If it was a missile the Dutch would have said so. MH17 was brought down by “a large number of high energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from the outside”. The other high energy objects came from our Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He was firing premature and (most likely) false accusations at Russia.
Unlike the ABC Four Corners program, it is good to see the ABC News report include the soldier holding what looks like one of ‘the objects’ – and screening the (damning) footage of the fuselage – that has obviously been penetrate by bullet-like objects and not by a missile. More reports.
I have had communications (unverified) that MH17 was shot down by two air-to-air missiles that had multiple heads (similar to a shotgun blast); that eyewitnesses saw a jet(s); that the jet followed the plane – fired at it over the area of the crash, then turned and headed northwest.
People also went to the site where the BUK-M1 was supposed to have been but could not find any evidence of it having been there.
Why will the final investigation only be released in a year? To give time to NATO to continue demonizing Russia. And also time for the public to forget the outrageous and premature accusations from our politicians. By the time the report comes out (and I have predicted what it will say in a past post) – this will all be old news. Canberra has put the wrong foot forward – urged on by the dismal Mainstream media reportage. They have done the investigation and the families of the victims a disservice.
I had forward this clip below (and several earlier posts) of (OSCE) Michael Bociurkiw to Bishop’s Department. Bociurkiw, the first international monitor to reach and become intimate with the wreckage, talks about ‘machine-gun fire’.
I am still waiting for a reply from DFAT and the AFP regarding my question about the secret non-disclosure deal. But that seems almost irrelevant now – as the cat is already out of the bag.
[…] inserted a cheesy animation of a missile shooting into the lens. This fact disclosed before any investigation outcome. The ABC has consistently ignored clear evidence of BULLET-LIKE HOLES as described by the first […]
Last view there was 12 solidly argued responses to the Four Corners MH17 report on their program comment board.
The force of this action and information could be multiplied if the journalists, researchers and producers of the program were to
be subjected to scrutiny of their reporting on the record.
This prospect should be presented as a challenge to all the media.
Can they defend and justify their performance if it were open to total public scrutiny?
The big failure is the omission of part of the complete picture.
[…] are just some of my articles over the last two months – here – here – here – here – here – here and […]
[…] 10 September […]
[…] 10 September […]