Home Australia MH17 One Year On – Does The Word “Vultures” Refer To The...

MH17 One Year On – Does The Word “Vultures” Refer To The Mainstream Media?

20

VULTURESThe Herald Sun headline (17/7/15)

On the anniversary of the downed Malaysian airliner, the propaganda continues. Was the release of the “horror” video, showing the rebels “rifling” through the wreckage, carefully timed to aid the sentiment and blame against Russia. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop described the video as “sickening to watch,” but also added – “deeply concerning this footage has emerged now”.

The  Australian mainstream media, including the ABC, claim this video is significant evidence that the “rebels” and President Putin are guilty. I heard on an ABC radio newscast the reader say, the rebels “expressed dismay that they had shot down the plane”. They claim in their news report that the rebels admit to shooting down MH17. Extraordinary. Where are they getting this script from?

I watched much of the footage and read through the alleged transcript here – but it only adds to the confusion.

When I watched the video, I was immediately struck by the quality of the audio. It sounded like some of it had been recorded in a studio. This could be attributed to the type of digital camera used. But, making the assumption that the audio is genuine, this, for example, is some of the chatter on the audio track:

“Look for the black box everywhere”, “Commander, can someone come here? Open it, I will stand and watch or hold the camera and I will open it. Open it.”, “I’m not filming faces, I never film faces”, and “It’s a Malaysian Airport [ID], Malaysian airlines…” And “Look for more information out there.” is answered with Put it all there, the investigation is going deal with it.”

But it gets more convoluted and confusing:

“And where’s the parachute jumper?”, “The plane fell at Lesnaya Skazka”, “They say the Sukhoi (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter.” and “They saw a pilot crawling at Rassipnaya. A pilot was seen crawling.”

Or this interaction:

Voice 1 – The other plane that fell down, they are after them, the pilots.

Voice 2 – The second one?

Voice 1 – Yes, there’s two planes taken down. We need the second.

Voice – The second one is a civilian too?

Voice – The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.

This hardly gets a mention in the Australian news. Thus how can we trust Australian media at all. Even the ABC avoid the content of the alleged audio track – and take up the Washington/Canberra narrative of blaming Putin directly. Headlines show a picture of a man “rifling” a pack. But it seems the videographer is deliberately filming the soldier while he searches for “intel” on the disaster.

Would we like to see soldiers express more compassion? Yes. Would we have liked soldiers to have killed less civilians in Iraq? Yes.

It would also be preferable to find the culprits in this instance, and not make assumptions.

The short version of the video.

There is no integrity left in mainstream media

We can only hope that the investigation on MH17 is being done with some integrity. We will never know, as secrecy and disclosure clauses surround the investigation process. There is a secret deal regarding the release of information – as we have reported on several occasions.

How can we believe anyone. The Russians are being creating their own propaganda to combat the West’s propaganda.

This is what the Deputy chief of Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency Oleg Storchevoy said during a briefing on MH17 investigation Thursday:

“If the missile, as Western authorities claim, were sent from Snezhnoe area [controlled by the rebels], then according to all experts and specialists, it would have been detected by radar station in Rostov-on –Don [region in Russia which borders on Donetsk Region],” (RT report)

And

“the radars would have recorded neither the launch, nor the movement of the missile towards the plane.”

Storchevoy added that there are “numerous records from plane crash witnesses, saying that they saw a military aircraft in the sky at the moment of MH17 crash.”

But other reports from the West claim that the rebels told the locals to tell the media they saw jet fighters.

And then – why not include the Israeli’s, “Israeli-made air-to-air missile may have downed MH17.”

A report by a group of old-hand aviation security experts maintains that the Boeing might have been downed by an Israeli Python air-to-air missile. This was leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex) late on Tuesday and has already been widely discussed by social media communities in Russia.

And maybe it was a false flag.

One version I would like more information on is the “attempt to assassinate Putin” theory. This is a story that both the West (plus Ukraine) and Russia would like to put to bed. I don’t think Putin would like to advertise that there was an attempt to “off” him.

putin plane

As reported in RT, “The presidential jet was there at 16:21, the Malaysian aircraft – 15:44 (Moscow time)” and “the aircrafts… (at a) distance they are almost identical”.

This exotic theory would explain the Ukrainian jets, parachuters, two planes, Buk’s everywhere, the secrecy, and the non-disclosure of the tower transcripts and US intelligence reports.


Don’t forget to enter the Spankley Awards – here – before the 20th July

 

 

20 COMMENTS

  1. You can’t tell me that if all the evidence showed Russian/Putin involvement that the Western War Monger Allies wouldn’t have started WW3 by now – I maintain that any evidence that exists points more at Ukraine and the Wests involvement -water board Julie Bishop!

    • We seem to have entered a phase of rebuilding the media narrative to reboot anger to channel that someone wants directed somewhere. US intel services have had surprisingly little to say about MH17, probably because they know the truth but also know what happens to those who let the truth slip. Careers trump morality in a crumbling Nation.

  2. In regard to matters like this, 911, the USS Liberty, operation Gladio etc., there is no point in having any reliance upon the politicians and the corporate mass media.
    I saw part of Abbott’s comments and simply walked away in disgust when he sprouted justice for the victims. As I walked out of the room I talked to myself and exclaimed: ‘ Bloody hypocrite, how about justice for 911’.
    I was a supporter of Abbott, but his hypocracy and pugilistic warmongering style re MH 17 lead me to think he is as dangerous as Howard was with his attitude and decision assisting to kill millions over the last 14 years or so. Bishop has joined in the hypocracy.
    I note that much of Dee’s references are also dealt with at whatreallyhappened.com by Rivero and those reports have been around for months.
    So there is absolutely no excuse for the deceitful msm journos to be making fools of themselves, as they have done with all the other official ‘terrorist’ murders.

  3. I remember seeing the news (which i don’t watch anymore) on this false flag event. The thing i remember which struck me first was when they paraded the passports of the victims for the news crew. I remember thinking wow it was lucky they were all stored in the one location (maybe?) and even luckier that not one was burnt in the fiery crash?
    Here is a great article i just found:
    MH17 One Year On: What Really Happened and Why
    http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/07/17/mh17-one-year-on-what-really-happened-and-why/

    • Not to get a cheap plug in here or anything, but our book, “Truth in Journalism,” contains two chapters about MH17, both written by Dee who seems to have preternatural perception of false flags. S’fer as I know she is the only journalist questioning the Kouachi brothers’ blame for the Je Suis Charlie killings.
      If you want it in E-book form, please write to us at Gumshoe.

  4. Don’t forget, most people don’t put anything of high value such as cash or jewelery in a carry-on bag because these bags are mixed with other people’s bags and are not so secure. Maybe a laptop computer or some valuable (to me) documents but that’s about all of value that I would put in a carry-on bag.

    • This “strange case of the new passports” video popped up shortly after the event happened. I’m not sure if it is so strange, after all. There are perfectly valid explanations for all those new passports.

      The most likely explanation is this – If memory serves me correctly, this video was first seen a day or two after the plane was destroyed. But even in that short time, there would have been enough time for, maybe 100 passports to have been collected. We are only shown about a dozen in the video, and they all look brand new. Of those 100 collected passports, probably the majority of them were not new, some 10 years old. Probably many of them were damaged. But a few of them were new, as if this was the passport holder’s first time out of their country. So the Ukrainian guys who collected the passports decided to show only the new ones in the video.

      Don’t ask me why but maybe they had some reason for doing it. For example, in many cultures, people only give each other new banknotes when they give money as a gift. Maybe they guy in the video had similar thoughts about what passports were worth appearing in a video.

      There is no valid reason for assuming deceit and trickery just based on this video. We need to know, for example, how many other passports were found, and in what condition.

      Secondly, the narrator of the video expresses bewilderment as to why someone would be carrying an expired passport in his carry-on luggage, or even luggage that is stored in the luggage section of the plane. Obviously the narrator has never lived overseas for any extended time. If he had, he would know that your passport expires overseas sometimes! And why do people keep their expired passports? Firstly, they like the photo of themselves taken 10 years earlier! But seriously, the passport is a good store of important dates and places. It’s useful to keep an expired passport, rather than throwing it away.

      • Possibly they chose to only show new passports because, by showing the photo in the passport, they are letting the viewers see what the passport holder looks like NOW, not 5 or 10 years ago, as would be case with some of the older passports.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion