Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

MH17 and the Mountain of Fish

Evidence has been mounting, or so the western media has told us


This article originally appeared at TheBlogMire


Somewhere out there, there’s a huge mountain made of evidence implicating the “pro-Russian rebels” and the Russian Federation in the Malaysian Airlines MH17 plane crash on 17th July last year. 

We know this because for the last 13 months, the Western mainstream media has been assuring us that the evidence of their complicity in the crash has been “mounting” to such overwhelming proportions that we now have a peak that would take a blind man to miss it.

Here’s a small selection of headlines and comments in articles from over the past year, though you will find many more just by Googling the words MH17, evidence, mounts and mounting:

MH17: Evidence mounts against Russian-backed separatists – Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2014
Evidence mounting of pro-Russian link to attack – The Independent, 21st July 2014
Evidence Mounts That Russia Supplied Buk Missiles To Ukraine Separatists – Radio Free Europe, May 13th 2015
MH17 crash: Russia and separatists deny mounting evidence of involvement – The Guardian, 9th July 2015
A growing body of evidence suggests Russian-backed separatists shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 after mistaking it for a Ukrainian military plane – Daily Telegraph, 17th July 2015
Western nations believe there is growing evidence that the plane was hit by a Russian-supplied missile fired by rebels – BBC, 11th August 2015

You get the picture? The evidence has mounted. It is mounting. It continues to mount. In fact, so huge is the mounting evidence, so overwhelming and so conclusive that … well why bother with the investigation since it is clearly a waste of time and money to investigate a crime when we know exactly who did it. Let’s just cut to the tribunal and get the prosecutions started!

But there are three rather large problems with the “mounting evidence” so beloved of the mainstream media. Firstly, their “mounting evidence” pieces don’t actually tend to mention what the latest piece of “mounting evidence” actually is. Rather, they just state it as a fact and hope their readers won’t ask too many questions.

Take the Telegraph article from July 17th 2015, for instance. It states that “the evidence is abundant, multi-faceted, and consistent” and goes on to mention “photographic and video evidence, satellite analysis, and witness testimony gathered by multiple investigators and media organisations, including this newspaper.”

I’ll mention the witness testimony and satellite analysis in a moment, but you really need to go and watch the “photographic and video evidence” for yourself to see just how conclusive a piece of evidence it really is. Not! If this is really what the author, Roland Oliphant, considers part of the “growing body of evidence”, I must remember to pray that he never gets called for jury service.

I imagine that some of these mainstream media newsrooms have seen conversations like this over the past 13 months:

Bob: Just read your latest report on MH17.
Steve: Good. Everything okay with it boss?
Bob: To be frank, Steve, we can’t publish it as it is.
Steve: What do you mean? What’s wrong with it?
Bob: You haven’t mentioned anything about the new evidence.
Steve: Well to be honest boss, that’s because there isn’t any.
Bob: That’s not the point. Look, we know who did it, and we need to make sure our readers are left with the impression that the evidence is insurmountable, right? So you’ve got to put something in.
Steve: But what can I put in if there isn’t anything new to put in?
Bob: C’mon Steve, were you born yesterday? What do we pay you for? Just put in that line about “mounting evidence” and we’ll run with it.

The second problem with the “mounting evidence” that has been amassing for over 13 months is that it somehow appears to have passed the US Intelligence community by. Back in March the US journalist, Robert Parry, contaced the office of the Director of National Intelligence to ask if a briefing could be arranged on the latest US intelligence assesment surrounding the crash. To his astonishment, he was told that the latest US intelligence is exactly the same as it was back in July 2014:

“On Thursday, when I inquired about arranging a possible briefing on where that U.S. intelligence assessment stands, DNI spokesperson Kathleen Butler sent me the same report that was distributed by the DNI on July 22, 2014, which relied heavily on claims being made about the incident on social media.

So, I sent a follow-up e-mail to Butler saying: “Are you telling me that U.S. intelligence has not refined its assessment of what happened to MH-17 since July 22, 2014?”

Her response: “Yes. The assessment is the same.”

Somehow all the “mounting evidence” the “evidence that is mounting” and the “growing body of evidence” hasn’t yet made its way to the US Intelligence community, and they are happy to continue relying on Twitter and YouTube from a year ago for their assessment. Maybe the Western media should pass some of their “mounting evidence” on to them.

It’s also astonishing that amidst all the “mounting evidence”, 13 months after the crash the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has not even yet established what type of missile brought the plane down, let alone who was responsible. According to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service spokesman, Wim de Bruin, on 25th August 2015:

“The Joint Investigation team is focusing on several scenarios. The most likely is the one in which the MH17 was downed by a ground-to-air missile. But there are still [other] scenarios that can’t be excluded. For example the air-to-air scenario.”

Like the US Intelligence analysts, perhaps the JIT should go to the media and get directions to their mountain of evidence on exactly how the plane was brought down.

But the third, and the most serious problem, is that whilst the Western press run with their non-existent “mounting evidence”, they appear to be avoiding some other evidence that has been “mounting” – that is the “mounting evidence” of an enormous cover up. Here, briefly, are some of the most fishy items on this particular mountain:

1. The US Government, which (via John Kerry) pinned the blame on “pro-Russian rebels” and Russia within hours of the crash, and which used the tragedy to immediately pressure Europe to apply more sanctions on the Russsian Federation, has refused to release the satellite images of the incident that they possess. Make of it what you will.

2. The JIT has made little or no attempt to interview the many witnesses in the area of the crash who testified to seeing a Sukhoi in the vicinity. Make of it what you will.

3. The radar readings shown in a presentation by the Russian military a few days after the crash showed the presence of a Ukrainian fighter jet (possibly a Sukhoi SU-25) within 3-5 kilometres of the Boeing when it came down. The Western media and the JIT have made no attempt to deal with this let alone refute it. Make of it what you will.

4. So far as I am aware, the manufacturers of the BUK missile system, Almaz Antey, have still not been questioned by the JIT. Make of it what you will.

5. Ukraine, which is obviously one of the suspects in the incident, is on the JIT. A suspect investigating the crime. Make of it what you will.

6. All of the countries on the JIT, including one of the suspects (Ukraine), have the right to veto the findings of the investigation and insist that they remain classified. Make of it what you will.

7. A Freedom of Information request for information on the JIT investigation from Dutch news service RTL Nieuws, was recently refused by the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice on the grounds of confidentiality. Make of it what you will.

For those who have already decided on the guilt of the “rebels” and/or the Russian government, I don’t ask you to suddenly change your mind. What I would ask of you is that you look at that list and admit one thing: It does look a little fishy, doesn’t it? Some might even say that the “evidence of fish is mounting”. Call it a mountain of fish if you like.


Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

Our commenting rules: You can say pretty much anything except the F word. If you are abusive, obscene, or a paid troll, we will ban you. Full statement from the Editor, Charles Bausman.

Add new comment