Martin John titles his video argument “MH17 – We know with 99% certainty who shot down MH17”

A few days ago I wrote:

Much of the forensic evidence has come in, it backs up witness statements and it looks like the initial suspect was being framed. If this was a homicide investigation and the Kiev regime were a person they would probably be arrested on suspicion of murder by now and be asking for a lawyer. The police would be looking at the US as an accessory and maybe even the boss that ordered the ‘hit’.

We, the ‘social media community’, have to be the cops and the court. We can make a good case that the Ukrainian regime were the perpetrators.

I still believe that we can make the case that the Ukrainian regime are the most probable perpetrators but it’s not yet conclusive.

Martin John’s video is a very useful summary however I believe that his reliance on timestamps apparently indicating that the intercepted conversations video was made prior to the shooting down of MH17 is unwarrented. A GitHub article contends that YouTube re-encodes the creation date of videos to 24 hours prior to uploading. As a non-technical person I was already wary of citing the timestamp argument which I did not know enough to verify, while I can’t assess the validity of the counter argument about YouTube re-encoding either, it should caution us against placing any reliance on this piece of evidence.

The Russian ATC records indicating the presence of another plane with MH17 and statements from witnesses on the ground that another plane was seen attacking MH17, together with the suggestion of OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw that damage to the MH17 cockpit was suggestive of ‘strong machine gun fire’, all point to an air-to-air rather than the surface-to-air attack of which the Separatists are accused. This is strong evidence pointing to the Ukrainian regime particularly as there has been, as far as I know, no effort to refute it.

The ‘Carlos posts’ from a Twitter account under the name #Spainbuca, purportedly from a Spanish citizen working in Ukraine as an air traffic controller, are quite persuasive but there is no evidence to support the existence of such a person. Like the recording of alleged conversations between the rebels the Carlos posts requires further investigation. The provenance of both these pieces of evidence remains mysterious but the fact that they were both posted on the same day as disaster suggests that they might throw light on what happened.

Here are some links to news sources and information resources that might be useful in considering this case:

List of MH17 airframe parts
Map of a Tragedy – WSJ
Smoking Gun that Russian Separatists shot Down MH17 – Forbes
Locklin on Science Blog
MH17Analysis Parts 1 and 2.pdf
Debunked: MH17 Video Timestamped before the crash, and other timeline issues

9/11 and The Reality Gap

The gap between reality as perceived by mainstream media professional and reality as perceived by the public who follow discussions in the alternative media is enormous. I was listing to a phone in discussion on LBC this evening. The topic was the anniversary of 9/11 and one caller suggested that there should have been a proper inquiry to determine what really happened. The programme’s host was immediately dismissive saying “here we go again” and “we know what really happened .. two planes were flown into the Twin Towers”. “What about the collapse of Building 7?” asked the caller. “What is Building 7?” replied the host who then went on to assert that he knew more than the caller, that he had the facts and all the caller had was crackpot ‘conspiracy theories’. I found the host’s ignorance appalling – and this was one of the more thoughtful of the LBC presenters. I’ve seen this attitude so many time on popular mainstream media shows; anyone who questions the political consensus, the consensus being sold by the political elites, is maligned as a crackpot of some kind. The fact that large numbers of people question the official story on 9/11 elicits analysis of their supposed psychology rather than engagement with their stated reasons for doubting the official story. I begin to wonder if media pundits are instructed to stay away from discussion beyond a narrow consensus, to stay within a ‘walled garden’, or if they are chosen for their ignorance.

This same gap is apparent in the response of the general public and that of the media and political classes to the Syrian crisis and that gap is growing. A single example of this is the attempt by mainstream media and politicians to create a consensus that there is evidence that Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Syrians in the Ghouta region. No such evidence has been presented only an assertion that this evidence exists whereas those who follow the alternative media, the analytical media, understand that such evidence as there is points to the rebel forces that the UK, France and the US have been supporting.

I think that we should redefine or rename the mainstream and the alternative media as the oligarchic media and the democratic media or something along those lines, the defining characteristic of the first is that it is essentially a ‘few to many’ dissemination of information and opinion while the second is a ‘many to many’ discussion of information and its meaning.


Following the defeat of David Cameron’s motion that Britain should participate in a military strike against Syria, it was expected that the US would attack without British support which would have been largely symbol in any case.

Today Obama has said that he believes that he has the authority to order a military strike without going through Congress but he would take that route because it would make the nation stronger. My intuition is that the President has no enthusiasm for military action but is being pushed by the likes of John Kerry and those shadowy figures who really pull the strings in the US.

Obama knows that an attack would be immoral and extremely dangerous and he is stalling for time/passing the buck (somehow the image of Pilate asking the crowd whether Jesus or Barabbas should be freed comes to mind). Obama would not have been able to do this had not Cameron been defeated in the Commons. And Cameron was defeated because of public opposition and because MPs received an avalanche of objections from their constituents. The British public have played their part it is now up to the Americans to really put pressure on their representatives over the next few days.