Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 – what really happened?

Three months after the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine the world is no wiser about what, and who, caused this crash. Well, we have the preliminary report but this only confirmed the bleeding obvious (“the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft”) and did nothing to either support, or undermine, the various theories circulating about this tragedy (see MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact).

This new documentary probably won’t decide viewers one way or the other either. But it at least presents more evidence, more objectively, than our media usually presents and does not force a predetermined political agenda down the viewer’s throat.

If nothing else, it keeps the issue alive. We should not forget this tragedy and we should identify its causes and perpetrators. It’s not as if we are short of evidence – just short of the political will required to allow its collection and fearless presentation.

MH-17: THE UNTOLD STORY

22 OCTOBER 2014

From the documentary makers – RTD Films.

Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was violently brought down from the skies over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers to what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation. The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative procedure was never carried out. Until that’s done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders or black boxes and eye-witnesses’ testimonies.  This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft, whether a rocket fired from the ground or gunfire from a military jet.

Similar articles

 

52 responses to “Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 – what really happened?

  1. Here is a similar documentary using some of the same material but with a Russian language presenter (English captions).

    Like

  2. “Three months after the loss of the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11 the world is no wiser about what, and who, caused this tragedy. Well, we have the preliminary report but this only confirmed the bleeding obvious and did nothing to either support, or undermine, the various theories circulating about this tragedy.

    This new documentary probably won’t decide viewers one way or the other either. But it at least presents more evidence, more objectively, than our media usually presents and does not force a predetermined political agenda down the viewer’s throat.

    If nothing else, it keeps the issue alive. We should not forget this tragedy and we should identify its causes and perpetrators. It’s not as if we are short of evidence – just short of the political will required to allow its collection and fearless presentation.”

    Russia Today Declares 9/11 Was An Inside Job!

    Like

  3. Lack of access to the wreckage is a major hindrance to the successful investigation of this crash. Swabs from areas of blast damage, if taken early enough, could have yielded chemical residues which could have identified the type of explosive in the warhead which, while perhaps not identifying who fired it, could have helped identify its origin.

    Like

  4. Sanyo Music Center

    There are sill unanswered questions about 9/11 too

    Like

  5. There are always unanswered questions. But whereas we have a pretty good handle on what happened on 9/11 (I assume you refer to the terrorist attacks in the twin towers in 2001 and not the U.S. backed coup in Chile in 1973) we don’t for MH17. There are specific questions which could be answered by a proper look at the primary radar data (the existence or notoif fighter planes in the area for example). Also, a proper ceasefire in the area would enable collection of important evidence.

    Unfortunately huge political sensitivities are preventing, or at least inhibiting, a proper investigation. We should draw a lesson from the success the Malaysian PM had in getting possession of the black boxes. He only did this by ignoring diplomatic constraints and negotiating directly with the authorities in the area rather than Kiev.

    More pressure should also be placed on Kiev to stop their attacks in the area.

    Like

  6. “There are always unanswered questions. But whereas we have a pretty good handle on what happened on the moon landings, we don’t for 9/11. There are specific questions which could be answered by a proper look at the primary radar data (the existence or not of commercial planes in the area for example). Also, a proper investigation in the area would enable collection of important evidence.

    Unfortunately huge political sensitivities are preventing, or at least inhibiting, a proper investigation.”

    Will Obama Investigate 9/11?

    Like

  7. Sanyo Music Center

    It does seem strange that they found Mohummed Atta’s passport at ground zero, yet everything else was vaporised.

    Not that I am a “truther”, but these questions remain unanswered.
    What are the chances of that?

    Like

  8. Some people seem to think that the “truther” conspiracy myths are more important than the almost 300 innocent people killed in the MH17 tragedy. They are cynically using this tragedy to push their own paranoia.

    How disrespectful!

    >

    Like

  9. “Some people seem to think that the “moon landing” conspiracy myths are more important than the almost 3000 innocent people killed in the 9/11 tragedy. They are cynically using this tragedy to push their own paranoia.
    How disrespectful!”

    Like

  10. Not that I am a “truther”, but these questions remain unanswered.
    What are the chances of that?

    Yep. Anomolies. They abound.
    People look for anomolies. They find them. They collect them.
    That doesn’t make sense to the conspiracy theorist and that other thing doesn’t make sense to the conspiracy theorist and “Hey look over here!” ’cause that other thing doesn’t make sense….to the conspiracy theorist.

    (…dramatic pause…)

    Something fishy is going on. You can feel it in your bones. They are lying to you but your spider sense is tingling. It just doesn’t add up. You’ve done the research. You can’t be fooled. “They” are up to no good.

    It’s possible to follow the conspiracy theorist down the rabbit hole.
    It’s possible to waste a lifetime discussing flags moving in a vacuum or magic bullets or grainy photos or unburnt passports.
    Some people do.
    Happens all the time.

    Not me though.
    I just ask for a mechanism as to what they think is “really” going on.
    The nuts and bolts of the operation.
    The man behind the curtain.
    They don’t have to provide evidence. No links. No photos.
    Just a hypothetical drawn on a napkin that doesn’t sound completely batshit crazy and accounts for all the facts that are undisputed.

    If they can’t do that, then I get to point at them and laugh.
    It’s a problem of scale.

    Like

  11. Cedric, why not be specific? You ask for a mechanism for “what is going on” What are you referring to? The Dutch investigation of the MH17 tragedy? The hesitancy of the interim report which many people have commented on?

    Or are you wanting an answer to what really happened in this tragedy? Without going through the process of collecting and considering the evidence?

    Or are you asking why the Kiev government has been so reluctant to cooperate – not only with a ceasefire in the region but also in facilitating access and investigation?

    Perhaps you could start by advancing your “hypothetical drawn on a napkin” mechanism for “what is going on” which “accounts for all the facts that are undisputed.”

    I would seriously like to hear and consider your mechanism. I think that would be far more constructive than little parables which are hard to decipher but seem to be an attempt to ridicule my own hesitancy to advance an explanation in the absence of evidence.

    So go for it Cedric. My position seems to upset you for some reason. Let’s hear your explanation for events, your mechanism, your hypothesis.

    I am all ears.

    >

    Like

  12. “Cedric, why not be specific?”

    I’ve been specific, Ken.
    Again and again and again and again.
    I’ve done everything except draw it out for you in crayon.
    Let’s not pretend this is our first dance.

    There’s no need to be deliberately coy. Just go back and read what I have written several times before. It’s all good. Feel free to quote me. In context. In detail.
    I stand by it all.

    I would seriously like to hear and consider your mechanism.

    You are the conspiracy theorist. Not me.
    You are the anomoly hunter. Not me.
    You are the one scraping the bottom of the barrel using “Russia Today” (of all things) as a resource. Not me.

    The burden of proof

    Like

  13. Cedric, I find your emotive response to my simple and honest request quite telling. You seem unprepared to provide what you demand of others. And, no, you haven’t been specific – at all. In fact, your very lack of specificity tied in with your willingness to damn others for being open-minded is one of the most tiresome aspects of your attacks.

    So all I can do is respond to what you present as facts.

    1: “You are a conspiracy theorist. Not me.” Yet you are unable to describe the conspiracy I am supposed to advance. I have repeated again and again I am open-minded on the issue – purely frustrated at the apparent lack of progress by the investigation team and the willingness of some people to present an ideologically (or racially) driven story as the facts (a conspiracy theory if there ever was one – in the worst sense). And, let’s face it, if we read you literally (which I don’t) you have attempted to divert attention by appearing to support a conspiracy theory about the twin-towers terrorist attack..

    2: “You are the anomaly hunter. Not me.” What anomalies am I hunting for and advancing? And no-one has accused you of hunting for anomalies. I have only asked you what you asked of me – to advance a mechanism. (Please note, I am not upset that you cannot advance one – only a dishonest fool or a political propagandist could be definite about a specific mechanism on the basis of current evidence available in the media).

    3: I am scraping the bottom of the barrel by “using RT as a resource.” Perhaps this is the real problem for you so I will concentrate on that.

    I have probably said before that my approach to the media, and the information it presents, is not one of ideological commitment. I believe in finding information where I can and approaching it intelligently and critically. Being aware of how ideology infuses the media – all media – and trying to draw my own conclusions based on the evidence I find there.

    Whereas you appear to accept NATO, the U.S. State Department and the pronouncements of the Kiev regime as the “official” position (what was that about scraping the bottom of the barrel🙂 ) I do not. And I suggest most intelligent people don’t. Nor do I take the RT news media or documentaries as “the official position.”

    On the Ukrainian issue the news media I probably use most are Al Jazeera and RT. Increasingly RT as Al Jazeera has largely “moved on.” RT seems to be the only media prepared to keep the MH17 tragedy in the public eye at the moment – which may be an indication it is more open-minded, or less ideologically driven – than the US or Australian media. Yes, my interests in Ukraine are personal, so perhaps I follow it more closely than other events at the moment.

    I have also found that individuals uploading cell phone video has probably been a very large source of information for me. In that part of the world everyone seems to have a smart phone and uses it. I find this often provides information, in more detail, that is also presented in the media – but far earlier and more completely. As an example, watching live video feeds from eastern Ukrainian cities on the day of their autonomy referendum did far more to convince me of the support for autonomy than anything I saw on the MSM. The crowds were huge and I could see them grow during the day.

    On the Ukrainian issue RT does provide video and on the spot reporting which seem unavailable in any other English language reporting I have seen. They have reporters on the ground who can speak the local language. They have also reported from the refugee camps, etc., which hardly any other media source has (yes I did see one relatively lengthy report on this in Al Jazeera).

    No, the fact that RT has a head office in Moscow does not scare me or raise issues related to barrels, any more than the location of the head offices of CNN and Al Jazeera. But then again I do consider the Russians as human as any other people, I am not prejudiced against the people or country, and I use the same critical and intelligent filtering with them as I do with others.

    Finally, I posted the videos because I thought they gave excellent summaries of what we know. They did not present a specific conspiracy theory and left the “mechanism” wide open. They even suggested that while we may be able to work out what brought this plane down – a surface to air or an air to air attack – we may never be able to work out who was responsible . I particularly liked that as I am fed up with our media telling me what I should believe on such issues and using arguments like “the whole world knows” instead of discussing the evidence in the way the documentaries did. I am fed up with being treated like an idiot who must only accept the official position of the US State Department, NATO and the Kiev regime.

    You are quite welcome to draw your own conclusions about RT or any other news source, and to shoot the messenger but I suggest that says a lot more about you than me.

    Like

  14. Here is a thoughtful article from a former Australian Prime Minister on the Ukraine/MH17/G20 issue which makes a lot of sense. The naive political postering of Abbott is disrespectful to the 300 killed in this tragedy and threatens progress in world politics. See “G20: feelings about MH17 and Ukraine will have to be put aside for any productive discussion to happen.”

    Like

  15. “Cedric, I find your emotive response…”

    No you don’t. This is the internet. The only thing you can do is read what I wrote. There’s nothing “emotive” in there. If you want to imagine it as emotive then that’s your problem. Nothing to do with me.

    ….with your willingness to damn others for being open-minded…

    That’s stupid. I don’t have a problem with people being open-minded. I don’t object to people being openminded at all. People want to be “open-minded” about 9/11. Um, ok.
    (shrug)
    Only…
    “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

    “Yet you are unable to describe the 9/11 conspiracy I am supposed to advance. I have repeated again and again I am open-minded on the issue of what really happened on 9/11 – purely frustrated at the apparent lack of progress by the investigation team and the willingness of some people to present an ideologically (or racially) driven story as the facts (a conspiracy theory if there ever was one – in the worst sense). And, let’s face it, if we read you literally (which I don’t) you have attempted to divert attention by appearing to support a conspiracy theory about the moon landings.”

    What anomalies am I hunting for and advancing? And no-one has accused you of hunting for anomalies.

    You don’t remember anything about combine harvesters now?
    Really?
    You don’t remember mentioning anything about “rogue” mystery Ukranian units?
    You reject the official version of events and you go anomoly hunting. It’s a standard shtick.

    I have only asked you what you asked of me – to advance a mechanism.

    There is a mechanism. Terrorists really did smash into the buildings with planes. It’s really happened. The offical version of events? Yeah…that.
    It has a mechanism. You can reject it. You can say it’s not true…but it does have the teeny-tiny advantage of having a mechanism.

    The troofers cannot advance an alternative better theory of what “really” happened. There’s no mechanic to make it work.
    So…I get to point at them and laugh.

    … only a dishonest fool or a political propagandist could be definite about a specific mechanism on the basis of current evidence available in the media.

    You don’t have to be “definite” Ken. A rough sketch mapped out on a napkin will do.
    “Current evidence”? Heaven forbid you should be limited by “current evidence”. Nothing so terribly unfair and hard as all that.
    No.
    You are limited only by your imagination. That’s it.
    The bar is set very, very, very low.

    “I am scraping the bottom of the barrel by “using RT as a resource.” Perhaps this is the real problem for you so I will concentrate on that.
    I have probably said before that my approach to the media, and the information it presents, is not one of ideological commitment. I believe in finding information on 9/11 where I can and approaching it intelligently and critically. Being aware of how ideology infuses the media – all media – and trying to draw my own conclusions on 9/11 based on the evidence I find there.
    Whereas you appear to accept the U.S. State Department and the pronouncements of the Port Authority as the “official” position (what was that about scraping the bottom of the barrel🙂 ) I do not. And I suggest most intelligent people don’t. Nor do I take the RT news media or documentaries as “the official position.” ”

    “Finally, I posted the videos because I thought they gave excellent summaries of what we know. They did not present a specific 9/11 conspiracy theory and left the “mechanism” wide open. “

    Well duh.

    Like

  16. Cedric, I am afraid I cannot make any sense of your latest comment.

    You seem to want to avoid specifics by confusing things with the twin tower terrorist attack. It would help your clarity if you stopped that sort of diversion. It doesn’t impress anyone and makes you look foolish and evasive.

    The only thing I seem to find is your reference to the “official version of events.” According two who? Regarding the Ukrainian problems and the MH17 tragedy where is your “official version” coming from? The U.S. State Department, NATO and the Kiev regime (and considering the diverse interpretations from that place which particular “official version” are you lumping for?). Really Cedric, that is pathetic. Pathetic to put blind trust in such bodies, but even more pathetic to public announce such slavish ideological commitment.

    Come on Cedric – loud and clear – what is your “official version.” Who are you trusting? And why place your trust on any of these players who are intimately involved in the whole conflict? Why ignore a critical assessment of the evidence as it exists and is available? Why be so scared of reality?

    If you are going to use the term “official version” be open about where you are hanging your hat.

    Be honest Cedric. What is driving your hostility on this issue? Why are you afraid of anyone approaching the issue with an open mind, intelligently and critically. Why do you insist that 3 of the players intimately involved and with a record of political fabrication should be trusted for your “official version.”

    In my mind the closest thing we will see to an “official version” is what comes from the international investigation team. Already, though, this has dragged its feet and has not fulfilled the requirements of the UN resolution so we may yet see some other forms of international control being exerted. But the closest thing we have to an “official version” is the preliminary report from the Dutch last month. Obviously this does not fit your bias because it doesn’t declare what you believe “the whole world knows!”

    Honestly Cedric, you are clearly not displaying anything like an open mind in this issue. But nevertheless your brains seem to have fallen out somehow.🙂

    Like

  17. You seem to want to avoid specifics by confusing things with the twin tower terrorist attack.

    No, I don’t.
    Let me help you with that.

    “The Americans are lying to us about the moon landings”.
    The Americans are lying to us about 9/11.
    (shrug)

    “The only thing I seem to find is your reference to the “official version of events.” According two who?”

    Ah, short term memory loss. It can happen to anybody.
    Let me help you with that.

    “The only thing I seem to find is your reference to the “official version of events.” According two who? Regarding the 9/11 tragedy where is your “official version” coming from? The U.S. State Department, the Port Authority? Really Cedric, that is pathetic. Pathetic to put blind trust in such bodies, but even more pathetic to public announce such slavish ideological commitment.
    Come on Cedric – loud and clear – what is your “official version” of the JFK assassination? Who are you trusting? And why place your trust on any of these players who are intimately involved in the whole tragedy? Why ignore a critical assessment of the evidence of the moon landings as it exists and is available? Why be so scared of reality?
    If you are going to use the term “official version” be open about where you are hanging your hat.”

    “In my mind the closest thing we will see to an “official version” is what comes from the Warren Commission Report on the JFK Assassination. Already, though, this has dragged its feet and has not fulfilled the requirements of X,Y,Z so we may yet see some other forms of control being exerted.”

    (…insert ominous music here…)

    Honestly Cedric….

    You don’t know the meaning of the word.
    I take vast tracts of your rationalisatons and simply switch the labels around.
    I don’t even have to swap out your preferred source material.
    You are behaving like them.
    Word for word.

    This isn’t about me, Ken. This is about you.

    Do you remember that crap about the combine harvesters?
    I do.
    Do you remember how you claimed to remember some video or other about that State Department woman complete with the giggling?
    I do.
    It’s not grounded in reality.

    Like

  18. Yes, brain’s fallen out.

    And embarrassed to admit you are putting your faith in NATO, the US State Department and the Kiev regime for his “official version” of the MH17 tragedy.

    Reality is not your friend, Cedric.

    >

    Like

  19. No, Ken.
    You are being dishonest. You can’t represent my position honestly.
    I’m not just “putting my faith” in anything.
    My “faith” is not the issue.

    I can take vast chunks of what you say to rationalise your position and label swap with the kooks out there.
    It works perfectly.
    It’s effortless.

    You wriggle and evade and try to make me somehow the topic of conversation. It’s very bad of you. You should be ashamed.

    When I tell you to take a napkin and sketch out a mechanism that could work according to your own imaginings, that’s fair.
    I’d give the same shot to a Birther or a Troother or climate denier or a JFKer.

    Can they do it? No. They never can.
    Nor can you. Nor can anybody else.
    It’s impossible. It doesn’t work.

    So I get to point at them and laugh.
    The methodology I use gets consistantly reliable results.

    Does the official version have a viable mechanism?
    Oh, it does?
    Well, ok.
    Does that mean it’s true? Nope.
    Yet it’s at least viable. The mechanics are there at the very least.

    You don’t have anything but squinting hopefully at photos looking for combine harvesters and false memories of some State Department video that played only in your private mind theatre.
    And RT.

    ‘There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.’ – Soren Kierkegaard

    Like

  20. The best I can do to represent your position Cedric is to repeat what I have picked up from a very confused mix of personal invective from you. This position perhaps also explains why you have been so confused because it is intolerant of someone who prefers to look at the evidence in an intelligent and critical manner rather than fall in with the “official position.”

    For whatever reason, you are ideologically driven to accept what your ideological masters dictate and hence declare that the stories put out by the Kiev regime, the U.S. State Department and NATO should not be questioned in any way. Hence you declare them the “official position.” Do you not see the arrogance in such a description?

    I have not heard anyone before present their political bias in such a ridiculous and self-defeating manner. People usually at least attempt to justify their bias rather than declare it “official.” I personally find incredible the very concept that anyone could declare an “official position” on such a matter.

    It might be about me in your mind but that is only because you find it intolerable that I should challenge your ideological bias. However, you have made it about yourself by your illogical and confused attacks – attacks not in what I have proposed but simply on my unwillingness to accept your “official position” in the absence of any evidence at all.

    I am used to discussion partners taking issue with something I have proposed, but your obsession with my refusal to have an “official position” imposed on me is rather new. It is of course so ridiculous it can’t be anything but ineffective.

    I am not going to give in to any “party line” or “official position” as I am quite happy to do my own thinking and rely on evidence. Whatever gave you the impression that these sort of attacks could in any way cause me to change my approach?

    I am happy to let readers decide for themselves what is going on here. It is not me that is responsible if you somehow become a topic of conversation.

    “Official position” – what a laugh!

    >

    Like

  21. I personally find incredible the very concept that anyone could declare an “official position” on such a matter.

    This is the crux of the argument, despite agreeing that truth is the first casualty of war, Cedric appears to me to give weight to reports from agencies on one side of a conflict only.

    Furthermore Cedric, despite agreeing that truth is the first casualty of war, you persist on pushing absurd analogies between wartime propaganda, moon landing hoaxes and scientific conspiracy theories – none of the later, unlike war, have huge propaganda machines that are easily demonstrable and have been well documented in most conflicts over many, many centuries. And when we are discussing information sources the existence or absence of propaganda arms (often representing officialdom) matter, they certainly invalidate your analogies.

    When did the possibility of combine harvesters in the photographs become ridiculous? Has further information become available? Or does it remain so simply because NATO’s interpretation conflicts?

    Like

  22. “For whatever reason, you are ideologically driven to accept what your ideological masters dictate and hence declare that the stories put out by the Kiev regime, the U.S. State Department and NATO should not be questioned in any way.”

    Tu Quoque.
    Plus Strawmannery.
    Shame on you.

    Like

  23. *Edit:
    Ad Hominem.
    Plus Strawmannery.
    Shame on you.

    Like

  24. Cedric appears to me to give weight to reports from agencies on one side of a conflict only.

    Only one side has a viable mechanism.

    Furthermore Cedric, despite agreeing that truth is the first casualty of war, you persist on pushing absurd analogies between….

    I’m label switching.
    It works.
    It’s extremely fair.
    Not changing anything else at all.
    I don’t even have to change the source material that Ken is using.
    It’s still RT.
    That’s how creepily similar this all is.

    …. have huge propaganda machines that are easily demonstrable and have been well documented in most conflicts over many, many centuries….

    Which changes nothing. I’m not disputing that at all. I don’t know how to reach you. I’m keeping it really simple.

    How many times do I have to agree with you that “the Americans” lie?
    How many times do I have to nod my head and go “Sure, that happened and yep, that happened too and that other thing too.”

    Yes, I get that part. I get all those parts. We hopefully both do. Can me move on now to what I am saying? Quoting me would be nice.

    Mechanism.
    Problems of scale.
    Hello?

    You can hunt for anomolies until the cows come home.
    Doesn’t provide a mechanism.
    You can mention any number of terrible lessons of history.
    Doesn’t provide a mechanism.
    You can put scare quotes around the word “official” again and again and again.
    Doesn’t provide a mechanism.

    When did the possibility of combine harvesters in the photographs become ridiculous?

    Roughly the same time, Ken creatively imagined the State Department video that never was.
    Try and hunt it down for yourself. You won’t find it.

    ‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’ – Christopher Hitchens.

    Provide a mechanism.
    Let’s say that those satellite photos really, really are…combine harvesters.
    Or let’s say the State Department told a massive tissue of lies about what they said about the downing of M17 in their press release.
    Or that “the Americans” are faking a Russian Invasion.
    Blend them all together if you want.
    Make a special combo.
    I don’t care. Take your pick.
    Go for it. How does that work in the real world?

    Oh you want to mention some bad thing that happened in history?
    Use it as a model to help you with your napkin or don’t waste both our time mentioning it.
    It’s mechanism or nothing.

    If necessary perhaps we can come back to it, after you fairly address some of your earlier claims.

    That would be nice. When can we start?

    No mechanism eh?
    You can’t be serious.
    Propaganda has been an integral feature of war since time immemorial.
    The first casualty of war is truth … etc blah blah

    I’m serious. You yourself have not provided a mechanism.
    Take a napkin.
    Make up whatever you want and throw it into the mix.
    You are restricted only by your imagination.
    Take into account what we both accept to be the facts and account for them.
    It can’t be done.
    Which is why nobody has done it.
    They never do.

    The more people that are in a position to observe what is happening, then the harder it gets.
    The longer it keeps happening, the harder it gets.
    The more people supposedly involved, the harder it gets. The more support material needed, the harder it gets.
    This is the nature of things.

    Conspiracy theory checklist
    Don’t count on converting a conspiracy theorist. However, some questions can determine if a conspiracy theory is warranted or not.
    Logistics
    1.How large is the supposed conspiracy?
    2.How many people are part of this conspiracy?
    3.Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
    4.What infrastructure and resources does it need?
    5.How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
    6.If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
    7.Where are the secret conferences held?
    8.How do they keep track of membership?
    9.If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?
    For instance, the idea that the Nazi themselves set the Reichstag fire would only require handful of men and minimal amount of money to pull off while something like faking the Moon landing would require tens of thousands if not more to carry out; the rock samples alone might require a decade to falsify and filming would take an airtight soundstage orders of magnitude larger than any known vacuum chamber.
    Exposure
    1.How likely is it to remain covered up if it has gone on for a long time?
    2.If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected?
    3.Why have none of them leaked the story?
    4.If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
    5.There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the United States government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (if all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?

    (link)

    Like

  25. Cedric, you say “Only one side has a viable mechanism.”

    What “side” is that?
    What is the “mechanism?”
    Why is this mechanism “viable?”
    What is the source of the information for this conclusion?

    Like

  26. Only one side has a viable mechanism.

    Here’s a viable mechanism,
    Make stuff up, use bogus “intelligence”, lie, lie and lie. The bigger and more outrageous lie the more likely that it will be believed.

    You simply sidestepped my question regarding the combine harvesters.
    No new information then? Still relying on NATO spokespeople only?

    Like

  27. Here’s a viable mechanism,
    Make stuff up, use bogus “intelligence”, lie, lie and lie. The bigger and more outrageous lie the more likely that it will be believed.

    Richard, that not a mechanism. It’s worthless.

    What really happened with 9/11? How did they make it happen?

    “They made stuff up, used bogus “intelligence”. They lied, they lied, they lied. The bigger and more outrageous the lie the more likely that it will be believed.”

    Doesn’t tell me a damned thing.

    Hey Andy, how are the IPCC doing whatever it is that you think they are doing? The “how” part, Andy. The nuts and bolts of the operation?

    “They’re mading stuff up, using bogus “research”. They lie, they lie, they lie. The bigger and more outrageous the lie the more likely that it will be believed.”

    Ah huh. Ok, Andy.

    So, Mr Kaysing…..This whole moon landing caper. Kinda big. How are they doing it? Walk me through it.

    “They’re mading stuff up, using bogus “video”. They lie, they lie, they lie. The bigger and more outrageous the lie the more likely that it will be believed.”

    Ah, I see.

    (…insert picture of me pointing and laughing at the kooks…)

    Oh you want to mention some bad thing that happened in history?
    Maybe a video of Colin Powell?

    (Richard nods his head eagerly)

    Use it as a model to help you with your napkin or don’t waste both our time mentioning it.
    It’s mechanism or nothing.

    Like

  28. Did anybody notice me pointing out Ken’s Ad Hominem?
    Anybody?

    Let me help you with that.

    “Leave a Reply – please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.”

    Like

  29. This is an ad hominem Cedric – you really are a nasty piece of work

    Like

  30. Ahem, Cedric you now say it’s a mechanism or nothing”

    There is an outstanding request of you:

    “Cedric, you say “Only one side has a viable mechanism.” What “side” is that? What is the “mechanism?” Why is this mechanism “viable?” What is the source of the information for this conclusion?

    Am I to interpret your confusing waffle and diversion as a admission that you have nothing?

    >

    Like

  31. This is an ad hominem Cedric – you really are a nasty piece of work

    No, it isn’t.
    Let me help you with that.
    There is this thing called google.
    You type in “Ad hominem” and any number of definitions of what Ad Hominem means will pop right up. You can check this for yourself.
    Do it now. I’ll wait.

    (…time passes…)

    There are even Youtube videos.
    Youtube videos that carefully explain how ad hominems work.
    I’ve watched at least seven of them. I keep posting them here and on other sites to demonstrate in a fair-minded way what an Ad Hominem means.

    I’m in the right. Ken is in the wrong.
    There are many things up for discussion.
    Many uncertainites in this sad world of ours.
    What does or does not make an Ad Hominem is not one of them.

    Here is a video that uses very small words. If you need me to translate this for you, let me know, but I’m hoping even you will understand.
    (…fingers crossed…)

    Calling Out Fallacies Properly – Ad Hominem

    Like

  32. Ahem, Cedric you now say it’s a mechanism or nothing”

    That’s right, Ken.

    Am I to interpret your confusing waffle and diversion as a admission that you have nothing?

    You are confused.
    I am not, however, confusing.

    On the one side we have “the Americans”.
    On the other side we have the 9/11 troofers.

    One side has a self-evident mechanism.
    The other side does not.

    Terrorists. Planes. World Trade Center. The mechanism is there.
    Everybody else involved in any way just has to do their job like they are supposed to.
    Police respond. Fire fighters respond. Later investigators investigate. Commissions do their job.
    Everything above board.

    >>>Doesn’t mean it’s true.<<< Yet the mechanism on the back of a napkin is solid.

    Now let's add an anomoly.
    An unburned passport.
    Ok.
    I, personally don't give a damn about the passport. There's no need to show me the photo. I'm happy to take your word for it.

    Just give me a mechanism. No evidence required. Just tell me what really happened and account for all the facts that are undisputed. Feel free to add stuff from your imagination. You are not limited by available evidence at all.

    What do we get? What do we ever get?

    “They’re mading stuff up, using bogus “video”. They lie, they lie, they lie. The bigger and more outrageous the lie the more likely that it will be believed.”

    This is bad but it’s no worse that any other attempt at a mechanism for 9/11.
    (shrug)

    Next case:
    On the one side we have “the Americans”.
    On the other side we have the moon landing deniers.

    One side has a self-evident mechanism.
    The other side does not.

    Astronauts . Rocket. Moon. The mechanism is there.
    Everybody else involved in any way just has to do their job like they are supposed to.
    NASA does it’s thing. The Soviet Union does it’s thing. The Europeans do their thing. Apollo Program winds down. Everything above board.
    Doesn’t mean it’s true. Yet the mechanism on the back of a napkin is solid.

    Now let’s add an anomoly.
    A flag waving in the breeze.
    Ok.
    I, personally don’t give a damn about the flag. There’s no need to show me the footage. I’m happy to take your word for it.

    Just give me a mechanism. No evidence required. Just tell me what really happened etc, etc etc.
    What do we get? What do we ever get?

    “They’re making stuff up, using bogus “video”. They lie, they lie, they lie. The bigger and more outrageous the blah, blah, blah…”
    (shrug)

    Next case: On the one side we have “the Americans”.
    On the other side we have the combine harvester troofers.

    One side has a self-evident mechanism.
    The other side does not.

    Artillery pieces. Satellite. State Department. The mechanism is there.
    Everybody else involved in any way just has to do their job like they are supposed to.
    NATO does it’s thing. Obama does his thing. Russia does it’s thing. Media does it’s thing. Some guy in his mother’s basement has a brainfart. No news at eleven.
    Everything above board.

    >>>Doesn’t mean it’s true.<<< Yet the mechanism on the back of a napkin is solid.

    Now let’s add an anomoly.
    A satellite photo of a combine harvester.
    Ok.
    I, personally don’t give a damn about the photo. There’s no need to show me the photo. I’m happy to take your word for it.
    It’s a satellite photo of a combine harvester.
    Yay you.

    Just give me a mechanism. No evidence required. Just tell me what really happened and account for all the facts that are undisputed. Feel free to add stuff from your imagination. You are not limited by available evidence at all.

    What do we get? What do we ever get?

    “They’re making stuff up, using bogus “photos”. They lie, they lie, they lie. The bigger and more outrageous the lie the more likely that it will be believed.”

    “The Americans” lie. They do. Only when they lie…..there’s a mechanism. There’s always a mechanism. Otherwise, it wouldn’t get off the ground.

    Somebody has to put the passport there. Somebody has to pay for the flag. Someone else is going to look at the satellite footage. Somebody has to sign off on the demo team. Somebody has to keep the astronauts quiet. Somebody has to get the photo to the State Department.

    You can go with a tiny band of bad people and their lies, lies lies or you can go with a gigantic band of people with their lies, lies, lies.
    Neither option works.

    It’s a problem of scale.

    Like

  33. Cedric, I think you have finally cracked and become another pathetic troll. Pity, but clearly you cannot carry out a rational discussion any more – at least on this topic.

    I certainly am not going to waste any more time or effort on you. It just doesn’t feel right to make fun of the victims of the MH17 tragedy in his way.

    >

    Like

  34. “Cedric, I think you have finally cracked and become another pathetic troll. Pity, but clearly you cannot carry out a rational discussion any more – at least on this topic.
    I certainly am not going to waste any more time or effort on you. It just doesn’t feel right to make fun of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy in his way.”

    Russia Today: Putin’s Weapon in the War of Images

    Like

  35. Next case: On the one side we have “the Americans”.
    On the other side we have the combine harvester troofers.

    One side has a self-evident mechanism.
    The other side does not.

    (Sigh)

    Yes, one “side” has a self evident mechanism that can and does on occasion, indulge in falsification of evidence for political purposes. You don’t dispute that.

    On the other “side’ their is a farmer or a co-operative that crops wheat or similar product.

    At harvest time they contract large machines for harvesting the crop.

    No further mechanism needed.

    Like

  36. Ken – I couldn’t agree more about your comment about the victims of MH17. We live in an uncertain world, arguably becoming less safe for many by the day. Finding the cause of such tragedies as MH17 is clearly important to uphold international norms of safety/behaviour that underpin safe skies. Without such norms we have anarchy. Investigation when things go wrong is part of ensuring such norms of safety that ultimately we all depend on to live securely in the world.

    As such, I would still hope that the international investigation and the participating countries will continue to search for the facts of what really happened to MH17. Towards this end it seems that investigators are keeping an open mind. I remain optimistic…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/us-ukraine-crisis-mh-idUSKBN0IG1X420141027

    Like

  37. Yes I have seen that Reuter report and am posting a translation of the original der Spiegel article today.

    They still seem to have an open mind but I am concerned at the time they are taking. The Russian Federation handed over their satellite and radar data early on – yet Westerbeke is only taking about preparing to contact them? Similarly he talks as if they have not had all the satellite information from the U.S. yet.

    On the other hand he does refer to the possibility of finding missile shrapnel or bullets among the debris collected from the bodies. That should help identify what happened, but maybe not who is responsible.

    It will be interesting to see to what extent the MSM backpedals as more information comes available. There already seems to be a move away from a definite blame on the Russian Federation and/or rebels so that a more common story is now a missile launched from the conflict zone. Maybe we will yet see common acknowledgement that an air attack is still a possibility.

    >

    Like

  38. This mentions the Der Spiegel article. Be interesting to see who is really in the first place responsible for the Russian sanctions and teh reduction of our milk market. http://russia-insider.com/en/germany_military_ukraine_opinion/2014/10/27/03-10-28pm/german_intelligence_clears_russia

    Like

  39. Yes, one “side” has a self evident mechanism…
    This is true.

    ….that can and does on occasion, indulge in falsification of evidence for political purposes.
    Yes, this is also true. I have made it very obvious that I also believe this to be true. It’s is truly true. With a big, fat cherry of truth on top.

    You don’t dispute that.
    There are various things that you and others have said that I don’t dispute. No matter how many times I agree with them, they keep getting repeated.
    Let’s review to make things crystal clear:

    In the second-to-last posting I did, I pointed out something very important.
    I pointed it out three times.
    Each time with a different way of visually emphasising the importance of the phrase so that (hopefully) nobody could miss it.

    “Doesn’t mean it’s true.”

    Three times, remember. Anybody can clearly see that the idea that there might be lies somewhere out there has not entirely been lost on me.
    A casual observer might wonder, “Why go to such lengths to point out such self-evident point?”
    Here’s why:

    These reports are often not likely to be reliable and given the distortions that have been circulating I…
    I know that already. I’m not relying any reports at all.

    Need you be reminded of the Iraq invasion and the assurances politicians gave then?
    No. No I don’t. Really. I know all about it.

    The US is just as capable of lying for political purposes as any other country. And they have been caught out horribly at times. I am old enough to remember the Gary Powers incident – very…
    I know. You are not saying anything that I have not addressed already.

    “General Colin Powell UN Speech on Iraq Part 1of5”
    I know already. It doesn’t magically change anything.

    “But there are well worn principles in propaganda, including demonising the enemy, downplaying or ignoring one’s own side’s culpability etc”
    I’m entirely familiar with them. Doesn’t matter. My argument still stands.

    “…Furthermore Cedric, despite agreeing that truth is the first casualty of war,….”
    I’ve always agreed with it. Then. Before then. Now. The next time too. And the one after that too. Yet nobody seems willing to admit it and move on to my argument.

    Here’s a viable mechanism,
    Make stuff up, use bogus “intelligence”, lie, lie and lie.

    The Colin Powell routine again? The same one that I cheerfully acknowledged before? That’s…um….nice. You’re not getting this at all.

    So, now it should be clear to all and sundry what I don’t dispute.
    Any questions?
    No?
    (Yeah, well, we’ll see. I have my doubts.)

    The mechanism for the other side has not “poofed”.
    Despite being really, really, superduper aware about how people can lie and how governments can lie and how even “the Americans” can lie, the mechanism simply fails to appear.

    What we are left with is one side having a mechanism.
    The other side does not.
    Simply pointing out ad nauseum that people can lie does not create a mechanism all by itself.

    You you really think that the IPCC is patronised by impartial, non-biased, apolitical people? You you really think that I am that dumb?
    The IPCC was set up as a political organisation with a political agenda, and I can’t be bothered arguing with people who are either too thick or too dishonest to realise that.

    What Andy fails to grasp here is that he has provided no mechanism.
    Let’s accept everything that Andy says.
    It still doesn’t help him.
    Fill organisation “X” to the brim with biased, politicial people. The mechanism fails to appear.

    I see, there is one Dr Evil and all the others, yes all of them, are secretly rooting for Dr Evil and ignoring his/her manipulation of the data.
    Andy can’t give you a Dr Evil. He has no idea how “they” go about it. He has no idea how “they” could even hypothetically go about it. He has no idea who “they” might even be!

    Who is in charge of it all? Obama?

    Man goes to computer. Turns on.
    Opens word doc
    Deletes old image
    Places new image in its place
    Saves doc
    Release in new draft.

    Straight away, it’s easy to spot that this is worthless.
    Andy has given us a mechanism of the most trivial nature.
    This mechanism demonstrates (…wait for it…) someone replacing an image on a computer. Nothing more.
    How the IPCC draft gets released with some replaced image is empty air.
    There’s no mechanism.

    Yet, when I ask you to provide a mechanism, you copy Andy.
    So what’s the mechanism?

    Here’s a viable mechanism,
    Make stuff up, use bogus “intelligence”, lie, lie and lie. The bigger and more outrageous lie the more likely that it will be believed.

    No, it’s not. It’s worthless. That’s just you railing against the “political agenda/bias” etc. Just like Andy.

    On the other “side’ their is a farmer or a co-operative that crops wheat or similar product. At harvest time they contract large machines for harvesting the crop. No further mechanism needed.

    This is a trivial mechanism to (…wait for it…) get combine harvesters in field somewhere. Nothing more.
    How “the Americans” release via the State Department a photo of a combine harvester and call it Russian artillery with their lies, lies, lies is empty air.
    There’s no mechanism.
    Who’s in charge of it all? Obama?

    “Whatever, so there might be several scenarios.
    How does Dr Evil ensure that no one calls him out?
    The person you allege has lied, lied, lied. The combine harvester satellite photo without being called to account.
    Call him/her something else if you wish, The Hood, Sauron, The Dark Lord, Darth Vader.”

    There’s no way to make it work. No matter what you throw into the mix. Feel free to pore over Ken’s RT video. Add whatever you like. Make up whatever you like. Copy whatever known model of a mechanism from history you like.
    It doesn’t work.
    I’ve already tried.
    It doesn’t work. Do it for yourself.

    Like

  40. Strawmannery.
    Let’s talk about it.
    If I was to convince you that I was not doing what you claim that I’m doing, how exactly would I go about it?

    (…thoughtful pause…)

    No idea. Nothing’s worked so far. As long as you continue to creatively re-interpret my position there’s not much I can do. You seem to think I’m doing something wrong.
    I’m not.
    If I was, you’d find it pretty easy to quote this terrible repeated gaffe that I’m supposedly making. Only..that never happens. Instead, a pattern from you has emerged.

    Well, Cedric, you seem to have made your mind up before the evidence is in and considered objectively.
    No, I haven’t. That’s all just you.

    …but prefer to uncritically accept the narrative coming from Kiev and Washington?
    That’s not what’s happening. That’s not what I’m saying.

    …thought ambassadors to the UN were hardly a good source of information -I was criticising your reliance on such.
    I’m not relying on them. Feel free not to rely on them too. It’s all good.

    this debate seems to have petered out with your advocating the politician’s from US and Kiev government claims be accepted without substantiation…
    Nope. That’s not it. Really. Your “seeming” needs urgent repair.

    You seem to prefer to take on faith anything that comes out of Kiev (rather embarrassing at the moment) or Washington. Also embarrassing…
    No. Read what I wrote. Read what I keep writing.

    But to attack me for daring to look at evidence, for approaching such a tragedy without a closed….
    No. That’s not what’s happening.

    You are taking things on faith.
    No. I’m asking for a mechanism. It’s not the same thing.

    ….despite your faith in the Kiev regime.
    I have no “faith”. Certainly not in the Kiev regime. Mechanism. Hello?

    Seems you obsession with the Kiev regime has interfered with your comprehension.
    Or maybe not.
    (shrug)

    ….you are thoughtlessly allying with such crooks rather…
    That’s not what is happening.

    I put that down to your rush to judgement, and…
    There has been no judgement. I’m pointing out that you don’t have a mechanism. Different thing.

    It is actually very similar to the method you advocate of trusting official political statements or propaganda.
    That’s not what’s happening. Focus.

    And I certainly don’t trust assurances based on “the whole world knows” or the official propaganda position of any government,
    Again, no. That’s not what is happening.

    ” We have already been through this exercise with the fuzzy satellite photos when you doubted their existence.”
    Nope. Never doubted their existence. Not even once.

    “…Or those who blindly accept a government’s partisans claims uncritically but call the,selves a skeptic?”
    Didn’t happen. Hasn’t happened. That’s not what I’m saying.

    ” Whereas you appear to accept NATO, the U.S. State Department and the pronouncements of the Kiev regime as the “official” position…”
    That’s still not it. That’s not it at all. Your “appear” is pear-shaped.

    “….with your willingness to damn others for being open-minded…”
    Not really something I do. It’s just not me.

    “Why are you afraid of anyone approaching the issue with an open mind, intelligently and critically.”
    I’m not. Really.

    “And embarrassed to admit you are putting your faith in NATO, the US State Department and the Kiev regime for his “official version””
    This is not a good look for you. It says nothing about me and far too much about you.

    “….someone who prefers to look at the evidence in an intelligent and critical manner rather than fall in with the “official position.”…”
    I’m not. My opinion of whatever has no bearing on my argument.

    “… hence declare that the stories put out by the Kiev regime, the U.S. State Department and NATO should not be questioned in any way….”
    Never said it. Never said anything even vaguely like it.

    Strawmen? A straw nation, more like.

    The “Straw Man” Fallacy

    Like

  41. Ad hominem.
    Not sure how to make this any clearer.
    So here goes…

    You hypocrite. You no like? Me no care.
    Go google. Look see ad hominem there google. It there yes.
    Look see now.
    Me wait.
    Now see you ad hominem.
    Other go look see.
    Go look now.
    Other say nothing?
    That wrong. Other no ok too.

    Me no do ad hominem.
    You do ad hominem.
    Me quote you do ad hominem.
    Me quote again and again.
    It easy.
    You no can quote me do ad hominem.
    Me ok.
    You no ok.
    Here you easy look see ad hominem

    I am not going to make judgments on what your specific agenda is…

    Oh but you will.

    Finally, on agendas. I don’t know what yours is and really am not interested..

    Oh but you will be. You won’t be able to help yourself.

    …your weird, probably motivated, misunderstanding of what I mean by “substantiated.”

    That didn’t take long for you to switch gears.

    …and stop prejudging on the basis of what? Ethnic prejudice?

    Oh sure. That’s what’s happening. Sure. Must be. Not.

    …am not going to make judgments on what your specific agenda is for your emphatic conclusion –

    Oh yes you will.

    You talk about damaged goods but see this through an ethnically biased filter so can’t understand my reference…

    This is an ad hominem thing. I knew you would do this. I wonder if you will continue to do this?

    That might upset you, but that only confirms your bias —

    You keep doing this. It reflects badly on you.

    “You have a real thing about the US, Cedric and it clouds your judgement. You don’t happen to work for the US government, do you?”

    Ad Hominem yet again. Even if it were true, it doesn’t affect the argument.

    Obviously this does not fit your bias because it doesn’t declare what you believe “the whole world knows!”

    This is yet another ad hominem.

    “For whatever reason, you are ideologically driven to accept what your ideological masters dictate and…”

    Ad hominem. Really. Look it up. It’s textbook standard. Shame on you.

    Leave a Reply – please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

    Yep. Shame on you. No idea how you sleep at night.

    Calling Out Fallacies Properly – Ad Hominem

    Like

  42. Cedric, the longer your replies, the less of substance they generally contain. The is nothing to be gained by rants over what we agree on. I’ll keep my comments focussed on what you avoid.

    Let me be clear.

    No mechanism needed.

    The aerial photographs depict what can also be concluded to be agricultural machines doing what agricultural machines do in a rural environment at harvest time.

    That is simply an observation of reasonable possibility.

    So again, to be clear .

    That’s an observation, it does not require any further magic mechanism.

    Now, the substance of Ken’s post was that given the known propensity of organisations involved in war to indulge in falsehoods, an intelligent observer should not blindly accept everything they claim. An example was offered of the photo of what has been claimed were artillery pieces.

    Ken’s error was no not immediately supply the sources for his example, since corrected.

    > You have not substantiated your claim that Ken has been “used”.

    > You have not provided any evidence to invalidate the possibility that the photos depict machines that might be normally expected in fields at harvest time.

    > You appear blind to the inconsistency within your methodology of acknowledging that your sources can and do indulge in falsehoods and yet argue that their information should be accepted merely because you identify the existence of a mechanism (however opaque) on their part.

    Like

  43. The other thing about these satellite photos of harvesters/artillery pieces is that the interpretation is irrelevant. No interpretation is evidence of a “Russian invasion.” We all know that there are harvesters and artillery pieces being used in eastern Ukraine. Evidence of an “invasion” would be something like we saw in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Iraq. Such photos were presented by the U.S. State Department because they don’t have anything credible showing such an “invasion.”

    The photos and their interpretation are red herrings and were never used by me in any substantive way. It was ourself a dismissive aside.

    >

    Like

  44. What is the matter with you people?
    How many times do I have to spell it out?

    You have not provided any evidence to invalidate the possibility that the photos depict machines that might be normally…

    There’s no mechanism. You have a mechanism for combine harvesters in a field. Nothing else. You have not provided a mechanism for the State Department and their lies, lies, lies claiming that “russsian artillery” is really an innocent combine harvester.
    It’s not possible to fake a Russian Invasion.
    It’s absurd.

    You appear blind to the inconsistency within your methodology of acknowledging that your sources can and do indulge in falsehoods….

    No. How many times to I have to take you by the hand and lead you though it? I’m good with the idea of “them” and their “lies, lies, lies”.
    Really.
    Use a dozen Dr Evils. It’s all good. It doesn’t help you.

    Obama. Think about it. Is Obama doing this? Or…is he an innocent patsy?

    You have not substantiated your claim that Ken has been “used”.

    Ken swallowed something stupid invented by some guy living in his mother’s basement. Then he repeats it. Ken got used. In spades. My standards are much better. I stick with the stuff that’s at least vaguely possible.

    The other thing about these satellite photos of harvesters/artillery pieces is that the interpretation is irrelevant. No interpretation is evidence of a “Russian invasion.”

    “The other thing about these videos of flags waving in vacuum is that the interpretation is irrelevant. No interpretation is evidence of a “Moon Landing.”

    Comedy that writes itself.

    Like

  45. <i.There’s no mechanism. You have not provided a mechanism for the State Department and their lies, lies, lies claiming that “russsian artillery” is really an innocent combine harvester.

    (roll eyes)
    Take an aerial photograph of harvesting equipment that may be argued to plausibly represent artillery and publicise it as such to serve a political agenda.

    or

    Take an aerial photograph of transport and industrial equipment that may be argued to plausibly represent weapons of mass destruction and publicise it as such to serve a political agenda.

    Couldn’t possibly happen, no mechanism, no Dr Evil

    Like

  46. Take an aerial photograph of harvesting equipment that may be argued to plausibly represent artillery and publicise it as such to serve a political agenda.

    How?
    Walk me through this cunning plan.
    I get it that that’s what you think happened.
    It’s the lack of a mechanism that’s the problem.

    “Take video footage of a flag waving in a breeze that may be argued to plausibly represent “the Americans” making it to the moon and publicise it as such to serve a political agenda.”

    How?

    “Delete an old image on a computer and replace it with a new image that may be argued to represent something scientific, release it in a draft and publicise it as such to serve a political agenda.”

    For pity’s sake. How?

    “Use a software program on a computer that may be argued to represent a Hawaiian birth certificate, and publicise it as such to serve a political agenda.”

    (…facepalm…)

    Let me repeat an important word for you.
    Obama.
    In this cunning plan, in this big reveal of yours of what’s really happening behind the curtain…what’s Obama’s role?
    Does he know?
    Or is he an innocent dupe?

    Last time I checked, Obama has said nothing about any combine harvesters.
    There has been no outraged firing of staff for hoaxing a Russian Invasion.

    What’s the mechanism?
    Does he not know because he doesn’t have access to the internet like the man in his mother’s basement?
    Is he being cossetted in a fog of disinformation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
    Has the State Department gone rogue and nobody in Washington has any idea about these press releases?
    Does Obama know but not care?
    Or maybe….(gasp)…..Does he run the show?
    Has the Republican Party decided to support their president in his lies, lies, lies because they gave him such a hard time about the birth certificate?

    You have an anomoly? That’s great.
    Now come up with a mechanism that doesn’t make you sound crazy to yourself. Walk me through it.
    It can’t be done.

    Lord Monckton On Obama’s Birth Certificate,It’s An In Your Face Bogus Document

    Like

  47. Are you that naive?

    We aren’t talking about the scientific community with its checks and balances, were discussing information released by representatives of a military alliance whose very existence is built on political purpose.

    By its nature it is far from opaque. That’s why your analogies are absurd.

    Watch how its done, Watch carefully

    Like

  48. #$@

    ” far from transparent, very opaque”

    Like

  49. Are you that naive?

    I’m asking you for a mechanism. Nothing naive about it.

    We aren’t talking about the scientific community with its checks and balances, were discussing information released by representatives of a military alliance….

    Then that should make it super easy for you. Strip out the checks and balances that don’t apply since we’re dealing with a military alliance and not a scientific community. No problem. Grab your napkin. Jot it down.
    Let’s take a peek behind the curtain.

    “By its nature it is far from transparent.”

    Ok, so…going with that assumption, how does it work? What’s the mechanism? Muse away.

    Watch how its done, Watch carefully.

    I know the mechanism for the Iraq war very well. If you wish to copy it and apply it to the fake Russian Invasion, then go for it.
    It won’t work.
    I’ve already tried.

    One problem is……Obama.
    Is he a pasty or is he the Dr Evil or something in-between?
    Maybe a sort of Patsyville?

    “You you really think that the military alliance is patronised by impartial, non-biased, apolitical people? You you really think that I am that dumb?
    The military alliance was set up as a political organisation with a political agenda, and I can’t be bothered arguing with people who are either too thick or too dishonest to realise that.”

    Hmm.
    The ghost of Andy lives.

    Alien President: Obama forged his birth certificate?

    Like

  50. I’m asking you for a mechanism….that should make it super easy for you.

    “By its nature it is far from transparent.”
    Ok, so…going with that assumption, how does it work?

    Spot the disconnection

    “I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.” –G. W. Bush Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

    Like

  51. Spot the disconnection.

    There’s no disconnect.
    It’s not transparent? That’s ok. Really. Nobody is asking for evidence.
    Nothing that hard.
    You don’t even have to know for sure what happened.
    The bar is set way,way low.

    All you have to do is come up with some sort of vaguely possible scenario ( or several, if you like) that doesn’t make you sound completely nutty to yourself.
    Throw into the mix whatever you need to make it work somehow.
    Do what Andy, Orly Taitz and all the rest of them completely fail to do.

    You can start with Obama.

    spongebob-imagination

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s