence that checks ALL sources!

      Perhaps you might open your eyes a little and start to question the US sources. It is your “Big Brother” who is causing problems, because he “…is Watching You!”

      I often don’t agree with what Putin does, but I also don’t agree with what the US does… it is just as bad and incompetent!

      Terrorists do not promote peace, harmony or safety and DO NOT PLAY BY THE RULES!

  22. Tom Welsh
    September 29, 2016 at 06:57

    To my mind, this whole investigation resembles a murder trial in which everything is decided and controlled by the prime suspect. It is obvious that the Kiev junta was the party most likely to gain from the destruction of MH17 (or, at least, to think it might gain). It is equally obvious that neither the Novorossians nor the Russians could possibly gain (or even think they could gain) anything from it – except universal condemnation and hatred.

    Given the Kiev regime’s unbroken track record of consistent and shameless lying and fantasy, what could be more probable than that they cooked up th whole affair to help cast dirt at the Novorossians and the Russians? And of course, as soon as they heard of it, this is exactly the kind of filthy treachery the CIA enjoys most.

    As long as the Kiev junta has any part in the investigation (other than that of the accused) the truth can obviously never come out.

  23. September 29, 2016 at 06:46

    I you leave the investigation in the hands of Western ‘neutral’ and ‘independent’ experts then you should know the result before they have finished their job. They will lie until their death.

  24. col
    September 29, 2016 at 05:47

    I maintain that the recordings /immediate after (sliced together) is a giveaway to a planned attack. The time the spiced toegther recordings came out stronly suggest premeditation. Rember the Brennan visit (under an Alias) to Kiev which was denied but acknowledge when verified proof emerged. It was a classic fit up. It only survives in the MSM and the sheep of the west who have been pre conditioned to hating. It never survives critical thought. What purpose or benefit would Russia/Putin get with this action. The people fighting for their freedom were successful in using man pads, why the change. Maybe General Glynn if Trump gets in might convince Trump to release satellite evidence which puts the blame where it deserves. We should write to him, maybe their is a Honorable man. We desperately need men to stand tall and not fall vice to power to the ruination of mankind.

  25. col
    September 29, 2016 at 05:20

    Today (i am Australia) both our previous and current Prime ministers come on national TV and bellowed ‘own up putin’. I watched this in complete silence as realized over the last few days did Clinton put in ..what difference does it make. Also I could not believe it, no violent thoughts towards Elliot Higgins too. That’s it I’m cured. However i have become convinced that a existential nuclear war will occur soon. You cant have this level of vitriol and double dealing without WAR.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 29, 2016 at 10:40

      Yesterday I flipped on the car’s radio for a moment and heard an NPR guy drooling over somebody who had done all the “hard work” of putting together the MH-17 evidence dredged from the Social Media. The radio got turned off again as soon as I could reach the knob.

      I don’t like your conclusion about the preparation for a war, but then I sure can’t dispute it either. Waiting For Warmonger Hillary seems to be the ticket. Well, that and Helping Prepare For Warmonger Hillary.

    • Bruce Grant
      September 29, 2016 at 14:39

      There was war already – Donbas!

      See all 6 and judge then! There is much lying, covering up, mis-judging, deceit, mis-direction and general stupidity with the Dutch findings. Oh… politics! How stupid!

    • Kiza
      September 30, 2016 at 09:19

      The Prime Minister of Australia at the time, the single brain cell character Tony Abbot came on ABC radio at 7 am Australian time on July 18, which was only about 7 hours after the tragedy, to say that the Russians shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet with many Australians aboard and uttered several threatening words at the time. Apparently, a few days later he started preparations for a joint military intervention in Ukraine against the Russians, which never came trough because the Germans and the Dutch pulled out.

      I would not expect anything less than that this cretin and the current mega-crook Prime Minister Turnbull (ex Goldman Sacks director) would both follow up, to show that they are both obedient puppets of the US Deep State. It must have been the Crook and the Cretin show.

  26. Michael Morrissey
    September 29, 2016 at 05:02

    The non-barking dog aspect is painfully remindful of the 9/11 Pentagon videos.

  27. Primate_Supremo
    September 29, 2016 at 04:37

    – – – – – The View From The Canopy – – – – –

    So, “But the JIT seemed oblivious to this conflict of interest . . . “.

    C’mon now – they were given a choice by, you know, the Promotors of Truth, Freedom and The American Way.

    On the one hand – money, career, prospects, a decent retirement.

    On the other hand – a bullet in the head (or Hedbo -> chief police investigator – remember that one?) doesn’t do much for one’s future, does it now?

    Geo-politically, Russia possesses about a half of the world’s remaining resources, with a small population.
    The Western “democracies” are essentially running on empty, with outsized populations.

    It isn’t rocket science . . .

  28. September 29, 2016 at 03:41

    Another troubling detail about this latest MH17 press briefing was that it was given by Wilbert Paulissen and not Fred Westerbeke.

    Fred Westerbeke is the Dutch prosecutor who has led the international Joint Investigation Team (JIT) investigating MH17 from its inception, and was its public face up until now. Wilbert Paulissen is head of the Dutch national detective force and a member of the JIT. A small detail, perhaps, but a siginificant one for me as Westerbeke hasn’t always appeared comfortable with some aspects of the investigation, as I suggested in an article earlier this year.

  29. Andy Jones
    September 29, 2016 at 02:52

    How much training does a crew need before they can even launch a missile with this system? The Dutch (NATO) theory is like the US driving a Patriot missile system to the Syrian border and handing it over to the “moderate” rebels. Would they be able to use it?

    • backwardsevolution
      September 29, 2016 at 11:36


    • AndJusticeForAll
      September 30, 2016 at 13:30

      and about Russian military crew coming with the unit?

  30. Shafar Nullifidian
    September 29, 2016 at 02:34

    John Kerry is and has been for decades afflicted with chronic stage 4 cerebralis fecalosis. In German it’s known as Scheiße für Gehirne!

  31. Cassandra Dee
    September 29, 2016 at 02:12

    I’ve seen the team described as “mostly police and prosecutors.” Who picked the members? Who verified the tapes weren’t altered? Who verified the dates? Khodakovsky, who was taped reporting the shootdown of a plane, says “That is my voice and those were my words, but on a different day about a different plane.”

    The photos of the traveling BUK have been ripped to shreds if the Ripper was right about the details.

    The whole idea of that huge mass of missiles trundling for endless miles through small town after small town seems somehow clownish. Does that seem like a GRU operation to you? It’s Keystone Kopsy. What intelligence service do we know like that?

    If any of you don’t know, keep an eye out for antiBellingcat.

  32. Abe
    September 29, 2016 at 02:02

    The “Russian hackers” meme is being amplified to mask the mountain of Higgins and Bellingcat propaganda that undergirds not only the JIT report, but all the Washington/NATO “hybrid war” efforts against Russia and Syria.

  33. paul arlman
    September 29, 2016 at 01:20

    Your point about the dog-not-barking remains fascinating as the Dutch press appears totally silent and accepts as truth any info coming from official sources.

  34. Abe
    September 29, 2016 at 00:38

    Newsweek is competing with the New York Times for status as the Bellingcat-Atlantic Council propaganda press office.

    On 28 September 2016, Newsweek published verbatim a screed that had first appeared on 27 September on the Atlantic Council website. Atlantic Council fellow Ben Nimmo shrieked that “The Kremlin has turned its disinformation machine on those who are investigating the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine in July of 2014, using state employees, state-run media, and the state-run, though unacknowledged, “troll factory” […] The primary goal of the media attacks has been to undermine the credibility of citizen journalist group Bellingcat, an independent researcher into the crash.”

    On 17 July 2016, Newsweek published verbatim a self-congratulatory screed by Eliot Higgins that had first appeared on 13 July on the Atlantic Council website. Self-proclaimed “digital detective” Higgins effusively praised his “colleagues” at the Atlantic Council.

    The feeling appears to be mutual. The Atlantic Council just can’t stop flogging its “partner” Higgins.

    It’s one big circle jerk.

    In fact, Higgins was listed as a Reseach Associate of the Department of War Studies at King’s College, and was principal co-author of the May 2015 Atlantic Council “report” on Ukraine.

    Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins’ effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

    Wilson stated, “We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it’s thanks to works, the work that’s been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we’ve been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up.” (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

    However, the Atlantic Council claim that “none” of Higgins’ material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

    Higgins’ primary “pieces of evidence” are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

    Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence’s “hybrid war” against Russia.

    The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

    “an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report “Hiding in Plain Sight”, which used open source information to detail Russia’s military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine.”

    While it honors Higgins’ enthusiastic “trawling”, King’s College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins’ “findings” on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

    King’s College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s “Future Europe Initiative”, was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council “report” on Syria.

    The report’s other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

    Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State’s Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

    There is no daylight between the Atlantic Council’s “regime change” initiatives and the efforts of Higgins and Bellingcat.

  35. Abe
    September 29, 2016 at 00:07

    The are no gaps in the coordination of efforts by “regime change” organizations and fake “independent journalists” to exploit the JIT report.

    On September 29th at 2pm EST/7pm GMT, the Atlantic Council, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Open Russia, and Bellingcat have partnering for a media event in London, hosted by Simon Ostrovsky of Vice News.

    In addition to Eliot Higgins and his Atlantic Council BFF Maks Czuperski, the discussion panel includes aviation attorney Jerry Skinner and Nataliya Gumenyuk of the Hromadske NGO.

    An Internet television station in Ukraine that started to operate on 22 November 2013, Hromadske was funded in 2013 by the Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, the Embassy of the United States of America and by George Soros International Renaissance Foundation.

    Prompted by opposition party Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk called, via Twitter, for protests (which he dubbed as #Euromaidan) approximately 2,000 people converged in the evening of 22 November 2013 on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) to protest the decision of the Ukrainian government to suspend the EU association agreement. In the following days, Euromaidan, the biggest protests since the Orange Revolution, were being held in Kiev by opposition parties.

    • Cheryl
      September 29, 2016 at 23:35

      Abe I feel like we are living in the 1950’s again

  36. Skip Edwards
    September 28, 2016 at 23:07

    First, we must mourn the loss of all those innocent lives and the families and friends the innocent victims left behind. Next, we must, as citizens of the USA, ask ourselves if it comes to the point that almost no one trusts the word of US government officials then upon what solid ground does that gov’t stand? Any sane, intelligent person would conclude that the USA is disentegrating into a soon to be failed state.

  37. francesca
    September 28, 2016 at 23:04

    I’m just gobsmacked by the transparent shabbiness of the JIT report
    At first I thought the “rebels” had done it. But as time went on I was troubled by certain elements
    The constant shelling by the Ukrainians of the crash site.
    The delaying tactics of the Kiev authoritiesin allowing Dutch investigators to set off from Kiev, whereas the Malaysians , and OSCE arrived by dealing with the Donbas rebels , while the wreckage was still smoking, and weren’t prevented from carrying out preliminary inspections
    I would have thought that the radar evidence would have been irrefutable, and the US immediately declared they had that evidence. So what not make that public, and why the charade of gathering “evidence” from social media, and intercepts, much more easily faked.
    Also I do not believe the highly trained and professional Russian army would lug a Buk , missing its vital parts, that would assure accurate targeting.I mean come on
    There has been no mention of a thorough accounting of Ukraine’s Buks on that day
    How could a fair trial even be conducted if the defense is not able to review the evidence?
    I feel sad and angry that there is no justice, only the most malicious self interest of the Americans and Ukrainian oligarchs.I once upon a time believed that the honest search for truth would prevail
    Now I believe that the JIT report is deliberately wide open for dispute so as to prolong the propaganda values for as long as possible

  38. Abe
    September 28, 2016 at 22:56

    The relation between lies, disinformation and ever changing stories: The Ukrainians
    By Hector Raban

  39. backwardsevolution
    September 28, 2016 at 21:23

    “…the JIT itself has acknowledged a dependency on Ukraine’s SBU, which shaped the inquiry by supplying its selection of phone intercepts.” How can you conduct an accurate inquiry when one side gets to supply “its selection of phone intercepts”. LOL Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what you hand over. This inquiry is either rigged by deceitful individuals who are shaping it to elicit a certain outcome (my money is here), or run by ten year-olds. “Hello, people, we’re not stupid!”

  40. ltr
    September 28, 2016 at 21:16

    Importantly done as always.

  41. September 28, 2016 at 20:54

    Well Done and great investigative journalism. From a legal stand point and on the point of Juris prudence. The Prosecutor’s case has more wholes in it than a pasta sieve . Even a first year law student could shred the prosecutor ‘s evidence to shreds and debunk their narrative in spades.The fact that during the presentation the vast majority of their evidence was all rehashed garbage from Bellingcat proves the point. Further more the Technical data from the company who made these missiles r not even considered. The prosecutor stated from the onset of their presentation that their assumption was that the rebels did it and they went with that angle disregarding any other angles such as UKAF Mig -19 shooting it down and why did the plane not disintegrate two millions of peaces in mid air which it should have done if a direct hit from a buk further more the buk missile should have gone rite thru the plane from one end to the other. Like u have ritely stated more questions come from this blatant propaganda piece and timed perfectly to coincide with the POTUS election and the SAA taking back their country from the washington consensus foreign legion in Syria.

    • Joe Tedesky
      September 29, 2016 at 01:32

      Here’s an article out of Tass News saying pretty much what your saying. It’s a sham man, nothing but a sham. It’s selective evidence, much like going to war with select intelligence. A leave in take out methodology that pulls the investigation to a favorable desired outcome, by someone or something with much to hide. Russia is getting creamed, and cramped, all at the same time. The good news for Russia is they have been preparing for this, and by all accounts they have spent their money wisely to build a defensive military to secure it’s borders. Remember Russia’s military isn’t as global as the U.S.. This fact in and of itself should put out the flame of Putin aggression fear, which our American media is stoking with a red hot poker. Jerks!

      I also saw an article on Tass News whereas the Russians are extending their cooperation towards working together with the U.S. to solve this DNC/Hillary email hack problem America is wrestling with. The Russians must be Jesus people, and are not ashamed to turn the other cheek after what happened at Deir al Zoir. Today people at my lunch table thought it sad how the Russians broke the ceasefire…. I feel confident that they will read some of what I told them to look up on the Internet, plus a lot of the old doubters are starting to come around since they too have become aware of how much the government does lie to us. So there’s hope.

  42. montag47
    September 28, 2016 at 20:48

    Whatever actually happened on that day now over two years ago, it’s not as simple as “the Russians did it.” And I’m betting that the NSA has all the signals intelligence they need to know what went on that day, and they’re not saying. They were able to record the entire conversation between the Soviet interceptors and ground control when the Soviets shot down KAL 007 in 1983, thirty-three years ago, with the technology available then, and the Reaganauts were happy to release everything they had in order to prove the Soviets were the “evil empire,” and with no “sources and methods” dodges, either. And, AFAIK, there hasn’t been a peep out of the NSA on this matter.

    The most under-reported fact in all this is that the BUK/SA-11 is an integrated launcher/missile/local radar system that requires no small amount of training to operate, and it doesn’t work well with high-flying targets without coordination and communication with a regional radar system–everything the Ukrainian government has, and the rebels don’t. Moreover, the Ukrainians, if Putin’s plane was reputed to be in the region, had motive, means and opportunity. And if they were planning to shoot down Putin’s plane, they’d need a cover story prepared in advance.

    But, to be sure, the NSA knows. That the U.S. government hasn’t released any signals information from them is significant, I think.

    • Kiza
      September 30, 2016 at 01:57

      It is not the NSA which typically listens to communications in a war zone, it is the US military SIGINT/ELINT units, including spy aircraft. In other words military intelligence listens to military communications, NSA does surveillance over global civilian communications. For example, military intelligence had satellites over Ukraine, NSA had none.

      It is very interesting that NSA is a specialist in digital communications, whilst a large portion of military ground communications are still analog, especially in the post-Soviet space.

  43. Abe
    September 28, 2016 at 20:36

    The JIT report claims that its conclusions are “supported by the material which the investigation team recently obtained from the United States and the European Space Agency”

    The JIT preliminary conclusion is that “flight MH17 was shot down on 17 July 2014 by a missile of the 9M38 series, launched by a BUK-TELAR, from farmland in the vicinity of Pervomaiskiy (or: Pervomaiskyi). At that time, the area was controlled by pro-Russian fighters. Furthermore, the investigation also shows that the BUK-TELAR was brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently, after having shot down flight MH-17, was taken back to the Russian Federation.”

    The JIT acknowledged the earlier investigation results presented by the Dutch Safety Board, and noted that “many journalists carried out their own investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat”.

    In fact, the JIT conclusions are substantially if not entirely based on discredited “evidence” presented in “investigations” by Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat.

    • Kiza
      September 28, 2016 at 20:53

      You are joking! The JIT Report mentions Bellingcat!?!?!?

      What an achievement for Eliot Higgins, a former lingerie salesman in UK.

      The West is really sinking like a stone, just like its interest rates, its credibility is firmly in the negative territory: lies, lies and then more lies.

      • chuck b
        September 29, 2016 at 05:03

        what’s really worrying is the reaction to yesterday’s result. all major news trumpet the propaganda, which was to be expected, but in view of the situation in syria, the reporting calls for further escalation. the syrian “moderators” are now being empowered by the ukrainian guilty verdict. add to that the claims of russian hacking to influence the election, and the neocons will have created the perfect storm even before obama leaves office.

        in regards to MH17, i think kiev made perfectly clear how credible the western investigation would be the moment they began shelling the entire area only days after the downing and for several weeks, if not months, despite the agreed ceasefire. i’ve never heard of anyone attempting to destroy evidence that could indict the enemy…

    • Abe
      September 28, 2016 at 22:41

      Higgins is crowing: “It’s clear today that the reason the Kremlin and its proxies have attacked myself and Bellingcat repeatedly is because we exposed the truth.”

  44. September 28, 2016 at 20:28

    This afternoon’s screen crawl report that Russia had been identified as having shot down the plane seemed suspect. Bob Parry’s tenacious and meticulous review leaves me thinking that the Dutch have been co-opted into telling a NATO preferred story. That the suspect Unkrainians were given veto power and were in charge of the source intercepts are enough to discourage any confidence in today’s report.

    • chuck b
      September 29, 2016 at 05:17

      of course. any other outcome would have crushed not only kiev but kerry and the entire western position.

      i didn’t read the report but maybe someone can clarify this point: despite the warhead/buk-system containing some seven to eight thousand pieces, is it true that the report only mentions two? found in the pilots’ bodies, one containing glass fragments from the cockpit window? if so, is this at all possible? isn’t it more likely the two exhibits – buk a and buk b – fell out of someone’s pocket?

      • Sergei
        October 1, 2016 at 23:50

        That is my question too. I’ve read a story on the site of a Dutch media company called RTL (I can read Dutch) about an RTL journalist who found a Buk missile fragment in Donbass and brought it to the Netherlands. I am not sure whether JIT used it, the article was written long time ago, but if fake SBU tapes are good for them, then why not. And if stuff like that counts as “evidence”, I wonder if they even had to drop it from their pockets at the crash site. I could bring my fake samurai sword to JIT and claim that I have found it in Donbass and that it “clearly proves” the Japanese involvement. I think our authorities here in Moscow jumped too quickly on the “Whose Buk was it?” bandwagon, I have always considered the aircraft version much more likely for many reasons.

  45. September 28, 2016 at 18:27

    In the investigations of MH-17, two key features remain unexplained. One, the pilot cockpit voice recorder (one of the first pieces of evidence sought after in any plane crash), and two, the many “finger sized” holes in the fuselages on either side of the cockpit, which are not due to ground to air BRUK missiles. The latter leave shredded slit like tears, usually underneath the plane belly. The former finger holes are the type left by air to air machine gun projectiles, as has been reported previously by knowledgeable crash experts in Germany.

    Both “black box” recorders were found within days of the crash by the Kiev authorities, but the contents of only the technical data (air speed, altitude, direction, and other usual flight parameters) recorder’s contents were routinely examined and reported Surely the two pilots might have had some last words, even if tragically truncated. Where are they? Their silence is deafening.

    One might ask if there has been any rebuttal by Russian authorities, whose radar and satellite traces were made public. Any objective comment beyond a mere perfunctory they can’t be trusted?

    • Kiza
      September 28, 2016 at 20:00

      If any kind of missile (Surface to Air or Air to Air) exploded next to the cockpit, the pilots would not have had time to say anything – they died instantly.

      However, what is extremely strange is that the reports writers were not concerned about the missing air traffic control recordings and the Ukrainian primary radar data. Also, the US intelligence data. The investigation of MH17 reminds me of the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Email Server and the Clinton Foundation – facts wrapped around the pre-determined conclusions (Russia guilty vs. Clinton not-guilty), immunity distributed like kandy to the involved parties (Cheryl Mills vs. Ukrainians), the use of MSM to push pre-determined conclusions and so on. Here is the specific similarity between Cheryl Mills and the Ukrainians:
      — private lawyer Mills was given by FBI the authority to decide which Clinton emails were private and which were State Department office emails on Clinton’s private server and to delete the “private” ones and was then given immunity from prosecution by FBI,
      — the Ukrainians, the most likely perpetrators of the shoot-down were given the veto rights over which facts were to make it into the investigative report.

      The JIT bail-out clause that they relied on SBU will not be mentioned or made prominent in the MSM propaganda based on JIT report.

      I differ from Mr Parry in believing that this was a classical and deliberate false flag which had nothing to do with “Putin’s plane”, the target was any plane full of Europeans in order to force EU to introduce country-on-country economic sanctions on Russia (until the shootdown there were only sanctions on individual Russians). Because Lufthansa, British Airways etc stopped flying over the war zone, Malaysia Airlines which did not have an explicit company decision not to fly over the zone and was relying on the international airline association decisions was the next best thing. The shoot-down was prepared in the Western MSM by putting the shoot-downs by rebels of the Ukrainian military planes on the “front-page” two weeks prior to the false-flag. Why would the West promote the military losses of their Ukrainian puppets? Strange, I used to wonder at the time, but the answer came in the form of MH17. MH17 is a crime of the US Deep State using Ukro puppets.

      • Joe Tedesky
        September 29, 2016 at 02:00

        KIza I agree this was a mean and spiteful downing of a passenger plane. This plane was brought down to serve a reason, and I think you are right that it was to bring the EU members into the Russia heavy sanctions camp…and to keep them there.

        From what I recall Malaysia persecuted 911, and the Israeli apartheid, and things didn’t go well for the U.S. and Israel. So back when Flight MH370 went missing I sort of convinced myself that Flight MH370 could have been hacked into override mode and flown remotely. Then came Flight MH17′ and I thought, uh-oh could they have used the flight management system and taken this Malaysian passenger plane as well? In any case if not by coincidence, it does make one wonder to who Malaysia pissed off.

        Why America wants to rock and roll with Russia leaves me bewildered to what kind of sadistic militaristic sicko’s are writing our foreign policies. This new world order will destroy the world before they ever get to rule it, so what’s the point?

        Russia should be our closest friend.

        • Kiza
          September 29, 2016 at 08:44

          Hello Joe, if US people were deciding it probably would be. Unfortunately, in the US, the US people are either being manipulated or their views do not count for much.

          Anyway, here is what that mongrel Kirby said recently. Kirby said that if the war in Syria continues, “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down” as “extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities.”

          The US statements are sinking even below the level of the statements between India and Pakistan. Only the impotent make threats. My heart sinks every time I read again how Russia is prepared to cooperate with US (another Russian statement today). What does US need to do to them to wake up?

          Here is a good old John Helmer on JIT Report:

          • September 30, 2016 at 02:09

            The Russians take time to saddle their horses,
            but they ride awfully fast.

        • D
          October 3, 2016 at 20:09

          Oh my God… the fact that people like you actually get to vote scares the hell out of me. The stupidity of tin foil hatters like you will be the death of us all some day.

      • Ian Kiddle
        October 2, 2016 at 13:25

        I agree completely. If you remember on the day of the Shoot down Obama, Cameron and Abbot all came out accusing Russia. This immediate ascribing of responsibility is a characteristic of false flags as it is important to dominate the public narrative in the early stages when people’s opinions are forming. Anyway what prudent person does not wait at least for some form of investigation.

    • Bruce Grant
      September 29, 2016 at 14:27

      Check out YouTube: MH17 Inquiry

      There are 6 episodes of extremely competent journalism and findings… 6 in English and 6 in Russian! Please read then comment.

      Bruce Grant

      • van dieman
        October 3, 2016 at 03:43

        I suspect Bruce really works for the americans and pretends to be on the side of Russia.. The videos are so bad they must be intended to make the Russians look bad

    • mobile_actor
      October 2, 2016 at 12:47

      Howard Mettee, actually, the ‘black box” recorders were found by the rebels and hidden. They claimed they do not have them. Then they claimed that they found the recorders but sent the recorders to Moscow. Finally, after a threatening shout from Moscow the rebels passed over the recorders to the international investigators. That, is reality,

    • Sarah Jenkins
      October 2, 2016 at 20:14


      Blackstone and Jacob Rothschild, beneficiaries of the disappearance of the aircraft of Malaysia Airlines?

      Captain Voloshin: “The plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time”
      by Dmitry Steshin , Nicholas Varsegov , Vladimir Sungorkin
      A secret witness appeared in the case of the Malaysian Boeing; his testimony crippled all charges against the militia of Donetsk and Russia. It also explains the mysterious behavior of Western experts.

      Flight MH17, the 10 questions from Moscow to Kiev

      Analysis of the causes of the crash of Flight MH17

  46. SDCulp
    September 28, 2016 at 18:06

    “The-dog-not-barking” has always been a sore spot with me.
    I heard this report on NPR this afternoon. Was I surprised? Not really.
    Why do we insist on having the wrong “allies” and the wrong “enemies” in the Middle East and Eastern Europe?
    One would surmise that someone is making a lot of profit from continued conflict.

    • Antiwar7
      September 28, 2016 at 20:56

      The wrong allies? Why would the bad guys have good allies?

Comments are closed.