• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

donderdag 27 april 2017

MH17: ONE THOUSAND DAYS OF FAKING


By Max van der Werff, Amsterdam 
Original in Dutch and English translation, also by Max van der Werff, appear here
On April 12, 2017, a thousand days had passed since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down above East Ukraine. Up until now, those who did it have not been identified, indicted or arrested, and many questions remain unanswered.
Foreword
After publication of the final report of the Dutch Safety Board in October 2015, I summarized the results of my two visits to the crash site and more than two thousand hours of Internet research in the article MH17 – Lying for Justice. Since then, I’ve had four meetings with the members of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and in total about 6 hours of talks have been recorded. Finally, I handed over 14GB of data to the Dutch researchers with the assurance that only Dutch researchers would have access to the material.
Special credits for citizen journalists Marcel van den Berg, alias MH17research and Hector Reban (alias). I frequently used Hector’s blog and Marcel’s blog for writing this article. No other public source can match the information that can be found on both websites.
For numerous topics related to MH17 I would like to refer you to the interview in Café Weltschmerz where I was interviewed as a citizen journalist myself.

Purpose of this article
1) Analysis of evidence presented by the JIT on September 28th, 2016.
2) Reporting what was not presented by the JIT (including motive, exact weapon, lies of Kiev).
3) Information on MH17 discussions in mass media.
4) Presentation of plausible scenarios of what might have happened to MH17.
5) Speculating on prosecution and quality of the future evidence.

Chronology
The entire press conference of the JIT is on Youtube and lasts in total 1 hour and 19 minutes. Left channel is Dutch spoken, right channel is with English translation. I divided the presentation into 74 parts and in an excel sheet [link] topic keywords and direct links are provided. This is useful not only as a reference, but is essential to split the press conference and discuss it in chronological order, the way events must have happened in reality, according to the JIT.

Key conclusions drawn by the JIT
– The Buk-Telar was brought to the firing location from the territory of the Russian Federation [26min05s]
– The Buk missile was fired from an agricultural field near Pervomaiskyi. [40min19s] & [29min07s]
– The type of Buk missile which downed MH17 is 9M38 series and Telar after being used is returned to the territory of the Russian Federation. [20min31s]

Reconstruction of the route and the evidence presented by the JIT

Route of 235 Km that the Buk (on a trailer) might have passed during the night of 16/17th of July 2014 from the Russian border to Donetsk.
The JIT doesn’t indicate which border crossing has been used and neither which route exactly might have been followed, but states: “At eight o’clock in the morning a witness has seen the Buk in Yenakiieve ” [33min27s]. Furthermore, the JIT used animated information from an anonymous Twitter account claiming that the Buk was standing at this crossroads in Donetsk [34min52s].
Route allegedly been driven on July 17th, 2014 is N21. I’ve done this route myself several times, both in the direction from Donetsk to Snezhnoye and back.
Volvo trailer in combination with Buk-Telar was filmed at this spot in Donetsk, by an anonymous freelance reporter claimed to be working for Paris Match.
Paris Match published the first photo on July 23, 2014. The second photo was put online on July 25th. That’s one week after MH17 was downed. The freelancer took this picture in the morning and later in the day MH17 was shot down. It immediately becomes the world news that the passenger plane is probably shot down by a Buk missile.
– Why would a magazine like Paris Match wait one week for the online publication of such huge scoop?
– Why does Alfred de Montesquiou, the leading reporter of Paris Match, claim that pictures were taken in Snezhnoye?
Only almost two years later, during the press conference of the JIT it is revealed that these two pictures are screenshots from a video recorded by hand.
– Why didn’t Paris Match ever publish the video and why de Montesquiou talked about photos?
Screenshot of one of the videos I took from within a moving bus:
Despite of shrinking the entire video from 115MB to 3Mb and lowering the resolution to 640 × 360, I didn’t succeed to make the quality as bad as in the ‘Paris Match’ video. There are many other problems with ‘Paris Match’ evidence. Details are here in Hector’s PDF.
JIT mentions Makeevka video, but does not show it.
May 3rd, 2016 (meanwhile, one year, nine months and sixteen days have passed) a new YouTube channel appears which is created specifically for placing of one video. The anonymous uploader uses the alias “Ivan Olifirenko. This video, just like the Donetsk video has abonimable quality and moreover is also edited with special software called Cropipic.
On July 15, 2014 a convoy of the fighting unit ‘Vostok’ is passing a petrol stationwhich also appears in ‘Olifirenko’ ‘s video. This video clearly shows that the road surface is damaged by tanks and other vehicles.

But in the video of ‘Olifirenko ‘ that is supposed to be made on July 17, 2014, you can’t see any of this damage.
Thus, this video is from an earlier date than July 15th 2014, or the quality is (made) so bad that it is completely useless as evidence. It is also remarkable that video was put online on the same day as the BBC documentary about MH17 was broadcasted.

5 opmerkingen:

  1. Vrijwel direct nadat bekend werd dat MH17 was neergeschoten, gaf de Oekraïense geheime dienst SBU een aantal tapgesprekken vrij die de schuld van de rebellen zouden bewijzen. Max van der Werff stelt: "Het zogenaamde bewijs bewijst iets heel anders: Oekraïne deinst niet terug voor het produceren van (slecht) vervalst bewijsmateriaal ... dat de audio is vervalst, wordt door niemand ontkend. Ook niet door de top van het Nederlandse onderzoeksteam. " Max van der Werff maakt hier eigenaardige sprongen en stelt dat de taps volgens het onderzoeksteam vervalst zijn. Dit zelfde materiaal wordt aangeboden voor onderzoek http://uaposition.com/analysis-opinion/russian-journalist-presents-proofs-russian-colonel-sergey-dubinsky-involvement-mh17-downing/ en daar uit blijkt de betrokkenheid van rebellen bij het neerhalen van MH17. Het lijkt er op dat van der Werff allerlei dwaalsporen neerlegt en beweringen niet hard maakt.

    Het zogenaamde bewijs bewijst iets heel anders: Oekraïne deinst niet terug voor het produceren van (slecht) vervalst bewijsmateriaal.
    Dat de audio is vervalst, wordt door niemand ontkend. Ook niet door de top van het Nederlandse onderzoeksteam.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  2. CORRECTIE: Vrijwel direct nadat bekend werd dat MH17 was neergeschoten, gaf de Oekraïense geheime dienst SBU een aantal tapgesprekken vrij die de schuld van de rebellen zouden bewijzen. Max van der Werff stelt: "Het zogenaamde bewijs bewijst iets heel anders: Oekraïne deinst niet terug voor het produceren van (slecht) vervalst bewijsmateriaal ... dat de audio is vervalst, wordt door niemand ontkend. Ook niet door de top van het Nederlandse onderzoeksteam." Max van der Werff maakt hier eigenaardige sprongen en stelt dat de taps volgens het onderzoeksteam vervalst zijn. Dit zelfde materiaal wordt aangeboden voor onderzoek http://uaposition.com/analysis-opinion/russian-journalist-presents-proofs-russian-colonel-sergey-dubinsky-involvement-mh17-downing/ en daar uit blijkt de betrokkenheid van rebellen bij het neerhalen van MH17. Het lijkt er op dat van der Werff allerlei dwaalsporen neerlegt en beweringen niet hard maakt.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  3. wie zijn uw bronnen? Uaposition. Focus on Ukraine, door wie wordt deze instelling gefinancierd?

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  4. en wie bent u precies? eerst heet u anoniem en nu f.jansse. is f.jansse een schuilnaam?

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen
  5. Door wie wordt Max van der Werff gefinancieerd? Door wie wordt u gefinancieerd, u heeft volgens mij geen baan en u produceert geen journalistiek waaruit u inkomsten genereert.
    Uw boeken zijn geen bestsellers dus daar wordt u ook niet rijk van. f.jansse is mijn schuilnaam. Die gebruik ik om te voorkomen dat mensen op een dag voor mijn deur staan.

    BeantwoordenVerwijderen