Donald Hank
The Hague report on MH17 shootdown inconclusive
By Donald Hank
The investigatory team of the OVV in The Hague said recently that the MH17 that crashed over E Ukraine was hit by shrapnel from an exploding missile.
This could support the theory that a BUK missile was used, and that could support the Western narrative of the pro-Russians as culprits.
However, the report also says that no military aircraft were known to be been flying in that area at that time. That stands in stark contradiction to Russian reports that 2 Ukrainian fighter jets had practically flanked the civilian aircraft. (http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/). It also contradicts the reports by two expert observers, Lufhansa pilot Peter Haisenko, whose analysis concludes machine gun fire possibly from a Ukrainian fighter jet:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814
and OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw, who saw the wreckage and concurs:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007
BTW, I could find no mention of this in media, but curiously, the surnames Bociurkiw and Haisenko are likely both of Ukrainian origin (virtually all surnames in Russia ending on -o originated in Urkainian).
http://www.thestate.com/2014/09/09/3669342/high-energy-objects-struck-mh17.html?sp=/99/132/1029/
Could the plane have been shot down by a BUK?
But here is my analysis, which almost everyone is ignoring:
Since the first link above includes the contention, by the Russians, that there were 2 Ukrainian aircraft accompanying MH17 while the OVV report states there were no military aircraft in the area, an objective and balanced analysis by the journalist reporting this would necessarily include mention of the Russian report of the 2 military jets and would then provide a Western refutation of that contention. If, that is, the reporting journalists or Western politicians were able to come up with a plausible refutation. Remember that, in a formal debate, no contestant garners points by ignoring one party's arguments. In fact they lose points by so doing.
We have seen a similar absence of balance in the case of the originally touted US military satellite images, which the Western media implied would eventually show the pro-Russians firing a BUK missile at MH17. Once such images failed to materialize, since the media had confidently claimed such images would inculpate the Russians, then normal objective media coverage would at least mention the fact that the US military images failed to show the expected images of the BUK firing. Instead of mentioning this in a follow-up report, however, the media, along with the State Department, simply let that story die. Here too, the Russians had challenged the West to show the images, indicating they were fully confident that this evidence would clear them of wrongdoing. That is a vital fact, which is, however, being ignored on the Western side.
These two glaring gaps in Western reporting and political statements are evidence in themselves of bias, and since no one can prove a negative, they are somewhat stronger evidence than the facts reported by both sides so far, ie, the reports from Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko and OSCE monitor Miachel Bociurkiw along with the Russian military reports, on the one hand, and the Western evidence of Russian wrongdoing on the other. Where are the US military's satellite images of the incident and why, in light of the State Department's hasty accusations, are they not being published? And since they are not, why is the US imposing sanctions on Russia on the basis of their alleged involvement in the shootdown? (They have since modified their pretext, claiming now that Russian supplying of materiel to the pro-Russian defenders is the real basis for the sanctions, even though whether the Russians actually supplied such materiel is still a contended issue.)
Finally, while the US media and politicians are clearly remiss and one sided in their reporting – which amounts to little more than provocation and propaganda, the alternate media must also be careful not to use wording such as "conclusive evidence" with relation to the statements by the other side, ie, Haisenko/Bociurkiw and the Russian military.
The most accurate picture can be conveyed by the word "inconclusive" at this point in time. Hasty conclusions on either side are dangerous.
On the other hand, it is clear to any impartial observer that the Western elites are desperate for evidence to prove their side of the story and are willing to jump to conclusions, even imposing economic sanctions on Russia before the evidence is in.
Could this Western fervor to prove Russian culpability have influenced in some way the OVV's investigation and reporting thereof? Consider this question in light of Europe's immediate acquiescence to the imposition of economic sanctions against Russia – sanctions that are redounding to Europe's own detriment. After all, should Russia shut off the fuel supply, Europeans could wind up shivering at night under heavy eider down this winter.
Many European observers, worried about the adverse consequences of these sanctions, are calling Europe a puppet of the US these days.
© Donald Hank
September 11, 2014
The investigatory team of the OVV in The Hague said recently that the MH17 that crashed over E Ukraine was hit by shrapnel from an exploding missile.
This could support the theory that a BUK missile was used, and that could support the Western narrative of the pro-Russians as culprits.
However, the report also says that no military aircraft were known to be been flying in that area at that time. That stands in stark contradiction to Russian reports that 2 Ukrainian fighter jets had practically flanked the civilian aircraft. (http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/). It also contradicts the reports by two expert observers, Lufhansa pilot Peter Haisenko, whose analysis concludes machine gun fire possibly from a Ukrainian fighter jet:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814
and OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw, who saw the wreckage and concurs:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007
BTW, I could find no mention of this in media, but curiously, the surnames Bociurkiw and Haisenko are likely both of Ukrainian origin (virtually all surnames in Russia ending on -o originated in Urkainian).
-
Quote from article on OVV report:
He said the report gave no indication whether the missile had been fired from the ground or from another aircraft, but it likely came from the ground as there were no military aircraft known to have been flying at the time. The missile could not have been shoulder-fired because it would not have reached the necessary altitude, he added.
http://www.thestate.com/2014/09/09/3669342/high-energy-objects-struck-mh17.html?sp=/99/132/1029/
Could the plane have been shot down by a BUK?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
Quote:
A proximity fuse aboard the missile determines when it will detonate, creating an expanding fragmentation pattern of missile components and warhead to intercept and destroy the target.
But here is my analysis, which almost everyone is ignoring:
Since the first link above includes the contention, by the Russians, that there were 2 Ukrainian aircraft accompanying MH17 while the OVV report states there were no military aircraft in the area, an objective and balanced analysis by the journalist reporting this would necessarily include mention of the Russian report of the 2 military jets and would then provide a Western refutation of that contention. If, that is, the reporting journalists or Western politicians were able to come up with a plausible refutation. Remember that, in a formal debate, no contestant garners points by ignoring one party's arguments. In fact they lose points by so doing.
We have seen a similar absence of balance in the case of the originally touted US military satellite images, which the Western media implied would eventually show the pro-Russians firing a BUK missile at MH17. Once such images failed to materialize, since the media had confidently claimed such images would inculpate the Russians, then normal objective media coverage would at least mention the fact that the US military images failed to show the expected images of the BUK firing. Instead of mentioning this in a follow-up report, however, the media, along with the State Department, simply let that story die. Here too, the Russians had challenged the West to show the images, indicating they were fully confident that this evidence would clear them of wrongdoing. That is a vital fact, which is, however, being ignored on the Western side.
These two glaring gaps in Western reporting and political statements are evidence in themselves of bias, and since no one can prove a negative, they are somewhat stronger evidence than the facts reported by both sides so far, ie, the reports from Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko and OSCE monitor Miachel Bociurkiw along with the Russian military reports, on the one hand, and the Western evidence of Russian wrongdoing on the other. Where are the US military's satellite images of the incident and why, in light of the State Department's hasty accusations, are they not being published? And since they are not, why is the US imposing sanctions on Russia on the basis of their alleged involvement in the shootdown? (They have since modified their pretext, claiming now that Russian supplying of materiel to the pro-Russian defenders is the real basis for the sanctions, even though whether the Russians actually supplied such materiel is still a contended issue.)
Finally, while the US media and politicians are clearly remiss and one sided in their reporting – which amounts to little more than provocation and propaganda, the alternate media must also be careful not to use wording such as "conclusive evidence" with relation to the statements by the other side, ie, Haisenko/Bociurkiw and the Russian military.
The most accurate picture can be conveyed by the word "inconclusive" at this point in time. Hasty conclusions on either side are dangerous.
On the other hand, it is clear to any impartial observer that the Western elites are desperate for evidence to prove their side of the story and are willing to jump to conclusions, even imposing economic sanctions on Russia before the evidence is in.
Could this Western fervor to prove Russian culpability have influenced in some way the OVV's investigation and reporting thereof? Consider this question in light of Europe's immediate acquiescence to the imposition of economic sanctions against Russia – sanctions that are redounding to Europe's own detriment. After all, should Russia shut off the fuel supply, Europeans could wind up shivering at night under heavy eider down this winter.
Many European observers, worried about the adverse consequences of these sanctions, are calling Europe a puppet of the US these days.
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
