Palinurus said:
Thanks voyageur for bringing this to our attention.
I'm wondering whether it will be the same or a similar documentary as the British BBC aired about a year ago. It was mentioned in
Reply #586 through #598 while the YouTube version of that one (59 mins.) is still available in
Reply #593.
Maybe someone in Canada would be able to watch and compare the two, just in case any new information would be displayed ?
Seems the CBC lead potential viewers to think this was something new (title was a give away), when in fact you are correct, it was the 2016 BBC version. As such, what was being presented by CBC with the name ‘
Who Shot Down MH17? The Coverup’ is the BBC's ‘
Who shot down MH17?’ (the link says the documentary is its not available). You can also read the producer, Mike Rudin's article _http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35706048 from a BBC show called
‘The Conspiracy Files’ whereby the film link also says “Sorry, this episode is not currently available.”
However, watched the CBC version though, and realized after a bit what was going on and where the trajectory would end up, not really expecting anything different than what had been knitted together before (most can be found it these threads). Took notes and it went thus (mistakes notwithstanding):
1. Opening statement on conspiracy theories.
2. Describes the flights route beginning in Holland, and further the moderator basically adds ‘What they did not know was the Russian backed war was on the flight path.’
3. Reviewed (BBC highlighted) a couple of Dutch families/persons who suffered loss.
4. Moves to discussion of pointing fingers and the Buk missiles being a “defining” factor.
5. Discussed 15 months of the painstaking Dutch investigation – they reassembled plane – Buk missiles seems to fit the findings. Fingers blame the Russians and pro Russian rebels.
6. Then there is the photo’s - Oleg Vtulkin (rebels) said he rejected them as a Western narrative. And another person (Natasha Voronina) said she saw planes take out the flight.
7. Discusses the many “theories” sweeping the internet (don't trust it they mean).
8. Enters Billy Six (think from Germany), a journalist who interviews people (with some video) in East Ukraine etc. with a number of stories of people seeing fighter jets from Ukraine and missiles fired.
9. Investigation returns to the fragment shrapnel. Six had said that 2 fragments matched Buk missile and 68 did not – he wants to know.
10. Four days after plane is brought down the “Kremlin hits back” – radar records of SU25 fighter jet (possible blip).
11. Enters Nick de Larrinaga (reference a number of times in the film as an authoritarian and obviously an anti-Russian) – said he was against the position of the SU25 - “This is absolute nonsense,” he said, however, Russia answers back with RT’s Yana Erlashova. Also discussed was experiments cited with the SU25 ceiling heights that can be exceeded).
12. Further discussion of the 10,000 m ceiling range. Nick de Larrinaga was again adamant in its maximum height defense, yet the experiments showed otherwise.
13. Next up was the issue of the Ukrainian pilot, Vladislav Voloshin, who a mechanic had offered evidence that he had armed Voloshin’s aircraft etc.
14. Voloshin was “tracked down” (BBC) – regarding the statement from the mechanic, Voloshin said the mechanic had “lied.” That seemed to definitively end that line of questioning for BBC; who to believe, a pilot or some mechanic - case closed, move along.
15. Next was their question of what else could explain the Russian radar blip. Depictions (workups) showed MH17 debris going forward and aft in the sky, and it was claimed that this is probably what people on the ground saw. Challenging peoples cognitive centers, the BBC said that when people saw jet fighters, it was actually debris crashing down. Again, BBC solved the problem, case closed, move along.
16. Evoking their favorite trigger word once again, the documentary said “But this did not stop the conspiracy theories.” Countering, they introduce Valentina Kovolenko, from the area/town - BBC reminding the viewer that the town was named “Red October.” Valentina recalled how she though a plane was passing overhead, yet it was a Buk missiles she said.
17. A number of photo’s were rolled out (people here have seen them) of the alleged smoke plume near the town of Red October (heck, what are the odds of that name being the focus). RT’s Yana Erlashova pointed out that the person who took the photos was on his balcony and not on the roof (the photos, if even true, point out that there were wires in the foreground and it had to be the roof where they were taken from).
18. Next they roll out the western darling from Bellingcat's (Bellingcat (BC), a website that coincidentally was put up three days before the crash of MH17), with spokesman/owner, Eliot Higgins.
Not sure what to think of Higgins, he reminds me of Rami Abdul Rahman’s Syrian Observatory for Human Rights operating from his Coventry shop. The English seem to have so many prop-artists on hand that it’s hard to know what is theater.
Anyway, Higgins makes a fuss about the photos, and I'm still trying to figure out what point he was making.
19. In the documentary, the BBC was of course able to track down the man who took the photos and interviewed him. For the purposes of the interview, he was (no surprise) all in black silhouette with a muffled voice, needing to protect his identity the BBC said. However, with his individual camera-ready evidence, pictures are deemed to be all good, case closed, move along.
20. The next question asked after everything else was dismissed was “who pulled the trigger” of the Buk missile. Either it was Ukraine or other.
21. Thankfully, BBC added in words from Ray McGovern (ex CIA) who asked questions about the Black Boxes and where they ended up (yup, the UK). And he mentions that people agreed (who he is associated with) that the Ukraine had these exact Buk missile.
It was also noted that the CIA has refused to release any data that they had bubbled over at the start of their accusations in press conferences. Russian photos show that there were Buk missile in a certain location, yet this BC Higgins guy refutes that evidence as being taken from before the July date, in June, or it’s doctored evidence.
22. Magically, it is all coming together for the BBC when the say “A clear picture of what happened is emerging” – The Russian Buk missile is identified. Thankfully again, the scene splits to Ray McGovern who added in that this is not creditable. However, the narrative is saved, the unidentified silhouette-man chimes in again, with explanation of what people actually saw from this or that location. The BC guy, Higgins, also jumps back in with we’ve "tracked it" statements (Buk missile), tracked it to the fields of Red October. An added clincher for the viewer is a photo thrown in of “burnt” fields following the so called Buk missile launch from Red October, it is claimed. To double down, the Buk missile was further claimed to have been filmed again as it was leaving the area, minus a missile that is; Russia denies this. Billy Six and the BC guy decide to follow up (separately) with an arrangement of photos including a reminder from the Buk missile photographed over Putin’ head - like see, it's all Putin. Ray McGovern offers a point about Higgins, “who pays him?” - surprised the BBC did not edit this out.
23. The BBC comes back to mentioning all the data/info the Russians have (manufacturing tests, videos, the older Buk missile system etc.).
24. After pointing that out, the BBC moves back to the trigger word 'conspiracy theory,' just to keep that point in mind and the viewers inline- helps to keep minds from wandering to far. After this, the BBC mention 'crazy theories’ (international mafia undertones) of actually people planting bombs on the flight while in Holland. Imagine that. This was supposed to have been revealed/sold by a Ukrainian intel-guy up the line {note the C’s session on the aspect of a planted bombs}.
25. Nick de Larrinaga is back for a last kick at the can along with another guy (missed name) talking about this in terms of a secrete, hence you can’t keep this a secret as it would eventually leak out. This was his way to dismiss any conspiratorial aspects. I could not help to remember nearly the exact same sentiment spoken by Chomsky regarding 9/11 conspiracies.
26. Nearing the end, the BBC moderator said “So what’s going on?” Most images came from Russia - and the words "a military deception" were thrown in. And we have a Peter Pomerantsev speaking of Putin having complete control over the media, control over RT and others to help “raise confusion.” The BBC said they tried to interview RT and they “would not talk to us.”
Next with emphasis *** was that all attempts at credibility went out the door when next the BBC rolls out none other than Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Comment: After seen Yat's appear, I recalled someone attacking Yat's in the Ukrainian parliament once, perhaps even punching Yat's. I know nothing can be solved by violence, it's to be avoided and emotional responses checked. yet after seeing him, somehow I can understand why someone would do this. Anyway, Yat’s is interviewed – he say’s “There is no truth in Russia” – continuing, he said something about putting aside(?); he talks of the “facts” and the system was Russia itself. Russia supplied surface to air Buk missile systems to Russian terrorists in Ukraine. Well that's Yat's all the way.
27. Again, BBC shows that all evidence presented in the documentary points to Russia, and they further point to Russian vehicles (military types) within the Ukraine with complex switches that would require “professionals” to operate them - okay. And then (the BC guy) mentions the Russian 53rd heading toward the boarder just prior to MH17’s fate, as if that was proof enough.
28. The BBC further points out a rebels communicating (a so called captured radio broadcast) with Russians saying they, the rebels, had shoot down a plane.
29. Back to Dutch families/people "who need to fight for justice," the BBC said, in this “bitter proxy war” on Ukraine by Russia. One Dutch woman (Salana?); and felt for her loss, also added "I don’t trust Ukraine either."
30. The BBC sums it up with ‘many questions have been answered.’
That's what I got out of it.
