MH17 – Lying by Omission

John Kerry: “We saw the hit, we saw plane disappear”

“We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.”

August 13, 2014 The Australian.

evidencepowell“The history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal”. (Mark Twain)

It is “a misunderstanding”

Fred Westerbeke, chief prosecutor and coordinator of the criminal investigation into the plane crash told Dutch daily NRC December 19:

“Satellite images showing how on July 17 flight MH17 over Ukraine was shot out of the sky by a rocket do not exist. There has been a misunderstanding about this. There are no satellite images in the sense of a movie where you see a rocket going into the air. There is no conclusive evidence from intelligence services with the answer to all the questions.”

It is important to understand that Westerbeke does not say he doesn’t have the images but, if his quote is not a misunderstanding, he claims the images do not exist and uses the term “no conclusive evidence”.

Fact that Westerbeke and Kerry both got away with completely contradictory statements without even a single question asked by our free, democratic and pluriform media is proof in itself our Western society is totally corrupted. I cannot help but emphasizing that finger pointing to others declaring them bullhorn of propaganda should be avoided unless oneself has a clean slate.

Before discussing two testimonies of anonymous eyewitnesses maybe now is a good moment to explain what happened to me. In September 2014 I intended to travel to the MH17 crash site to check the situation for myself. Traveling via Moscow because unfortunately I do not consider myself safe in Ukraine anymore. Ticket already bought, because I made many trips to the Former Soviet Union. A pretty exceptional one too. Spokesperson at the Embassy of the Russian Federation: “We have some concerns and will not issue you a visa and we will refrain from discussing our concerns with you.”

Disgusted by anonymous witnesses.

witnessKP
witnessRTL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top picture. Before even watching the video I think: typical Russian maskirovka.

Bottom picture. Before even watching the video I think: typical American psyop.

Video Top is broadcast of Komsomolskaya Pravda. After watching, I conclude there is no way to say if the witness is really from the Air Force base in Dnepropretrovsk. He says nothing that I can personally check. I dismiss the info as evidence immediately. Fact that there is mention “witness passed polygraph test” makes me really suspiscious.

Having discussed the video with a professional who worked as well for military and civilian secret services he explains the video:

“The only purposes of the video is to cast doubt about the version of the opponent. Second purpose is to add one extra possible crash scenario to the mix and tilt the playing field in favor of the own side. For Russian audience this is most probably a very convincing piece of information. Western audiences might start doubting the BUK-version that had been true until this video came out.”

Video bottom. I am really pissed off. RTL Nieuws has still not declared they have been duped by Ukraine’s secret service SBU. It seems to me that the explanation I gave here and here would have been sufficient to make the decision by the channel to fully retract the story. Instead of explaining about possible cable on the balcony roof, witness and friend are one and the same person, missile plume is not BUK but Grad BM21 measure shot….
I think they should protect the actor who posed as the witness and not make me force to disclose the identity of the real witness. Problem with this video: it is not problem with the video. Problem is too much information is contained around the story that makes verification possible. With help from professionals I think on five counts at least events described by the witness can be falsified and cannot have taken place the way he said. Yes, now I lie by omission to achieve my goals.

Max van der Werff
Alias Belanda Tjampoer

January 6, 2014