Overview of found BUK shrapnel
Jeroen Akkermans found parts of a BUK missile. Both the part of the skin as well as a piece of shrapnel. The photos below show the same piece pictured from different sides.
Also the Dutch investigation team found shrapnel.
Prosecutor Fred Westerbeke specified in a that 7 pieces have been found. He said, “
We found uh 7 pieces, 7 pieces which we established that they were not a part of the airplane, and further investigation uh well gives us now the conclusion that it is probably part of a missile system and of a Buk missile system… We are not 100% sure at this moment and so that’s why we are a little bit cautious in the conclusion but the weapons experts who were, who have been looking at these parts they say well it probably is a Buk system Buk missile system and well the further investigation that we are going to do now is to establish that for sure.”
Another source reported that Dutch public prosecutor Fred Westerbeke said on Tuesday that international and Dutch investigators were examining seven “considerable fragments of some size… probably from a BUK missile system.” The article is specifically about fragments secured during a recent recovery mission (not fragments embedded in bodies or luggage).
The claim that missle parts were recovered is disputed by the DPR envoy in the Contact Group.
http://tass.ru/en/world/814032
The claim is also disputed by a spokesman for the DPR Prosecutor General’s Office.
http://tass.ru/en/world/814046
Malaysian Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai made it clear that the fragments were discovered after the June 1 release of the secret draft of the DSB’s final report. There is no question that he has seen a copy of the secret draft. He said, “The detailed report on the downing of MH17 will be out in October. All these (new) details will be added into the technical report and once it is out, we will know exactly what was the cause of accident. We know that it was shot down by a high energy object but what kind, whether it is a ground to air missile or Buk missile, we will have to wait for the report. At this point, as far as I am concerned, it is hearsay and it is too early to confirm and speculate whether it is a Buk missile and who owned the Buk missile.”
http://www.nst.com.my/node/95860
Ukriane media Censor.net published in July 2015 an article showing possile fragments of a BUK missile.
The image below was published by censor. net. This media claims the photo is leaked from the JIT investigation team. The shrapnel was found in bodies of the crew and in the aircraft debris. So these fragments are very likely not the same ones as JIT found.
by
The naked eye can see that shrapnels from 3 image are made from entirely different metal than shrapnel from image 1 and 2. So if 1 is BUK shrapnel than 3 are from another missile.
Metal generates rust in different way when being under the sky vs being in a human body.
sotilaspassi wrote: “Metal generates rust in different way…”
This is not correct statement. Metal could not generate rust.
The Buk missile uses iron pieces shaped in a double prism configuration. Iron rusts when exposed to oxigen sources like water, air or bodily fluids.
Read the article on the description of the Buk and see the pictures of the shrapnel on a missile and you will see them very oxidated, as in the pictures above.
It seems unlikely that the 7 pieces published by censor.net are the same 7 pieces that have been in the news recent days. Approximately 9/9/14 we heard that over 500 foreign objects were found that were embedded in bodies and luggage. 25 of them were ferrous objects that were examined more intensively than the other 475. Perhaps the censor.net photo is of 7 of the 25. Maybe we’ll see that photo again in the DSB’s final report.
Malaysia says the 7 pieces that Westerbeke described on 8/11/15 were “found” (this claim is disputed) during the last mission to eastern Ukraine which commenced 6/15/15 and was completed 6/27/15.
Akkermans apparently has not been punished for removing what he claims is evidence.
This is admin speaking: Eric’s comment has been deleted and his IP been blocked to prevent future comments. This because of making statements without providing any evidence.
This website has one goal: search for the truth and provide opensource information to backup claims.
You know Eric, that type of comment makes you APPEAR to be a paid propaganda troll when you do not respond to issues the article is about and you do not comment on someone else’s comment challenging or supporting it.
Admin, I had read that there were 11 new fragments found to be analyzed has this been confirmed that you know of? Or is it like ItsThatSo says it is only 7?
And do you know of many more that have been discarded because they are parts of the various GRAD missiles and others being thrown around?
And has any evidence of machine guns being shot into the plane pieces shown up either after it crashed into the ground or in the air?
Sorry, I do not follow all the DSB press releases to have read about those items myself.
And good point to remember sotilaspassi, blood and other human fluids will cause different effects on metals, also electricity could alter the appearance and time in the elements or buried underground.
Fare thee well
Boggled: I just deleted a couple of comments of Eric because these were clear propaganda.
Some newsagencies like RTL mentioned that 7 parts of a BUK-missile were found during the last recovery mission at the crash site. That was most likely in April.
There are photos showing brown square pieces which could be fragments of a weapon. These were put in for example the headrest of the pilot seat. Still wondering what these are and why they were put there.
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/recent-photos-taken-at-mh17-crash-site-show-various-pieces-of-shrapnel/
I have not seen any evidence of machine guns being shot at plane debris. All holes look liked to be made by irregular shaped pieces.
Yes, I agree all the holes look irregular in the various photos of the plane I have seen.
I just asked in relation to the article, and the little tidbit that IsThatSo offered about some 475 pieces being disregarded but held onto for further examination.
Thought maybe a question may have been asked regarding those pieces by the media such as – Do any of those fragments appear to be slugs from a rifle or from a 30mm cannon?
If I was a journalist, I would be pressing with questions like that to attempt to clear up some of the propaganda that is out there.
Like you, I imagine strange shrapnel in the area could be caused by various artillery like Smerch, Tornado, and GRAD and mortars, that is what they do try to send shrapnel to a large radius with killing velocities.
The investigators have a tough time.
And Eric, although I believe there was some small truth in the comment you made, there is a time and place to make that comment.
The beginning of the comments of a short but informative article dealing with shrapnel was not the time or place.
As to your recent comment, Most of the BUK’s and BUK missiles that Ukraine are ancient and not gotten many of the upgrades of more modern ones.
So the older ‘outdated’ information is still relevant.
What do you expect the admin to be talking about M2 launchers and 9m317 missiles only?
That subject is discussed here
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/
Interesting note there I did not pick up on before was your comment there that – Janes states that the 9N314 warhead can be used on the 9M317 missile. This source seems to confirm that.
Whether or not it goes the other way the a 9M38 type missile and the advanced warhead can be used together is probably RF classified info.
With their mass being nearly identical and the photos of various types of warheads, it suggests the possibility.
An interesting 2010 article that shows a 9M317 without out fins and states a warhead is about 20kg fragments and 50kg explosive charge, can be found here. It appears to be a French article.
Does that suggest interchangeable fins as well?
http://cesane.artillerie.asso.fr/Texte/DocumentsMemorial/5.71.SA_17_GRIZZLY.pdf
IF the idea of a 9M38 missile are challenged, I think the idea of a modified 9M38 or actual 9M317 must be considered, since the only two missiles firmly identifiable LOOK like 9M38, the possibility of modification so that a ‘newer’ booster engine and sustaining flight engine, a newer ‘nose cone’, and a newer warhead could be part of a 9M317 with older fins of a 9M38 installed.
The newer missile with the deceptive appearance, would give the flight radius needed to be sure to hit MH17, and it would be an ideal way to cover a covert operation where you intended to target a Soviet civilian aircraft.
Yes, I know a future article, but just finding this image, I think is worth some consideration as well as the info about explosive charge versus fragmentation parts.
One last thing admin, in rereading your article about the BUK missile and launcher, you state about half way down –
‘A complete overview of missile types used by SA-11
9M38: the first missile developped -> 9K37 BUK and 9K12M4 KUB
9M38M1: better version of 9M38 -> 9K37M1 BUK M1, 9K37M1-2 BUK M1-2
9M317: better version of 9M38M1 -> 9K37M1-2 BUK M1-2 and 9K317 BUK M2’
I think the top line should be changed to read –
‘An almost complete overview of missile types used by SA-11 or SA- 17.’
Or you should separate the two launchers as what can be used by each, it leads someone to think that a SA-11 can launch all those missiles.
I say almost complete because I think there is a 9M317M, 9M317LE, and a 9M317E missile as well that can be fired by either launcher when you look at the full capabilities.
Or you could adapt the list some other way to conform more to the table above in the article.
Fare thee well
Sorry for not being clear in rereading my comment.
Looking at the chart, The M1-2 is classified as SS-17.
The M1 is classified SS-11.
Your list, is for SA-11.
BUT it includes M2 specific missiles which chart lists as SA-17. (M1-2 and M2)
I do not think getting rid of the M1-2 and M2 missiles
is a good idea.
I just think you should state it includes BOTH SA11 and SA17.
And for anyone who needs to research a BUK, this page of the admin’s is a great source of info before you make a comment.
Any corrections or questions or additions, should be done in the comments on that page, I know I am breaking that rule a little bit here, but I think it is a great page to keep bookmarked for reference.
In my opinion it is the best overall English collection of information on the web about BUK’s.
Thanks admin for such an informative page and adding new stuff to it.
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/
Fare thee well
It is Fred Westerbeke who specified that 7 pieces have been found. In an inverview posted by Reuters he said, “We found uh 7 pieces, 7 pieces which we established that they were not a part of the airplane, and further investigation uh well gives us now the conclusion that it is probably part of a missile system and of a Buk missile system… We are not 100% sure at this moment and so that’s why we are a little bit cautious in the conclusion but the weapons experts who were, who have been looking at these parts they say well it probably is a Buk system Buk missile system and well the further investigation that we are going to do now is to establish that for sure.”
Another source reported that Dutch public prosecutor Fred Westerbeke said on Tuesday that international and Dutch investigators were examining seven “considerable fragments of some size… probably from a BUK missile system.” The article is specifically about fragments secured during a recent recovery mission (not fragments embedded in bodies or luggage).
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1848888/mh17-investigators-find-fragments-probably-russian-made-missile-ukraine
The claim that missle parts were recovered is disputed by the DPR envoy in the Contact Group.
http://tass.ru/en/world/814032
The claim is also disputed by a spokesman for the DPR Prosecutor General’s Office.
http://tass.ru/en/world/814046
Malaysian Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai made it clear that the fragments were discovered after the June 1 release of the secret draft of the DSB’s final report. There is no question that he has seen a copy of the secret draft. He said, “The detailed report on the downing of MH17 will be out in October. All these (new) details will be added into the technical report and once it is out, we will know exactly what was the cause of accident. We know that it was shot down by a high energy object but what kind, whether it is a ground to air missile or Buk missile, we will have to wait for the report. At this point, as far as I am concerned, it is hearsay and it is too early to confirm and speculate whether it is a Buk missile and who owned the Buk missile.”
http://www.nst.com.my/node/95860
We know there was another mission to eastern Ukraine that started 6/15/15.
https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/@89673/start-vervolg/
And we know this recovery mission ended 6/27/15. But the 6/27 article says that the mission began over 2 weeks ago, which would be sooner than 6/15. I haven’t been able to resolve this detail.
https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/@89864/opsporingsmissie/
In the absence of hard information my guess is that if missile fragments were recovered then the recovery occurred between 6/15/15 and 6/27/15. Sorry I didn’t post the links in my previous comment. I was preoccupied with other things.
thx for your comment. I added the text to the article as I found it important.
Definitely important issues. Thanks for collecting them all for us IsThatSo.
I think the scmp article is intriguing.
Two things of note
1 – ‘seven “considerable fragments of some size’ – seems to suggest these are something other then smaller pieces of the fragmentation warhead.
Possibly other missile components such as the ceramic nose cone, the targeting radar of the missile, outer shell pieces, or even parts of the booster rockets themselves.
At 700kg or so, there are a lot of parts.
2 – It states – A joint statement from prosecutors and the Dutch Safety Board (OVV) said the fragments were “secured during a previous recovery mission [at the crash site] in eastern Ukraine and are in possession of the criminal investigation team and the Dutch Safety Board”.
If you take away the bracketed items, which I assume were added by the editor or the journalist of the article, then you could with the other statements not necessarily conclude they were from the crash site of MH17, but possibly the crash site of the missile itself in government controlled territory.
At least that potential is there.
The editor said it was at the crash site, not JIT!
JIT said it was just in Eastern Ukraine during an evidence recovery mission.
And that would be further supported by DNR making statements no missile parts or fragments were recovered.
Thank you IsThatSo, good catch on articles.
Fare thee well
Admin and Boggled, you’re welcome!
As to the question of where the 7 “considerable fragments of some size” were found, the joint DSB/JIT statement specifies “Eastern-Ukraine”.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/onderzoek/1650/investigation-into-possible-buk-missile-parts#fasen
However, The BBC, the Associated Press and Reuters say that the fragments were found at the crash site. Neither the BBC nor the AP cite a source for that information. It is possible they’re protecting their source(s). It is possible they read something into the joint statement that simply isn’t there. Maybe they’re simply taking journalistic liberty because the crash site is located in eastern Ukraine. Maybe they are fishing for a response from the DSB or JIT that would clarify whether the claimed recovery was at the crash site or elsewhere in eastern Ukraine. Reuters attributes the source to “Dutch prosecutors”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33865420
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutors-buk-missile-parts-found-mh17-site-33007348
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/11/us-ukraine-crisis-mh-idUSKCN0QG18U20150811
Malaysian and Australian media are reporting also that the fragments were from the crash site.
http://www.nst.com.my/node/95860
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/fragments-found-mh17-crash-site-possibly-belong-russian-made-missile-1460083
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/08/12/mh17-probe-finds–possible–missile-parts.html
We know that the AFP asked Dutch public prosecutor spokesman Wim de Bruin specifically if the location was the crash site. He said that he could not be more specific than “in eastern Ukraine”.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2015/08/11/MH17-investigators-find-possible-BUK-missile-parts
The problem with misinformation is that when it is repeated loudly and frequently enough it becomes established as Truth. A less emotionally charged example of this is the way both the eastern and western media misrepresented what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The western version was that the US and the Soviets got in a staring match, and the Soviets blinked. The truth emerged decades later that the Soviets agreed to remove missiles from Cuba while the US agreed to remove missiles from Turkey and to abstain from attacking Cuba. Even so, the false perceptions persist to this day.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cuban-missile-crisis-beliefs-endure-after-50-years
Far be it from me to say that western oriented media spun the story concerning where possible Buk missile fragments were found. I regard the claimed crash site location as unconfirmed. I wonder also why the DSB and JIT decided to leak this news at this time instead of waiting until the release of the DSB’s final report.
Both sides of the MH17 controversy are engaged in manipulating the perceptions of the public who remain deprived of much hard information. The public is tempted to believe “our side” instead of seeking the truth. Thus evil (telling lies) is reinforced by evil (being too lazy to seek the truth). As for the unknown and unadulterated truth about MH17, neither side will be able to keep the cat in the bag forever.
I tend to agree with all you say IsThatSo.
Intent of manipulation (willful to sensationalize a story, state ordered, poor interpretation, poor journalism, poor editing, etc.) is a think one must consider in who they chose to get media from and how much validity you give the media you receive.
I tend to see Western media as less willful to distort, they get called on it if they do.
The Kremlin and their state government media sources, even like the USA State Department, or Hamas have different levels of what they are willing to do.
I am sure you read the news about James Clapper, and although he didn’t tell the WHOLE truth, he told enough of the truth for the world to become aware of the NSA tactics.
The Kremlin has a long history of lying to Russians and the world and been caught in it, and they still do.
The USA will almost always that I have seen tell the truth, just not the whole truth.
How the outside media interprets and presents those statements is how a larger lie, or a larger distortion of truth evolves.
In today’s fast paced society, many go for the sensationalized or quick sound bytes of information that do not give the whole story, just what the media and the journalist wants you to believe.
Lots of those are not called to terms on the media they present other then ‘viewership’ numbers which they count on so they can get more advertising revenue.
I tend to hold the one article mentioned by me as closer to truthful reporting then some of the others you presented.
And your right, as any story in the media, or gossip of the neighborhood gets presented, it can snowball the more people that repeat it.
Instead of Hercules sat in front of chimney smoking a pipe and eating dinner Saturday night, you end up with, Hercules battling a Minotaur and knocking over a chimney on his long journey to find the Valkyries.
Only the the fact there was a chimney in the original story and the final one are all the truth that is left.
Thus Legends and myths are born.
No, the cat will not be kept in the bag forever, but before then people will have their own preconceived notions.
Just a guess as to why they released it in public and openly like this, maybe have been to inform as many involved with the investigation as possible that some significant evidence was found after the diplomats and heads of state were presented the ‘final draft’ of the DSB report for comment and review, and the fact there may be a NEW DSB final draft for comment and review to be presented before the public review gets published.
Just a guess, but I think if new important evidence is collected that they feel holds relevance and should be in the report is why this is being publicized.
Maybe also forewarning the public that in light of newer evidence, the public report may come out later then the expected October date.
Thank you again for the additional links.
Fare thee well
Concerning your guesses as to why the press release was issued:
My understanding of that press release is that the DSB report will only mention these recently surfaced parts. Investigations into them will be done by the JIT only, so the results of these investigations will not be part of the DSB report.
Because the results of the JIT report will not be published, this could also be interpreted as a forewarning that the cat will be kept in the bag.
possible Ole, I am not sure if the public DSB report will even discuss evidence at all that was found that supports their statements.
They just may make there statements and that is it.
BUT if the publicly released report does release the evidence that supports these statements, then a BUK rocket motor or booster would be irrefutable evidence to include in the report if they made a statement a BUK missile did it and even maybe the type of missile.
Support for your statement can be found here –
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150717/1024761939.html
An NTSB agent there states it will the report will include the type of weapon and type of missile, but won’t elaborate more then that.
For me, it seems really vague what they will disclose, but firm on what they will not disclose in sections 5 of the Annex 13 protocols.
5.2 Formal criteria for disclosure of safety information should be established and
should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
– etc.
In my reading, there is not a clear wording of when and if and what type of evidence will be transferred to the custody of the public without FOIA requests or the criminal trial.
It may be the custodian of all evidence is transferred to the Tribunal or the JIT.
And that evidence gets withheld.
But this previous DSB does disclose a lot in its 224 page report.
http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/reports/2009/20090225-0_B738_TC-JGE.pdf
We shall see, but I imagine they will disclose some information about what was found.
You might be right though, and nothing more then the statement it was hit by a Russian designed SAM is all that is in the report.
We shall see
Fare thee well
Surely? That reassurance can only be observed inside the bubble that is Russia. The rest of the World understands that because the Separatists at Donbas have no air force whatsoever the Ukrainian government forces had no need for Buk missiles in the first place. And the evidence is overwhelming on the presence at Torez of a Russian Buk station from Kursk.
That Ukraine had no reason to deploy anti aircraft weapons in East Ukraine is not true. Ukraine threatened to destoy all Russian aircraft violating the Ukraine airspace.
http://info-news.eu/ukraine-to-destroy-all-russian-military-aircraft-violating-ukrainian-airspace/
Also there is a video showing a BUK in ATO zone. Where exactly is unknown.
Thank you admin for that link, I knew of some aircraft penetrating, but not all those.
I would add to that Hektr, Ukraine has a perfect right to defend its own airspace by putting BUK’s wherever it wants.
They protect against ballistic missiles as well as aircraft and helicopters of an enemy.
With the large amount of RF military forces on the Ukrainian border, and so many crossing in, they believed it was just a matter of time before RF forces came with larger little green men on vacation and their equipment.
Ukraine was perfectly justified in setting up SAM installations in territory it controlled.
I do agree that there is evidence pointing to the Kursk regiment being there, but that is not the only evidence to consider for all the investigators.
Fare thee well
Well I feel I was harshly treated Marcel. I understand you need to be seen to be impartial. You have though posted several entire articles with sources about the buk missile that relate to older versions of the buk. Why do you think you were fed old outdated information about older versions of the missile. Yes. All the pictures and information you have is about older versions of the buk. That’s why the pictures look so old ..but good luck
Eric: your two comments where not backed by any evidence. Yes Ukraine could have shot down MH17. I do not know and nobody knows. It is not likely at all just by looking at the clear and proven lies of Russia (route of MH17, SU-25 story in press, photoshopped BUK at Donetsk army barracks, deny of location of Luhansk video and so on) See my website for debunk of all this.
To complete your overview you should add this subammunition of the Buk-M1-2 :
http://en.censor.net.ua/resonance/328926/submunitions_of_russian_missile_bukm12_aka_sa17_which_downed_the_malaysian_boeing_mh17_exclusive_photo
and the fragment wich shows part of a serial number with a broken 2 and a Cyrillic Ц from the Russian alphabet :
http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/evidence-proving-flight-mh-17-was-taken-down-buk-missile
> and the fragment wich shows part of a serial number with a broken 2 and a Cyrillic Ц from the Russian alphabet :
http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/evidence-proving-flight-mh-17-was-taken-down-buk-missile
This has been found to be a part of the Boeing 777 itself.
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=283#p17023
http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7606/16865005831_6c18590418_k.jpg
Someone with very sharp eyes spotted a similar text on Akkermans’ pictures of the wreckage. That user really had a gift for spotting, as it was not the only impressive find by him. Unfortunately, there are rumors that he has died in the war.
Eugene, that´s a good find.
But what number could the Cyrillic Ц be ? There is no possibility.
It must be a 4. Boeing knows for sure.
admin wrote :
„Also there is a video showing a BUK in ATO zone. Where exactly is unknown.“
There are more then one sighting of ukrainian BUKs in ATO zone.
1) 5.3.2014 nearby Kramatork, BUK 332 and another one.
2) 5.3.2014 nearby Gorlovka, BUK 312, 321, 323, 332 and two other BUKs from the 156th anti-aircraft missile regiment
3) 16.3.2014 Kurakhovo, Donetsk region, on the highway Donetsk – Zaporozhye, two BUKs.
4) 18.3.2014 Yasynuvata, BUK 312
5) 8.5.2014 Kramatorsk, BUK 121
6) 5.7.2014 near Slovyansk. Minister of Defence of Ukraine, Colonel General Valery Geletey visited ATO zone (location unknown). Several BUKs are in the video.
7) 16.7.2014 in Avdeevka, near Donetsk a full BUK system
8) 22.7.2014 a ukrainian soldier named Sergey Paschenko posted a foto where he is seen at an unknown location with BUK 122 and other BUKs.
9) End of July Kramatorsk, Buk 312 is back
Liane, do you have a link showing point 5), the Kramatorsk sighting of BUK 121?
Hector, many of the direct links can be found here –
https://bellingcat.checkdesk.org/en/story/67?fbrefresh=1411422738
Fare thee well
Well, Boggled, may you can help. TELAR 121 possibly made a tour from A-1428 via Amvrosievka a few days before the dark 17th. From there it could have been moved to Zaroshchenskoye. Does Bcat withhold evidence of this possible murderweapon?
If you have prove of them withholding evidence, that they did not discard because it could not be verified in some manner, present it.
Otherwise quit this petty jealousy and slander Hector.
121 could have gone to Kyiv, Odessa, and back in a few days and they would still have a day to go fishing.
I presented you what they have and they have provided BOTH Ukrainian BUKs and Russian ones.
Ukraine is perfectly in its rights to put it’s BUKs anywhere it wants in its territory for air defense.
Your barking up a wrong tree.
You know where and when a BUK was seen, you have the tools with Google Earth to follow it, if you want or to see if it ever moved.
Your slanderous statements without any proof deserve an IP ban and if I was an admin, I would impose it.
I was trying to be unbiased and be fair to you and helpful, and here you are, making a slanderous statement out of jealousy because your site has gotten less then one one hundredth the views BC or this site does.
Sorry every one of your ‘theories’ have failed in a big way.
That’s life when you bet on the wrong thing and you fail in logical analysis and are a completely proKremlinPropaganda reporting tool.
Every bit you write was first done in RT or some other Kremlin sponsored media.
And you failed to analyze it like an investigator.
To be slanderous as you are makes you appear even more obviously a Kremlin agent yourself.
Fare thee well
Boggled there is no need to launch a personal attack on Hector. Let’s focus on evidence
Sorry Ken, he opened himself up for it by making such a provocative propaganda slanderous statement at the end of his comment.
It was a personal attack at Bellingcat that had no relations to the shrapnel found.
His statement was 100 percent propaganda and slander.
I called him on it, while the admin was enjoying Sunday.
And maybe working on an article or two.
Hector deserved every word I said, for him or someone pretending to be him making that comment.
If your going to post metabunk stuff you should probably include the relevant forum titles.
I generally avoid link there, although I read it.
I try to link directly to the image they post there and comment about it.
The pilots body x-ray is older news, but is relevant and important if it can be verified, and I have yet to see it verified anywhere officially.
It might be genuine, it might be Ukrainian propaganda, it might be evidence of Ukraine tampering with evidence, it may be a complete fake.
Also IT IS IN the article the admin wrote above, click the link that says censor dot net, and that was July 17 2015.
Thank you for doubling up on it.
https://www.metabunk.org/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.t3997/
Looking through my link, the first ten pages of the 12 have some relevance in them, but the last two have nothing to do with shrapnel.
Thank you Ken Oath, but check the admin’s links in the article and in other’s comments.
Accidents happen, we are all human and to err is to be, I am not trying to be confrontational, just making a point.
Fare thee well
Boggled. This is really the last warning before I take other measures. Please be to the point and keep your comments on topic and to the point.
Secondly. Have you read the posts of Hector Reban on his own website?
The truth is more than what Bellingcat presents us. A lot of questions can be asked on the appearance of photos and videos of that BUK. These questions are not asked by Bellingcat and not the press. Press is full of ignorance.
Hector has a different look on evidence presented which does not make him a RT-fanboy.
I will soon post more on evidence and BUK route. Comments please in that post and not here.
Boggled but you are just clogging up this comment section unnecessarily.
Ken, the admin has my permission to edit or delete my comments as wished.
But I will attempt to restrain myself more.
If I see a comment like that, I respond to it, there are too many articles to comeback ten days later and respond if the admin has not taken care of it.
Hector deserved a bop on the nose, and he got it.
Fare thee well.
Well, Boggled, I was only referring to the method of pro-Kiev/NATO trolls like Ukraine-at-war who said yesterday on his blog RT is withholding evidence based on quite a few false assumptions (and clearly knowing this).
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2015_08_01_archive.html
He has changed this story at least twice, due to an encounter with evidence. He is looking for a car owned by RT from which the BUK should have been filmed.
So maybe, if you are not up to my question to look for Ukrainian BUK 121 in the first half of july 2014 roaming from airforce base A-1428 via Dnjepropetrovsk back to Amvrosievka and maybe Zaroshchenskoye, you could help him then?
Boggled said: “Every bit you write was first done in RT or some other Kremlin sponsored media.”
That’s quite an accusation. But even when true – I think admin should have urged you to back this slander up with some evidence – it doesn’t mean the conclusion are false nor that I copied my stories from Russian outlets (though in some cases its true allright).
Now you portray yourself as a fan of logic, you should know this is called a Guilty-by-Association fallacy.
With all respect admin this statement –
‘ Does Bcat withhold evidence of this possible murderweapon?’
How am I supposed to answer that question?
I provided a link of more then the ONE sighting listed in Liane’s comment.
BC has provided MORE evidence then she has of tracking.
And I offered it.
AND Hector made a SLANTED and false (slanderous) accusation claim of BC withholding evidence when I CLEARLY offered a spot with multiple accounts of BUK121.
Yes, I have read his site, and some things are factual and worth knowing and discussing.
JUST LIKE Kremlin propaganda, his recipe for a story is – 3 parts truth, 4 parts half truth, 1 part antiDemocracy statement, 2 parts bald faced lie, and 3 parts is false illogical analysis to make anyone not with the Kremlin ‘family’ look bad, and anyone with the ‘family’ look good.
Bellingcat is just a tool, like your’s and Hector’s.
BC specializes in one aspect analyzing photos and videos posted on online accounts.
They show BOTH RF and UA BUK emplacements.
They are fair in there discussions and articles.
Your’s and Hector’s are more specific to MH17, BC is not.
JUST like the DSB is different from the JIT.
You all sites have a different goal associated with it.
One thing interesting on his page –
https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/did-the-ukrainians-shoot-down-flight-mh17/
Is the spelling about a quarter of the way down – forensic analist
Does that remind you of some deceptive person in your comments admin?
One last thing about his article –
He states – Motives for such an operation Ukraine had too, for as they needed political and military support to eliminate the separatists once and for all.
And that is simply not reality, after the fall of Slavyansk, Girkin went to say openly – “We don’t have the means to fight so many tanks,” Igor Girkin, the rebel commander in eastern Ukraine who goes by the nom de guerre Igor Strelkov, said in a video appeal to Moscow on June 19. “I’m still hoping that Moscow has enough shame to take some kind of measures.”
Video – http://rian.com.ua/video/20140619/353584684.html
other confirming articles –
http://time.com/2969586/vladimir-putin-russia-ukraine-rebels/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=840066
The very fact he quotes Robert Parry, and uses his statements in his’ proof’ of possible UA involvement in MH17 is a red flag.
Remember the anonymous sources of his?
Why would you give that any validity?
Oh yeah, he is RT’s DC fanboy screaming antiUSA government articles that received a large regular donation from RT and Kremlin proxy for his website.
Oh look, on that page, he quotes BOTH RT and Sputnik as reliable sources, even though they are both well known to be Kremlin sponsored media outlets.
And the last thing, he quotes you there admin.
proves: ¨Various parts of the aircraft show damage which indicate a missile launch from Zaroschenskoye.¨
He is saying that you your self say that a launch from Zaroschenskoye is DEFINATELY the launch point.
I could document other specifics of both his sites the mei and his wordpress, but I think that is enough for one comment.
What BC presents or doesn’t present because they have not been giving evidence, is NOT them covering something up.
He asked a slanted question and how am I supposed to know the inner workings of BC.
I have no evidence of them covering up, and if he does, he should have offered it.
To Hector – DP makes a compelling argument for RT withholding evidence.
And backs it up.
He is doing real time walking through a hypothesis with his readers and asking for help if anyone has any.
IF no evidence gets presented or enough to challenge his theory he withdraws or retracts it.
I have yet to see you retract one statement you have made on your sites that has been proven false over and over again.
Fare thee well
Is it this one?
Buk fragments said to be found in the pilots body now https://www.metabunk.org/possible-shrapnel-in-mh17-wreckage.t5002/#post-162647.
This BUK fragment used in part as ‘evidence’ with the MH17 investigation, was fabricated by the Ukrainian military administration. The Ukrainian cyber hacktivist group CyberBerkut discovered documents just 1 month after the incident that one Ukrainian officer was preparing BUK fragments from another missile system, to be used in future as evidence in the investigation. Only a year later had the fragment been mentioned by the MSM.
I suppose the corrupt elite take more care with preparing lies, falsities and fabrications these days… eh?
There was a comment on our very partisan site rusvesna in 2014, from anonymous blogger, that particles were removed from the bodies in Kharkov morgue.