Where did the mysterious witness of the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing come from


The case of the Malaysian Boeing of flight MH2014 that died over the Donbass in 17 gained a curious turn. The initially based version of the unequivocal fault of Russia and pro-Russian militias in the crash of a liner with 298 people on board began to burst at the seams, and Dutch law enforcement officers suddenly pulled an unknown "witness" out of their pockets, or even several, who for some reason were silent more than five years, but now, finally, they decided to "tell the truth."


The tragedy occurred on July 17, 2014 in the midst of fights between the Armed Forces and the militia of the DPR and LPR. According to the official version, the plane was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile fired from a Soviet or Russian-made Buk missile system. The obviously biased investigation immediately chose the guilty version of Moscow as the main version, which, in their opinion, dragged the air defense systems to the Donbass, shot down the plane, and then took it back to Russia. Foreign investigators named Igor Girkin (Strelkov), Sergey Dubinsky (Petrovsky), and several other former military men as the main culprits.

At the same time, the investigation did not give any intelligible answer to the question about the motives of such a terrible crime: why should these Russians or the militia to which they assisted bring down a peaceful passenger plane?

Let's face it, the motive could have been on the opposite side: at that time, the pro-Russian militia actively developed success, squeezing APU. Immediately after the crash, the attention of the entire world community was attracted to the Donbass, international observers were sent there, and the offensive was curtailed. If you call a spade a spade, the one who shot down the Boeing, this one action radically turned the tide in favor of Ukraine.

Let us ask ourselves, was there something similar in the interests of Strelkov and Petrovsky, as well as those who could stand behind them? There are many other possibilities to curtail the advance of the militia in another way, for example, banally block the so-called “Voentorg”. As for the version of the accidental shooting down of a Boeing, which was confused with the Ukrainian military transporter, then it does not stand up to criticism.

The Buk, which according to some information was still with the militia for some time, was incomplete and could not be used. Yes, and such professionals as General Petrovsky could not have ordered the use of an incorrectly functioning anti-aircraft weapon. It seems that this air defense system appeared in this "muddy" story in the media field in order to work on the anti-Russian version. How and why it happened, the question is for the special services.

If you stick to the well-established version that the liner was shot down from the ground by "Buk", then the suspicion could fall on Ukrainian anti-aircraft gunners. The fact is that the Buki are also in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and the level of training of personnel as of the summer of 2014 was low. The point, of course, is not that the Ukrainians shot down the Boeing on purpose, but there is a precedent for the death of a passenger liner from their accidental shot.

And so, according to the new input, the anti-aircraft missile version begins to pour in. The police of Australia, not the country most friendly to Russia, whose citizens were among the dead passengers, recognized the authenticity of documents confirming that there were no Bukovs in the crash area, neither Ukrainian nor Russian:

Some of the documents recently distributed without permission are Australian federal police documents prepared as part of an investigation by the Joint Investigation Team (CVG).

It turns out that the Australian police were provided with cropped and edited by someone photos from the crash site. If this evidence basically sweeps the anti-aircraft missile version, then why did the plane die with all the people on board?

Interestingly, these same documents direct us to another, much less popular version in the West. It is not so popular because Russia and the militia cannot be pulled by the ears of it. Immediately after the disaster in the Donbass, there were witnesses who saw planes in the sky, either fighters or attack aircraft. There was simply no other combat aircraft in that region except the Ukrainian one. So, among the authentic Australian documents are precisely those that fix the transcript of the interrogation of witnesses who saw Ukrainian planes in the area of ​​the Boeing crash.

In 2014, there was information that an hour before the death of flight MH17, three Ukrainian attack aircraft were lifted into the sky, one of which for some reason was equipped with air-to-air missiles. Returning to the airfield, a pilot named Voloshin was very excited, according to some eyewitnesses, and said something about "not the plane that ended up at the wrong time in the wrong place." But if today we try to take for the version that the liner could be shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force, then it will abruptly break.

In 2017 Voloshin retired and got a pretty good job as a citizen as deputy director of Nikolaev Airport. Evil tongues would say, it’s “payment for silence,” but the head of the regional administration Savchenko explained: he “could not help but respond when he found out that our hero was looking for work.” Well, even in Nezalezhnaya they honor their heroes and do not put “their own” in thieves.

However, this is a sad ending: on March 18, 2018, the former Ukrainian military pilot Aleksey Voloshin shot himself from a PM pistol without license plates. The “Russian” version that the “Boeing” could have been shot down by a Su-25 attack aircraft, the Dutch investigators at one time promptly rejected, making the main theme with the “Buk”. Five years later, it turns out that their own Australian counterparts actually refuted the anti-aircraft missile version.

And now, from somewhere, the Dutch are pulling out a "witness", or even several, who "just saw everything," but were silent in a rag. Somehow this is all very doubtful, to say the least.
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. bzbo Offline bzbo
    bzbo (Black doctor) 25 February 2020 15: 11
    +1
    The answer to the vile R1b - the Western European arsonists of civil wars in the Russian world can be only one - the debilitating civil war on their territory.
  2. 69 Offline 69
    69 25 February 2020 18: 44
    -2
    Shook out of the tube.
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 25 February 2020 22: 44
    -2
    Yes, let them take an example from our media. 2 pilots, 2 dispatchers - shot down the plane, all committed suicide. But the mechanic, how is he - alive? And Poroshenko, that - personally he called the pilots in the air, asked them to tag !!!! More carefully. !!!
    For the time being, I also didn’t kill myself ....
    But in the news, the downed Anas are still lying ...

    https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1325017

    State TASS, for example, is not Khukhra-Mukhra ...
  4. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 February 2020 10: 02
    +1
    Believe the Dutch evidence can only be naive. As one does not believe in a witness, one does not believe in the fact that there were no BUKs there. Just Ukrainian BUKs stood there.
    Most likely, the most likely version will pop up again. The Boeing was hit by a missile from a BUK and finished off by an attack aircraft.
    1. Valentine Offline Valentine
      Valentine (Valentin) 26 February 2020 19: 57
      +2
      TTR BUK always leaves an inversion trace that real eyewitnesses did not see, but they saw a couple of planes near the Boeing, then a flash, a thump, and the Boeing began to fall.
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 February 2020 22: 58
        -2
        It's right. But do not forget that the Boeing was at an altitude of 10 km. And no one could see any aircraft next to him at that height. And Boeing itself is hardly anyone saw. How many of us see a plane at an altitude of 10 km? But at a lower altitude they could already see. But that means the Boeing has already fallen.
        The doubt, of course, is the lack of witnesses. The inversion trail is visible for several km. But for some reason no one has said anything for 6 years.
        There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that nevertheless they brought him down by Buck. But something went wrong, and he was urgently finished off by an attack aircraft. And the same mass of indirect evidence speaks about the guilt of Ukraine.
        1. Valentine Offline Valentine
          Valentine (Valentin) 27 February 2020 06: 59
          +1
          Keep in mind that even after the fighter-attack aircraft, a warm white trail remains, which is perfectly visible, although the planes themselves are almost invisible, and a huge Boeing leaves almost the same trail, which we all observed more than once in our sky, and that day was partly cloudy and there were enough witnesses of this crime working on their backyards, who were interviewed and all this was documented by the militia. Do you think that Russia has no trump cards up its sleeve? But since our special services are well aware of our "partners", then they are keeping something secret for the time being, and precisely until the trial, and the data of geostationary satellites is also available, and this is 100%, otherwise these "witnesses" , 6 years later, appeared out of nowhere.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 07: 52
            0
            Cloudy .... You will not see a Boeing for 10 km.
            And the second question - What court? Russia does not recognize these investigations. And the court will not go. Maybe they’ll lead under escort?
            1. Valentine Offline Valentine
              Valentine (Valentin) 27 February 2020 11: 29
              +1
              Well, why, Bakhtiyar, you won't see when the aircraft tracers converge or cross - this is perfectly visible in the sky during the day, and then it was about five in the evening, and they stay in the air for up to 30-40 minutes ... And about the trial - that's it. -Equally something, but there will be some kind of reaction, or maybe, as before, they will be "branded with shame", they also need to maintain their reputation, but, nevertheless, our special services have something, and there should be some is the final solution to this issue, although

              There are many, friend of Horatio, such that our sages did not dream of.
              1. Tatyana Offline Tatyana
                Tatyana 27 February 2020 12: 33
                +2
                Quote: Bakht
                It's right. But do not forget that the Boeing was at an altitude of 10 km. And no one could see any aircraft next to him at that height. And Boeing itself is hardly anyone saw. How many of us see a plane at an altitude of 10 km? But at a lower altitude they could already see. But that means the Boeing has already fallen. The doubt, of course, is the lack of witnesses.

                You forget that the Ukrainian air traffic controllers of Kiev rejected the Malaysian Boeing during its flight from the traditional air route and reduced the flight corridor for it from 10 thousand km to 6 thousand km, which the Boeing pilots obediently did.
                And after the plane crashed over the DPR, this Ukrainian air traffic controller in Kiev immediately disappeared - supposedly she went on vacation that very day, and nobody has seen her anywhere else for 6 years now!
                1. Valentine Offline Valentine
                  Valentine (Valentin) 27 February 2020 12: 52
                  +4
                  During the crash, the Boeing was led by a Dnepropetrovsk tower, and its dispatcher Petrenko urgently went on vacation and disappeared, and the "owner" of this area at that time was Benya Kolomoisky, the rightful owner of this airport.
                  1. Tatyana Offline Tatyana
                    Tatyana 27 February 2020 13: 02
                    +2
                    It is a pity that the video and sound recordings that were immediately published on the Internet, now the Internet does not show - does not find.
                    And so I remember the recording of a conversation between Kolomoisky and a Ukrainian official about the shooting of a Malaysian Boeing.
                    In an intercepted conversation, Kolomoisky was informed that the plane turned out to be completely different from the one they had previously assumed.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Tatyana Offline Tatyana
                    Tatyana 27 February 2020 14: 07
                    +1
                    Malaysian Boeing brought down Ukraine from Washington’s filing. And they need to evade responsibility for this crime, blaming themselves on Russia, not involved in the tragedy.

                    Moreover, it was not just a provocation of Ukraine / USA against Russia, but it was Washington’s attempt on Ukraine’s Presidential Airport 1, at which Putin was supposed to fly from abroad when he returned to Russia.
                    Ukrainians simply identified as airliners. The sizes on the radars of the Malaysian and the Russian presidential airliner are the same, the colors of the airliners are also similar. The Presidential Russian airliner only has 4 engines, while the Malaysian one has only 2. The Ukrainian pilot Voloshin reported this error when he became close to the Malaysian Boeing.
                    See detail on video from 5:00 minutes

                    ATTEMPT ON PUTIN: Kiev wanted to kill Putin, but shot down MH17.

                    Posted: 4 June 2019

                    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 February 2020 16: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Tatiana
                      Moreover, it was not just a provocation of Ukraine / USA against Russia, but it was Washington’s attempt on Ukraine’s Presidential Airport 1, at which Putin was supposed to fly from abroad when he returned to Russia.

                      Yes, yes, yes, it’s a great idea to catch the Presidential Airport over Donbass with the help of Buk. Did he fly over Ukraine that day? It's so logical, a presidential plane flying over Poland decides to make a detour through the Donbass (admire the views?) And flies over the whole of Ukraine (which accuses the Russian president of aggression), but cunning Ukrainians are waiting for him exactly in the middle of the territory controlled by the militia. Ukrainian air defense officers spotted at 10 km altitude the coloring of the aircraft (probably with the help of radars), but they forgot to count the number of engines. Well, and where could they guess to check with the Ukrainian air services what kind of plane flies. Especially in the smartphone to look at flightradars.
                2. Bakht Offline Bakht
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 15: 01
                  +2
                  The flight MH 17 was rejected systematically for three days. Previously, he flew over Mariupol, but on July 15, 16 and 17 the route gradually shifted towards Donetsk. That is, he was systematically withdrawn over the war zone. The flight altitude was 10 meters initially, and lowered it to an altitude of 500 meters. At a height of 9750 meters, the Boeing did not cross for technical reasons.
                  Dispatcher Petrenko took leave on the same day and went on leave the next day. Since then, no one has seen her. There are many more nuances. Therefore, I am sure that they shot down him with Ukrainian BUK, and finished off with an attack aircraft. Therefore, eyewitnesses saw planes below cloud cover. That is, when the Boeing was already falling.
                  SU-25 has a practical ceiling of 10 meters. But most likely, he did not climb so high. At 000-2 km, he finished off that miserable Boeing.
                  1. Tatyana Offline Tatyana
                    Tatyana 27 February 2020 15: 23
                    +1
                    I also adhere to this particular version.
                    If I am not mistaken, our military experts determined by the holes in the remains of the fuselage of the Malaysian Boeing and demonstrated the presence of a defeat of the airliner - from surface-to-air missiles from the Buk and from air-to-air missiles from the aircraft.
                    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 15: 26
                      +1
                      In this matter, everyone is dark. We can only rely on media data and common sense. I have not seen defeat from air-to-air missiles.
                      1. Tatyana Offline Tatyana
                        Tatyana 27 February 2020 15: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I have not seen defeat from air-to-air missiles.

                        There was a video. Ours showed characteristic differences in the holes from getting these missiles into the fuselage of the aircraft.
                        These differences are also present on the remains of the fuselage of the Malaysian Boeing.
                  2. Valentine Offline Valentine
                    Valentine (Valentin) 27 February 2020 18: 51
                    +1
                    Quote: Bakht
                    .. shot him down with a Ukrainian BUK, and finished off with an attack aircraft.

                    Yes, after the rocket, it would not be necessary to finish him off, he was already a dead man, but, you must understand, Bakhtiyar, the contrail from the rocket can not go anywhere, just as you can’t go and that huge flurry of dust, raised by the rocket powder gases, raised by more than a dozen meters, BUT ... direct eyewitnesses did not even say a word about the flight of the rocket, and she herself emitted a loud characteristic crack of tearing tissue, which was also heard for more than one kilometer. I lived at that time in Gorlovka, and I heard and saw everyone, and this happened 30-35 km from us, and the next day everyone knew what happened there, and about any rocket flight, and a trace after it, and there was no conversation. Everyone was talking about only two small military aircraft next to the Boeing - there was a flash, then a thud, and the Boeing went down. Personally, I heard on walkie-talkies how Bezler, the commander of the Gorlovka garrison, who arrived at the place of the fall after 40 minutes, spoke on the link about the fall, and (which I still remember perfectly well) that he said that the fallen corpses emitted such a stench, as if they had lain in the sun for several days, although no more than an hour had passed since the fall of the Boeing. And the first to come running there were local residents who worked in their gardens, eyewitnesses of all this, and during the bombing they already got the habit of looking at the sky with the noise of a jet plane, like all residents of Donbass, so as not to get hit by an explosion , so there were enough eyewitnesses. And the Su-25 could easily break through the mark of 10 thousand meters with the afterburner ... and also - the striking elements of the BUK missile have the shape of a Tavr, and no such holes were found on the fuselage and wings, there were round tangential holes typical for an aircraft cannon , and torn from air-to-air missiles at striking elements. And the BUK had to be urgently invented by the Ukrainian authorities so as not to be responsible for their mistake - "The plane is not the same, and in the wrong place."
                    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 21: 29
                      +2
                      The fact that you were there (or near) just makes your comments valuable. But ... it is incomprehensible the complete lack of evidence.
                      The missile leaves an inversion trace visible over many kilometers. But there is not a single testimony that someone saw this trace. But if you assume that the launch was from a different direction, much further from you?
                      The second one. SU-25 reaches a mark of 10 meters. But only with special pilot equipment. With clouds, no one could see a Boeing at an altitude of 000 km. He was seen much lower. And next to him are two small planes. But this is the consequences of the decline. I can’t say anything about the condition of the corpses. There was such information, as well as brand new passports. But where did the passengers from the real Boeing go then? You cannot hide such information. Even with the destruction of a Boeing over Kamchatka (flight KAL 10), a real Boeing had to be destroyed. Michel Brun has an excellent study on this subject.
                      I can repeat it again. A lot of indirect evidence against Ukraine. But there are no facts.
                      PS I carefully read the preliminary and final report of the commission. And looked at the records of the recorders that they provided. There are no changes in course on the recorders, but the diagram shows that the plane deviated from the course in the last minutes. So I have absolutely no reason to believe the Dutch data.
                      1. Valentine Offline Valentine
                        Valentine (Valentin) 28 February 2020 06: 33
                        +2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        The missile leaves an inversion trace visible over many kilometers. But there is not a single testimony that someone saw this trace

                        But after all, the horizontal tracers of both aircraft were clearly visible in the sky, and no one saw the vertical inversion trail of the rocket joining the Boeing, it simply wasn’t there, and what conclusions are made here is unclear, only speculations in all these incomprehensions. And even if the court pleads guilty to Ukraine, at least indirectly, by mistake or whatever it is, its fuse and hysteria are almost gone, and this decision will not change anything - Poroshenko is no one, and there will be a new government, so we all will have to just letting the last steam out of the whistle, and nothing more - this is my opinion, although the experience was enough over the edge, like all of us.
              2. Valentine Offline Valentine
                Valentine (Valentin) 27 February 2020 12: 35
                0
                Well, again, some .... unrequitedly minus our discussions .... You would at least put your own word in, and not like that, vilely, from around the corner ..... Oh, you .... ..
        2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 February 2020 13: 23
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that nevertheless they brought him down by Buck. But something went wrong, and he was urgently finished off by an attack aircraft.

          Hmm ... A couple of problems in your version. The attack aircraft cannot rise above 10000, and the combat use, in my opinion, is 5000, and the attack aircraft have comparable speed with a Boeing, he would not have caught up with him. And what part did this attack aircraft finish? The cockpit fell off the plane and fell separately. And I doubt very much that there was something to finish after the hit of Buk.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 22: 53
            +1
            The Su-25 has a service ceiling of 10 meters. I know the objections and how they cleaned up Wikipedia and other resources. But in 000, while in the West, I bought a reference book (in paper). "Military Aircraft". In English. I have a passion for military technology. At the same time, by the way, I bought the "BattleShip" reference book. Now, due to the mess at home, I do not have it at hand. But as soon as I find it, I'll post a screen. Well, it says in black and white that the SU-2005 "Frogfoot" has a service ceiling of 25 feet. This is just 33 km. Yes, and Rutskoi has repeatedly argued that 000 km is an attainable altitude.
            But, in this case, I believe that he did not climb to such a height. His task was to control the situation, and he simply finished off what was left of the Boeing.
            I have my own version of events. Personal. But the scream will rise .... A long-standing story and sucked from all sides. Maybe we'll find out the truth. Or maybe not...
            PS By the way, there is such a request. If anyone finds a flight guide scanned (in PDF format), then please provide a link. I have already downloaded two directories in English. But the SU-25 for some reason is missing. PDF files can also be edited, of course. But this is more complicated than making changes to the wiki.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 23: 24
              +1
              -ALTITUDE BOMBING MISSIONS
              The introduction of the Stinger SAM system with longer reach and a jam-resistant seeker caused a sharp increase in the initial attack altitude to 21,450 ft. This later reached 29,700 ft when attacking targets in the mountains, thus giving pilots sufficient height above the terrain to pull up and climb away after delivering their ordnance without having to worry about being hit by SAMs
            2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 February 2020 00: 12
              0
              Hmm, an interesting theory. If the Boeing fell by 2-3 km, then it falls. It is not clear why to finish him off if he already falls. Boeing fell apart in the air, what's the point of shelling individual fragments? It is unclear why the attack aircraft were used, and not the fighter. This should strongly lead to the attack aircraft to be in the same place where the wreckage fell.
              I do not believe in conspiracy theory that someone intentionally shot down this plane. This is someone's mistake, incompetence. It is difficult to imagine the goals for which this can be done.
              1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 February 2020 08: 34
                +2
                Suppose it falls in the wrong place. After his fall, the commission was detained in Kiev for a week. And Ukrainian artillery fired at the crash site all week. Who said he fell apart in the air? Eyewitnesses claim to have seen a Boeing and two small planes nearby. I believe that I saw him at a small (relatively) height. Attack aircraft were used simply because there was nothing else at that moment. And he had no task to shoot down Boeing. This task was assigned to the anti-aircraft gunners. And they failed her. It is not for nothing that Kolomoisky once said that "these crooked-handed people cannot really do anything."
                You can just imagine the goals. Sanctions last for the 6th year. And although they were introduced because of the Crimea, after Boeing they were tightened.
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 February 2020 14: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Bakht
                  Suppose he falls not where he should.

                  And what will change a couple of new holes?

                  Quote: Bakht
                  Who said it fell apart in the air?

                  If the cabin was found 2 km from the last mark, and the main part was 10 km, then it is logical to assume that it fell apart in the air.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  The attack aircraft used simply because there was nothing else at that moment.

                  This must be a super ace to catch a falling plane at a speed comparable to your maximum on a plane not intended for this, and also shoot it down again.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  The attack aircraft used simply because there was nothing else at that moment. And he did not have the task of shooting down a Boeing. This task was assigned to the anti-aircraft gunners. And they failed her.

                  Eeee ... So who shot down, anti-aircraft gunners, attack aircraft or Kolomoisky?

                  Quote: Bakht
                  You can just imagine the goals. Sanctions last for the 6th year. And although they were introduced because of the Crimea, after Boeing they were tightened.

                  This is all too complicated and there is a great danger of exposure, and something will go wrong to start all this for the sake of some not very strong sanctions. Sanctions were imposed much more severely against Iran without any aircraft. I do not believe in this.
                  1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 February 2020 19: 03
                    0
                    Everyone believes in something of their own. I said there is still a bunch of indirect evidence. List everything - discuss the story in a new way. And five years ago, I already filled my corns on my fingers, knocking on the keyboard.
        3. Little Muck_2 Offline Little Muck_2
          Little Muck_2 (Little Muck) 28 February 2020 21: 25
          0
          A train passes over my house, at least a dozen aircraft per day I see clearly. In the past he lived in Khurba, he also saw a lot of fighters and attack aircraft. Everything is visible from the ground.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 February 2020 21: 28
            0
            Already wrote - that day was cloudy. Are you viewing planes in cloudy weather? At an altitude of 10 km. Or is it below the edge of the clouds?
  5. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 26 February 2020 10: 33
    -2
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    But in the news, the downed Anas are still lying ...

    https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1325017

    State TASS, for example, is not Khukhra-Mukhra ..

    What specifically can this indicate? Was TASS in place? Or just took information from someone’s words? They just refer to some eyewitnesses.
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 February 2020 11: 50
      0
      This is all nonsense and there is nothing to discuss here.
      1. The Netherlands published a document that there were no BUKs there
      2. The Netherlands said they have witnessed a missile launch from a BUK.
      What can I add here ....?
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 February 2020 00: 00
        +1
        Quote: Bakht
        1. The Netherlands published a document that there were no BUKs there

        Such documents were not published in the Netherlands.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 00: 07
          0
          Documents published in Australia.

          https://rg.ru/2020/02/20/avstraliia-podtverdila-podlinnost-popavshih-v-set-dokumentov-po-delu-mh17.html

          The Netherlands Prosecutor's Office refused to comment on the authenticity of the published papers.

          Well yes, the Netherlands do not agree. But not refuted !!!! Is the Australian police lying? You can cling to any inaccuracies. For me, the fact is that two different pictures are given. Moreover, Australia has always been in the head of anti-Russian sanctions.
          The Dutch investigation is worthless on a market day. This is for me personally an indisputable fact.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 February 2020 11: 58
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            Documents published in Australia.

            The documents are published on the "Reporter" site.

            https://mailchi.mp/69054d39ee63/bonanzamedia-newsletter-2?e=bdec9af591

            Australia only confirmed that part of the documents is genuine, without specifying which part. It is logical to assume that these are documents signed by Australian investigators. The document about the Buki of the Dutch military intelligence is for some reason in English (probably because the CIA is a branch). It talks about the location of famous Russian and Ukrainian Bukovs in July 2014. And the conclusion in the document sounds something like this -

            Ukrainian Buki could not be delivered to the disaster area.

            Quote: Bakht
            For me, the fact is that two different pictures are given.

            Who gives you two different pictures? Ask the author of the original article.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 February 2020 23: 02
              +1
              There is another picture:

              https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5648921.html

              Ukrainian BUK - and on it were exactly where the Malaysian Boeing could cover.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 February 2020 01: 08
                -1
                Quote: Bakht
                There is another picture

                https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5648921.html

                Ukrainian BUK - and on it were exactly where the Malaysian Boeing could cover.

                There are many pictures that you provided, quite muddy, but that's not the point. you said, that

                Quote: Bakht
                For me, the fact is that two different pictures are given.

                But the news did not come from the Netherlands, but from a certain Max van der Verff and Yana Erlashova, a former RT correspondent. Moreover, the document does not say that

                no beech trees were there.
                1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 February 2020 08: 43
                  +2
                  On that link that you brought, there is a list of BUK-s. And the distance. None reached the Boeing.
                  Again. Screenshots of documents are posted. With signatures and stamps. Netherlands refuted these documents? According to my information, they simply ignored them. The refutation, it seems, was not.
                  In the muddy picture that I posted, there is a movement of the anti-aircraft battalion equipped with BUKs. On July 17, he was in the war zone. I already wrote that I do not believe in any information from the Dutch investigation. For the simple reason that they use information from social networks and did not interrogate key witnesses.
                  True, the investigation of Antei sins with great inaccuracies. So both sides darken.
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 February 2020 14: 19
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    On that link that you brought, there is a list of BUK-s. And the distance. None reached the Boeing.

                    Firstly, this is the source of all this hype that Bukov was not. But it says, in this document, that Ukrainian Buki and the deployment of Russian Buki from July 18 and 20 cannot be delivered to the disaster area. And there is no claim that at the time of the catastrophe there was no Buk within the radius of defeat.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Again. Screenshots of documents are posted. With signatures and stamps. Netherlands refuted these documents? According to my information, they simply ignored them. The refutation, it seems, was not.

                    Well, firstly, this document is without signatures and seals.
                    Secondly, if the Russian authorities do not refute the film "He is not Dimon for you," will you argue that the Russian authorities agree that Dmitry Anatolyevich is corrupt?

                    Quote: Bakht
                    For me, the fact is that two different pictures are given.

                    The authorities of the Netherlands nevertheless adhere to one version, this Russian side gives out a mountain already lost count, how many.
                    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 February 2020 19: 00
                      +2
                      Wait and see. But, most likely, we will not see. The fact that the Netherlands adheres to one version does not mean that it is true. I remember Poroshenko, half an hour after the disaster, said that the Boeing was shot down by Russian BUK. Apparently, he managed to conduct his investigation. This version is followed by the West.

                      “Mr. President, the Russians sent condolences over the Challenger disaster.”
                      - Strange, we are enemies
                      “Even stranger, condolences were sent half an hour before the disaster!”
  6. kriten Offline kriten
    kriten (Vladimir) 26 February 2020 16: 57
    0
    There would be money, and you can find hundreds of witnesses. The main thing is not to go into details: there is an accusation, there are witnesses, but not evidence to look for ....
  7. Yes, Ukrainians shot down, without a bazaar!
  8. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 27 February 2020 09: 03
    +2
    In fact ....
    It can be seen that again the dough was allocated for fake stuffing, so some Australians, some independent journalists, some documents without a photo and a source, experts without a source and conscience went ramshackle ...
  9. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 27 February 2020 09: 38
    0
    I’m interested in something else: the Ukrainian special services were able to take Zemakh, pumped up with drugs, from Russia to Ukraine, practically without problems. Now the question is: why the key witness Voloshin was not, promptly, taken out by Russian special services to Russia and was not saved for testimony? Do not save such an important witness?
    1. rotfuks Offline rotfuks
      rotfuks (Ivanov Ivan) 27 February 2020 13: 05
      0
      You did not notice that Zemakh is a decrepit pensioner, and Voloshin is a regular military man in the exercise of his duties. Regarding Savchenko, how much stench was there, and if Voloshin were in Russia, imagine what would have started.
  10. Dzafdet Offline Dzafdet
    Dzafdet (Sergei) 27 February 2020 11: 17
    -1
    A strange question, where did they come from? We went skiing from a well-known place!
  11. rotfuks Offline rotfuks
    rotfuks (Ivanov Ivan) 27 February 2020 13: 01
    +1
    A simple layman cannot immediately determine which rocket was launched. "Buk", or "Pechora", or "Hangar". That is, the witness must be either a specialist in the field of rocket science, or at least a retired military missile. And then, at present, any citizen has a mobile phone with a video camera in his pocket. And a retired rocket player will certainly shoot a video of a rocket launch from his garden. And without a video, these witnesses are all worthless.
  12. 69 Offline 69
    69 27 February 2020 17: 48
    0
    And we will shake the test tube hard
    And about a witness with three baskets on time
    We’ll give up our hand and say goodbye.
  13. Regis Offline Regis
    Regis (Sergey Kopan) 1 March 2020 13: 06
    +2
    The SBU will give birth to such witnesses, as many will order. All homeless people in Kiev and the surrounding area will be happy to testify for a small bribe. It would be better to explain where the dispatcher is, that they sent Boeing to be shot and the minutes of their interrogation. And how did the pilot Voloshin kill himself in time?