New evidence presented at Russian Ministry of Defence press conference, 17 September 2018.
In July 2014 the Malaysian Airline Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew died. A Dutch-led international Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has been investigating the tragedy with the aim of determining criminal blame.
Update: Facebook took it upon themselves to censor my timeline and remove the Facebook post of my article. It seems their fact-checkers at the Atlantic Council have judged this information as “not following community standards”
Bit of a lesson there.
The JIT produced a preliminary report in 2016 (see But will it stand up in court?) and updated this with new evidence at a press conference last May 24. At the conference they revealed the serial number of the missile which shot down the plane and made a general appeal for people who might have information on this to come forward. At a Press Conference this week the Ministry of Defence (MOD) of the Russian Federation has responded with information from the manufacturer’s log books about this specific missile.
This appears to be the most concrete evidence to date which could be used to lay credible blame for the tragedy.
The JIT reveals serial numbers of the missile and appeals to the public for information about it.
While the JIT May 24 statement laid the blame on the Russian Federation, their evidence was rather subjective – relying on subjective interpretation of markings on vehicles in videos available online. “Open source” evidence. In contrast, the Russian MOD was specific and taken from archived information from the missile manufacturer.
In a way, this is rather unique because this information was understandably classified. Presumably, Russian officials have been active in the period between May and September locating the log books, interviewing relevant staff members from the time of production and going through the bureaucratic procedures required to declassify the material.
The new evidence
The video of the Russian MOD press conference above summarises three pieces of evidence the Russians have made available:
1: The most convincing evidence is the date of manufacture of the specific missile (December 1986) and its transport to the military unit where it was deployed. The records show it was deployed to a unit based near Lvov in the then Ukrainian Socialist Republic. It had never been returned to Russian territory.
I think that evidence is solid. The MOD spokesperson said the information has been passed onto the JIT and if they ask to inspect the archives they will be invited to Moscow to do so. He also made the point that the Russian side has asked the JIT to request the log books of the Ukrainian military unit which has been in possession of that missile and reveal its movements and location during July 2014.
2: Analysis of the video material the JIT had relied on to support their conclusion that the missile came from the Russian 53rd Anti Aircraft Missile Brigade based near Kursk in the Russian Federation. That video material had initially been compiled by Bellingcat, a suspect internet group now allied with NATO. The JIT conclusion relied on subjective tracking of markings on a BUK unit and its transporter and claimed to track it through its journey.
JIT open source video evidence supporting their conclusion that the BUK unit came from Russia
Russian experts have analysed these videos and shown problems with lighting and perspective indicating they have been faked. Something as simple as placing an image of a BUK unit into an existing video.
Their analysis seems credible, but obviously, this is the sort of thing which could be debated between experts in a court.
3: A recording of a telephone conversation made in 21016 where Ukrainian Armed Forces Col. Ruslan Grinchak refers to the tragedy in a way that implied it was caused by the Ukrainian armed forces. This person was in charge of airspace over the Donetsk region at the time of the tragedy.
This evidence relies on interpretation so is less convincing by itself.
Conclusion
The new evidence resulting from the discovery of the missile serial numbers by the JIT looks conclusive. As Russian Lieutenant General Nikolai Parshin told reporters the archives show:
“the missile was assembled on December 24, 1986, and delivered by rail to the military unit number 20/152, officially named the 223rd Air Defense Missile Brigade. It was deployed to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic’s Ternopol Region, which was part of the Subcarpathian Military District.”
Unless archive evidence in the possession of the Ukrainian armed forces can show that the missile was subsequently exported back to the Russian Federation there seems no doubt that Flight MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian missile.
However, much more has to be done to apportion blame. There is still the possibility that this particular BUK unit was in the hands of the separatist forces in the Donetsk or Lugansk regions (although Dutch Intelligence reports at the time indicated any BUK units in the hands of separatists were not functioning -see Flight MH17 in Ukraine – what do intelligence services know?).
What is clear is that the ball is now back in the hands of the JIT, and more specifically, the Ukrainian armed forces. The JIT should now demand archived information on the locations, servicing and possession of this specific missile in the period between 2086 and July 2014.
Of course, as in other aspects of this investigation, the Ukrainian side may claim that records do not exist or have been destroyed. I do not think that is good enough and such lack of cooperation has already damaged the reputation and reliability of the JIT. Ukraine, as possibly one of the suspects, should never have been given membership of the JIT where it can influence the investigation and exert veto power over the dissemination of findings.
Perhaps reporters should now be asking the Ukrainian military to go away and find this specific missile and hold their own press conference where they can expose the serial number of the one they have in their possession.
Open Parachute 
Extraordinary lack of interest from the media on this one
LikeLike
And an active censoring by Facebook under the guidance of their Atlantic Council fact checkers.
They deleted my Facebook post on my article:
LikeLike
Its a horrible mixture of shocking, appalling and no surprise, since Facebook has chosen to ally with the Atlantic Council…..with possible concessions concerning tax issues?
https://mronline.org/2018/05/24/facebook-partners-with-hawkish-atlantic-council-a-nato-lobby-group-to-protect-democracy/
The new totalitarianism…same as the old…
Did you ever expect to be targeted like this Ken?
LikeLike
Re: the Atlantic Council fact checkers
I had Jehovahs Witnesses at the door flourishing the bible at me and saying “But why would God lie?”
I guess the Atlantic Council has its own holy scriptures, written by NATO intelligence agencies
LikeLike
I don’t think I am being targeted specifically unless they have me down already on their list of “Russian bots.”
I think that the new regime is actively censoring the system by subject matter.
Mind you, this may be an admission that the previous system of self-censorship is not working. I am often told I should not present such material in a “science blog,” and SicBlogs, which syndicates some of my blog articles, have been taken to task for syndicating me.
And the number of times I get told that I should not mention material from any sources like this!!
Doesn’t seem to be stopping people from actually searching for more reliable information.
LikeLike
An amusing essay for you
LikeLike
So true – as well as amusing.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
LikeLike
more on fact checking
You may have already come across this, but for anyone else visiting your site its worthwhile reading
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/09/facebook-allies-with-us-regime-change-orgs-for-fact-checking-in-foreign-countries.html#more
LikeLike
So much for the argument that initial NATO conclusions could be relied upon.
Not mentioning any names.
LikeLike
Reenmac, thank you for the link. At the top of the page, Moon of Alabama, we see this headline: “NYT Admits That Its “Mountain of Evidence” For Russian Collusion Is Smaller Than A Molehill.”
Since I am always suspicious of conspiracy theory websites I took the liberty of looking at the New York Times article in question. Here is the quotation from that article that Moon of Alabama cites:
“Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.”
However, nowhere in that entire New York Times article does it say that the New York Times admits the “evidence for Russian collusion is smaller than a molehill.” In fact, the NYT makes no mention of the amount of evidence regarding collusion that exists. That headline on Moon of Alabama is what I like to call a blatant lie.
What the Times does say is that no evidence has reached the public domain: “no public evidence has emerged.”
Wow! That’s quite the headliner your conspiracy theory website has uncovered! What are they going to tell us next? That Mueller ordered a pizza from a restaurant owned by a Democrat!!?
The only thing the NYT is saying, for those who aren’t conspiracy oriented, is that the public doesn’t know what Special Counsel Robert Mueller knows. Mueller doesn’t have anywhere near the problems that Trump has with leaks by disloyal staff. This is such an obvious and insignificant fact that the NYT only mentioned it near the end of a lengthy article. We already know this.
Long story short, your conspiracy-website is a lying rag.
LikeLike
I’ve shown that your lying rag skewers the truth to fit its own perverted agenda. Gullible sheep, such as yourself, gobble it up without so much as questioning its syntax. I get it. In your head the whole world is a fucking conspiracy. You’re twisted. Get some help.
LikeLike
David, I would think “lying rag” and “Conspiracy” media applies ver much to the NYT and WP. After all they are promoting huge dangerous conspiracy narratives without one iota of evidence, in fact manufacturing “evidence” on the way.
LikeLike
Not true, Ken. This story is very well documented.
LikeLike
David, what a weird response. I point out how MSM these day regularly resort to promoting unsupported conspiracy theories like the various versions of Russiagate and to reporting obvious lies (just consider their reporting of the Syrian war for a minute) and you counter this by selecting an article you like. A silly diversion.
LikeLike
Ken, back-peddling as usual. This is what you said, word for word:
“David, I would think “lying rag” and “Conspiracy” media applies ver much to the NYT and WP. After all they are promoting huge dangerous conspiracy narratives without one iota of evidence, in fact manufacturing “evidence” on the way.” End quote.
Where exactly did you say that you were referring to Russia-gate or the Syrian war? I seem to have missed that part.
The article that I cited is considered a dangerous conspiracy theory, by some people, just as Russiagate is considered a dangerous conspiracy theory by others.
Moreover, your comment, that the NYT promotes these “conspiracy narratives without one iota of evidence,” was either an intentional lie or you were confused.
This is one iota of evidence. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/188-djt-borrowings-1979/0e4bc1daf254d4c19ed5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
LikeLike
Again, David, you seem to invent things like “back-peddling” to cover up your diversions.
You attempted to divert from the recommended article “Facebook Allies With U.S. Regime-Change Orgs For ‘Fact Checking’ In Foreign Countries” to a completely seperate article (and then misrepresent that article, too).
The recommended article is serious presentation of evidence that should concern us all. The attempts to censor social media that has resulted from politicsal pressure in the US. A fact you wish to divert attention away from.
The MoA article makes a point I keep stressing when it concludes:
It appears you want to attack the whole concept that people should think for themselves rather than slavishly and blindly accepting the narratives promoted by state and political bodies that are faithfully reported by MSM.
Individual responsibility for one’s own understandings is now more than ever necessary as most “reporters” in the main stream media are now no better than stenographers.
Your diversions represent nothing more than your own refusal to think for yourself
and attempt to impose your slavisness on others who do think for themselves. Why are you so afraid of people acting independently, intelligently and resorting to finding evidence that the MSM refuses to report or covers up?
LikeLike
Ken, to be clear, you were lying when you said:
” . . “lying rag” and “Conspiracy” media applies ver much to the NYT and WP. After all they are promoting huge dangerous conspiracy narratives without one iota of evidence, . . ”
The New York Times does provide more than an “iota of evidence” when reporting what some people would consider “dangerous conspiracy narratives.” Complete documentation is adequate evidence by any standard.
You lied. You said they do not provide any evidence. Admit it.
And then in your last comment you went off on a tangent about how people should not accept mainstream media? Well that would be fine, if there was any truth to what you were saying.
The problem I have with you, is that you are edging us all closer to a world in which truth can not be determined with good old fashioned documented evidence. You are dangerous. You are pushing the concept of Fake News.
You lied. Mainstream media is not trying to pull the wool over the world’s eyes to push some political agenda. You are trying to lul us all into the cozy arms of the Trump worldview. “It’s Fake News if I disagree with it.”
So where would you have us get our information? How would you have us all view the world?
You want us to believe Alexander Mercouris.
In my second comment of this thread I said: “Gullible sheep, such as yourself, gobble it up without so much as questioning its syntax. I get it. In your head the whole world is a fucking conspiracy. You’re twisted. Get some help.”
That applies to you as much as anyone, Ken. You posted a link to a video by pro-Russian-government apologist Alexander Mercouris. You never questioned it. You gobbled it up like a sheep. All you want is for your biases to be reinforced. You don’t look at any media information critically or intelligently, and then you criticize media outlets which actually take responsibility for what they say.
Mercouris lies and you never once questioned it. In this video that you posted, Mercouris is discussing the First Mueller Indictment against Russian actors who operated on U.S. soil. From the Mercouris link:
““All the things that people have been indicted for, Christopher Steele has done. He has lied to the FBI. He has interfered in the U.S. election. He has done so secretly. He has been phoning up newspapers. He has been publishing information in a dossier. He hasn’t registered as any kind of foreign agent. And so why hasn’t he been indicted? Why is there this resistance on the part of the Justice Department to indict him? “
That was a blatant lie. You NEVER questioned it.
FROM MUELLER’S INDICTMENT:
QUOTE: “Defendants and their co-conspirators thereafter destroyed evidence for the purpose of impeding the investigation.” That is Obstruction of Justice by means of destruction of evidence. Steele did not commit this crime.
“COUNT TWO
(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud)”
Steele did not commit the following crimes:
“knowingly, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmit and cause to be transmitted . .” END QUOTE
Identity Theft: QUOTE “Beginning in at least 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used, without lawful authority, the social security numbers, home addresses, and birth dates of real U.S. persons without their knowledge or consent.”
Using falsified identification: “Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased and obtained false identification documents, including fake U.S. driver’s licenses.”
Fraud: QUOTE: “Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages.”
Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud: QUOTE “Defendants . . . did knowingly transfer, possess, and use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person during and in relation to a felony violation enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c), to wit, wire fraud and bank fraud, knowing that the means of identification belonged to another real person” END QUOTE
Again, Mercerois said, “All the things that people have been indicted for, Christopher Steele has done.”
That was a lie. Christopher Steele did none of those things.
Again, my problem with you is that you are pushing us deeper and deeper into a world where truth doesn’t even matter. You are pushing your own political agenda and accusing those who look at sources which take responsibility for their words as being “slavish” idiots who “don’t think for themselves.”
You’d better look in the mirror before making your next comment.
LikeLike
David, you blatant diversion in an attempt not to discuss the issues presented in the MoA article about impending social media censorship is very telling. As are you silly attempts at personal abuse.
Surely you do not think you can prevent me thinking for myself by resorting to such silly tactics. I am sure others who comment here will also not be persuaded to hand over their brains in the way you advocate either.
LikeLike
Ken
Here’s a pretty thorough critique of the Paris Match photo and others
https://energia.su/mh17/fake_buk.html
LikeLike
Ken says: “Surely you do not think you can prevent me thinking for myself by resorting to such silly tactics.”
Response: Ken, I don’t give a fuck what you think. You are a complete lost cause.
What I do object to is your glorification of “alternative media” conspiracy theories which question the documented foundations of truth upon which the 4th Estate is founded. This is a society which accepts responsibility for its own mistakes. Your precious alternative media never accepts responsibility for its blatant lies.
You have no other agenda than to protect and defend your unashamed pro-Russian agenda. You defend a regime which has become famous for the murders of its own journalists whose only agenda was to provide the light of truth to the Russian people. Your agenda is anti-Russian people, anti-truth, and may the Russian people forgive you.
LikeLike
Could you please provide an example in which Alexander Mercerois has admitted and taken responsibility for his lies? Probably not.
I would be happy to provide examples of Mainstream media stories which have inadvertently made mistakes . . . and owned up to those mistakes.
There is a clear difference here.
LikeLike
David, in the time I have been visiting Ken’s site, he has never once resorted to the gutter language you are now repeatedly using. I am amazed at his tolerance and patience with you.
Why are you stalking this alternative media site?
Why don’t you now give up on us hopeless Putinbots here….we are clearly not worth you wasting your superior intellect on
LikeLike
David, you claim not to be concerned with the fact that I think for myself – yet your actions suggest otherwise. You have simply descended into abusive ranting. You are obviously extremely concerned that others do not conform to the group thought that you advocate.
Come on. Be an adult and recognise that people do think differently. They may be right or wrong, you may be right or wrong, but that doesn’t change that fact. Give up.
However, I suggest your comments would be of more value if they actually dealt with specific facts in my article about the new evidence related to the MH17 tragedy or to the specific MoA article you are smearing. That article is extremely important as the current social media purging is showing.
CFonme on – play the ball, not the man.
LikeLike
Thanks, reenmac.
I just wish the Russian investigation team would provide written reports in English for public perusal. Presumably, they are being conveyed to the JIT but if these detailed reports were made public it might put pressure on the JIT not to be so dismissive.
Another thing our media is ignoring is that the Malaysians are not accepting the JIT conclusions.
LikeLike
Reenmac says: “David, in the time I have been visiting Ken’s site, he has never once resorted to the gutter language you are now repeatedly using. I am amazed at his tolerance and patience with you.”
Response: https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/13/bill-maher-political-correctness-scott-kelly/
By the way, regarding your constant assault on documented and truth and those who take responsibility for their inadvertent mistakes, and those who actually do own up to their rare mistakes: Fuck You!
Your “alternative media” never admits mistakes. If they do, I’d like to see it. I have shown Ken Perrott to be wrong on numerous occasions. He has never admitted it. I have shown Alexander Mercerois to be a liar. Yet he has never admitted it. The mainstream media has far more integrity and honesty than your lying alternative media sites.
I hope this answers the question: “Why are you stalking this alternative media site?”
You are making the world a worse place to live. So, in case you missed it the first time. Fuck You!
LikeLike
David – charming!
Such abuse makes any rational discussion with you impossible.
LikeLike