Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
In the first article of this series, it was proven that accusations of the use of Buk missiles by Russia in Ukraine happened prior to the crash of MH17, and they were especially false. The second article showed that Kiev and Washington had one motivation, and were the only ones to profit from the tragedy. In this third part, we will revisit the communication and the evidence provided on July 18th, 2014: all of them lied to us!
One piece of disinformation – that the primary aim was to condition the masses – was put in place by Kiev well before July 17th, 2014. Complacently relayed by the western press, in this way it prepared its readers to receive “the Truth”. On the day of the tragedy it limited itself to inventing imaginary victims in order to involve as many countries as possible. The next day, the disinformation was setup in two stages. The first – very short and very brutal – one had as an objective to create a state of shock and stupor. It involved institutions and statesmen. But due to the fragility of the evidence and the very important risk of being discredited, the latter ceded place in the second stage to bloggers, self-proclaimed experts, and quidams [unimportant people – ed]. The climax of this pantomime was reached when the JIT built its dossier of accusations on the work of the latter.
Dead French and Americans among the victims:
On Thursday, July 17th, at 19:46 the Reuters agency reports that 23 Americans were killed in the crash. A quarter of an hour later, the Minister of Transport of France Frédéric Cuvilliers announced that 4 French passengers were on board. At 23:00, Laurent Fabius outbids him and announces in a dispatch to the Quai d’Orsay that 6 French victims were on board. A hotline was even set up (0143175646) to inform the families.
These three news dispatches are false (fake news, hoax). No French or Americans found their death during the disaster (list of passengers). There was only one Dutch passenger with dual American citizenship, only due to being born in Fort Lee (New Jersey) while his father was working in the US.
Such press releases prove, at minimum, that the Reuters agency and the French ministries did not apply the rules of deontology, which requires them to not spread alarmist news without verifying it.
Should we see in this amateurism or a frantic quest for “Buzz” in the media?
Maybe, but in the context of the manipulation of the crash of MH17, two other hypotheses are to be envisaged.
The first – including nationals in the list of victims allows to capture the attention of their fellow citizens. What French or, even more so, American would be interested in the crash of a Malaysian aircraft in Ukraine? For the imaginary French “victims”, the soap opera went on for two days, during which the Ministers of Transport and Foreign Affairs and the President – François Hollande – answered each other by interposed communiques. These inter-departmental denials only served to catalyze the attention of French people by creating supplementary “drama”.
The second – the presence of nationals in a disaster allows the country concerned to be a stakeholder in the drama, and then the investigation, and not to be confined only to a compassionate role.
The fastest investigation in the history of civil aviation is based on evidence that is still awaited 3 years on
Despite a safety investigation into an air crash taking several months, and a minimum of one month is required for the first interim report, the causes and the culprits of the accident are known as early as the next day.
In just 23 hours, Samantha Power announced to the Security Council that Russia destroyed MH17 and that the US has formal proof implicating Moscow.
On the same day, live on tv channels around the world Barack Obama keeps the same speech.
On July 20th, John Kerry said on CNN that the US possesses “extraordinary circumstantial evidence“. He also adds that the US is aware of the location of the firing of the missile on the basis of satellite images.
Three years after the events and we are still waiting for this circumstantial and satellite evidence that the US claimed to possess. None of the cited articles give the detail of this evidence. What was it? To find out, it is necessary to look again at the minutes of the meeting of the UN Security Council on 18th July, 2014.
Here is the evidence provided by Samantha Power and never presented by the media:
“Early Thursday, an SA-11 SAM system was reported near Zahnitkiv by a western reporter, and separatists were spotted hours before the incident with an SA-11 system at a location close to the site where the plane went down.”
So it concerns the video issued by Bellingcat that Samantha Power described as coming from a journalist from the West. “Bellingcat” is the blog of a British stay-at-home father and is unemployed. So he’s not a journalist – the first lie. The video was posted by a Ukrainian YouTuber – the second lie. This evidence is what was taken by the JIT. This indicates that for more than 3 years no new element appeared.
“Separatists initially claimed responsibility for shooting down a military transport plane, and posted videos that are now being connected to the Malaysia Airlines crash. Separatist leaders also boasted on social media about shooting down a plane, but later deleted those messages.”
Strelkov denies being the author of this message. Moreover, even if he was the author it can’t be proven that he relayed false news deliberately or unintentionally propagated it in the ranks of the rebels.
“This also follows a pattern of actions by Russian-backed separatists. On 13 June, separatists shot down a Ukrainian transport plane carrying 40 paratroopers and 9 crew members. On 24 June, as the Council was meeting to welcome Ukraine’s unilateral ceasefire (see S/PV.7205), we received word that separatists had downed a Ukrainian helicopter, killing all nine aboard. On 14 July, separatists claimed credit for downing a Ukrainian military cargo plane flying at 6,000 metres. And on 16 July they claimed credit for the downing of a Ukrainian fighter jet.”
None of these elements can serve as proof because both are unrelated to the destruction of MH17 and the latter is false:
- the IL-76 destroyed on June 13th was shot whilst landing by a round from a heavy machine gun;
- the Mi-8 helicopter was destroyed by a MANPADS that can’t reach a plane higher than 3,500 metres above sea level;
- the AN-26 was also shot down by a MANPADS while flying at least 6,000 metres. The destruction of this plane presented as evidence against Russia has been treated in the first article of this dossier.
In conclusion, the US’ accusations are based solely on circumstantial evidence. One piece of circumstantial evidence, as its name indicates, relates to the circumstances or the context in which the crime occurred. It does not prove that the accused indeed committed the crime, but suggests that it is possible to establish a link between the crime and the accused.
Both of this pieces of proof are doubtful. The video presented by Bellingcat lasts 35 seconds and was made using a telephone where we guess a vehicle at over one kilometre. This video was removed from YouTube after a few hours. Only copies downloaded prior to its removal exist. It is suffice to say that it is impossible to authenticate. It is difficult to say that the Facebook message of Strelkov constitutes circumstantial evidence. The third piece of provided evidence is based on numerous cases of the earlier destruction of aircraft (IL-76 & Mi-8) without a link to a Buk and a fake built from scratch (AN-26).
So the US’ accusations aren’t based on any direct evidence, but on questionable or false circumstantial evidence. The only direct evidence, i.e. the satellite images referred to by John Kerry, still hasn’t been revealed or even included in the file handed to the JIT.
A pro-Kiev expert in PVC windows, disguised as a specialist of armaments, in the studio of BFM TV
Always on this July 18th, during the program “BFM Story” presented by Olivier Cruchot, the floor is given to a weapons specialist : Edmond Huet. The latter comes out with the same arguments as the American side, and gives his source: Euro-Maidan PR.
In his first speech, he declares that the ATO forces do not possess any anti-air weapons, because the rebels do not have aircraft. But Kiev, following the destruction of the AN-26, at first blamed it on a Russian plane. So either Edmond Huet affirms that Kiev is lying, or Edmond Huet lies. If Ukraine suspected a Russian Mig-29 intervening in Ukraine, then the basing of BUKs on the border is justified. He also declares that no Buk was seized by the rebels, while Kiev says that the rebels captured a BUK missile on 29th June. And here, also, who’s lying? Kiev or Edmond Huet?
The first question one should ask is: Who is Edmond Huet? A thorough investigation showed that he was a simple technical-commercial door and PVC window salesman.
The second question is how does a fake expert arrive in the TV studio?
Edmond Huet, during his cancer treatment, meets Nathalie Pasternak, who is also ill. The latter integrates him into the core of the French Banderist-Ukrainian network. During the Ukrainian elections Edmond Huet is an international observer together with Caroline Fourest: the doors to television are open for him.
So a second thing appears: Edmond Huet is also a anti-Russian “specialist” who is in charge, and this is not specified by Olivier Cruchot, while he could not ignore it. So it is a double mise-en-scène, which implies a false expert expressing partisan conclusions prepared in advance. Today Edmond Huet lives in Ukraine.
This deontological bias can also be found – with much more serious consequences – in the JIT.
A stay-at-home father to the aid of the CIA and the State Department for the defense of the US.
Three years after the tragedy, no western intelligence agency has provided direct evidence of MH-17 being destroyed by militiamen, Ukrainians, nor Russia. There is no other evidence besides the circumstantial proof established by two groups of bloggers: “Bellingscat” and “Correctiv”. The second didn’t intervene until later – as a part of JIT’s evidence, but this is a topic for another day…
Behind Bellingcat is Eliot Higgins, a former administrative officer, who became a stay-at-home father. He gained notoriety by relaying information in order to accuse the government of Bashar al-Assad on his blog “Brown Moses“ (the use of barrel bombs and gas against the civilian population). On July 15th, 2014, i.e. two days before the tragedy, he set up Bellingcat. This site is funded by a crowd funder (kickstarter), to date the amount collected is £68,557. Of this amount £50,000 was levied in July 2014.
Since then, the work of this self-taught specialist in weapons has been questioned several times, but nevertheless it remains the main source of evidence used to blame Russia.
So it appears that most of the information produced on July 18th, 2014, was false. They served to introduce major flaws in the investigation into MH-17.
After the catastrophe only one suspect stands out: Ukraine. It is either Ukrainian loyalists or Ukrainian militiamen.
If Russia is one of the actors of the drama, something that remains to be proven, it could only be an accomplice of the latter. This complicity is either passive (providing the Buk) or active (providing the Buk and its crew).
One of the suspects was exonerated ex officio, and, worse than that, now they are a part of the investigation, where they can interfere in it at their leisure.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.