Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile

Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile

We’ll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the
professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that
conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down
the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.

The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he revealed there that,

“Contrary to the Obama administration’s public claims
blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down
of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have
concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that
it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a
source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds with what
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed
publicly — is based largely on the absence of U.S. government
evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft
missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying
at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”

It’s actually based on lots
more than that; it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on
positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and
even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid
out in detail, for the first time.

The reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” provided
links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing
up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s
reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring
the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence
on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive,” that Haisenko is right.

Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko’s conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:

“There have been two or three
pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost
looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire.”

This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of
the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster.


Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and you will see it.

That youtube snippet in an interview with Michael Bociurkiw, comes from a man who is

“a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), [who] has seen up close … the
crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Bociurkiw and one other
colleague were the first international monitors to reach the
wreckage after the jet was shot down over a rebel-held region of eastern
Ukraine July 17.”

That description of him is from the lead-in to the full interview with him, at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article, “Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site.” The
far briefer youtube clip shows only what’s presented on 6:10-6:24 of
this CBC interview with Bociurkiw. The CBC reporter in the video
precedes the interview by announcing, “The wreckage was still smoldering
when a small team from the OSCE got there.” So: he had to have been
there really fast. “No other officials arrived for days,” she said.

So: one of the two first
international monitors on-site saw conclusive evidence that the
Malaysian plane had been hit by “very very strong machine-gun fire,” not
by ground-based missile-fire.

Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the downing of that airliner, was here being essentially confirmed on-site by one of the two first OSCE international monitors to arrive on-site, while the wreckage was still smoldering.
That’s as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll
ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by
the Russian Government, or by the British Government, or by the
Ukrainian Government, each of which governments has a horse in this
race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent, and comes from
one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence. That’s
powerfully authoritative testimony, and it happens to confirm pilot
Peter Haisenko’s theory of what happened. Bociurkiw arrived there fast
because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who
were organizing to come later: Bociurkiw speaks the local languages
there — Ukrainian and Russian.

Furthermore, this is hardly
testimony from someone who is supportive of the anti-Government rebels.
Earlier, there had been this, http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3492,
which transcribed the BBC’s interview with Bociurkiw on July 22nd. He
said then: “We’re observing that major pieces, and I’m looking at the
tail fin as I said, and then there’s also the rear cone section of the
aircraft, they do look different than when we first saw them, … two days
ago.” So, he had arrived on-scene July 20th at the latest. (Neither the
BBC nor the CBC, both of which interviewed him, were sufficiently
professional to have reported the specific date at which Bociurkiw had
actually arrived on-scene, but, from this, it couldn’t have been after
July 20th. The downing had occurred July 17th. If some of the debris was
still “smoldering” as the CBC journalist said, then maybe he had
arrived there even earlier.)

The youtube snippet of Bociurkiw came to me via a reader-comment to
my article, from Bill Johnson, after which I web-searched the youtube
clip for its source and arrived then at the 29 July 2014 CBC news
article and its accompanying video.

Further, there’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner:  https://twitter.com/EzraBraam. (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it.)
Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the
SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the
pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with
bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot
himself, producing at his location a huge gaping hole in the side of the
plane precisely at the place where the pilot was seated. Furthermore,
this gaping hole was produced by shooting into the plane, precisely at
the pilot, from below and to the pilot’s left, which is where that
fighter-jet was located — not from above the airliner, and not from
beside it, and also not from below it.

In other words: this was
precise and closely-targeted firing against the pilot himself, not a
blast directed broadly against, and aiming to hit, the plane anywhere,
to bring it down.

Haisenko explained how this penetration of the plane, though it was
targeted specifically at the pilot, caused immediately a breaking-apart
of the entire aircraft.

Other readers have responded to my news-report about Haisenko’s article,
by saying that shrapnel from a Buk missile could similarly have caused
those holes into the side of the cockpit. However, that objection
ignores another key feature of Haisenko’s analysis. Haisenko said there:
“You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the
holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean,
showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter
caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly
frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same
caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that … these exit holes of
the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded
or bent — outwardly!”

What this means is that in
order to have some of those holes frayed inwardly and the other holes
frayed outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter-jet firing
into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side.

That’s critically important, because no ground-based missile (or
shrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced
firing into the cockpit from both  sides of the plane. It had
to have been a hail of bullets from both sides, that brought the plane
down, in that circumstance. This is Haisenko’s main discovery, by his
pointing that out. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions —
into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right
sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.
Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped
through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any  ground-fired missile.

Peter Haisenko posted an
extremely high-resolution image from that photo which he used, and it
shows unequivocally that some of the bullet-holes were inbound while
others of them were outbound: Here it is, viewed very close-up.

Although the fighter jets that
were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone
were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used.
SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an
oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask,
which was probably the case here. Of course, an airliner itself is fully
pressurized. That pressurization inside the airliner is, moreover, a
key part of Haisenko’s reconstruction of this airliner’s downing.
Basically, Haisenko reconstructs the airliner’s breaking apart as soon
as that hail of bullets opened and released the plane’s pressurization.

The specific photo of that
cockpit-fragment, which Haisenko had downloaded immediately after the
disaster, was removed from the Internet, but other photos of this
fragment were posted elsewhere, such as at the British publication
(which, like the rest of the Western “news” media is slanted pro-Obama,
anti-Putin), on July 21st, headlining their anti-Putin missile-theory
bias, “MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike.” Their “reporters” opened with their blatant anti-Russian prejudice:

“The first apparent hard evidence that Malaysia Airlines
Flight MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile is emerging
from the crash site in eastern Ukraine, after experts confirmed on
Monday there were signs of shrapnel damage to the aircraft.”

Although they didn’t say in their opener that the “surface-to-air
missile” was from the rebels, they made clear their
pro-Ukrainian-Government anti-Russian bias by saying, “Over the weekend,
western intelligence agencies pointed to mounting evidence that backs
Ukraine’s claim that the aircraft with 298 people on board was shot down
by mistake by pro-Russian separatists and Russian military personnel
with an SA-11 missile launched from a Buk-M1 SAM battery.” Their
stenographers (or as they would say “reporters”) stenographed
(“reported”) that, “Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for
Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence ‘was consistent with
the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high
explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM
system’.” No analyst from the pro-Putin camp  was interviewed by their “reporters.” For example, Russia’s Interfax News Service headlined on July 29th, the same day as the FT’s  article, “Boeing’s downing by Buk missile system unlikely — military expert,” and they stenographed their  “expert,” as follows:

Chief
of the Russian Land Forces’ tactical air defense troops Maj. Gen.
Mikhail Krush said he doubts that the Malaysian passenger liner was
brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. “No one observed a
Buk engaging targets in that region on that day, which provides 95
percent proof that Buk systems were not used in this concrete case,” the
general said in an interview with the Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer
military weekly to be published on Wednesday [July 30th]. ”This is no
more than a theory for now. However, a guided missile launched by a Buk
missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a
comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of
20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed.
There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a
launch. This is one thing,” he said. “Second. The holes left by the
strike elements on the Boeing’s outer skin indicate that the warhead
blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from
above,” he said. “The damage done to the plane suggests that a different
missile was used. Our guidance method is a zoom, when the missile
strikes the target from above covering it with a thick cloud of
fragments” the general said. “I cannot state categorically, guided by
this data, but I can suggest, using my experience, that it was not a Buk
missile that hit the Boeing,” the expert said.

General Krush’s statement can fit with Haisenko’s and with Bociurkiw’s, but not with FT’s  or the rest of the “reporters” (just consider them as rank propagandists) in the West.

U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia – against which he is actually systematically building toward war – and not Ukraine (which he’s using as his chief vehicle to do that),
is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the
snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan
demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych came from Yanukovych’s State Security Service and not from
the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych
down and that Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new
Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie. He lies a lot, and it’s just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.

If someone wants to verify how
rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time
of George W. Bush’s Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it,
and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still
being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many
obvious questions it points out, which U.S. “news” media refused to ask
and still refuse to ask about the matter, you’ll recognize that we are
being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and
with no respect for the public’s right to know the truth, even regarding
massive history like that. It’s really brutal.

Ignorant “reporters” sometimes
slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support
the opposite side’s narrative of events and that discredit their own
story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times 
piece, which included the statement that, “Anti-aircraft missiles are
not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast,
agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about
20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase
the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible.”

But rather than merely “a cloud
of red hot metal,” what actually brought down this plane was what
Haisenko has said brought it down: magazines-full of carefully targeted
rapid-fire machine-gun bullets pouring forth from below the plane, at
both its left and right.

This was a Ukrainian Government job. It was close-in.
(No missile fired from the distance more than 30,000 feet down to the
ground could have been that precise to target the pilot rather than the
far larger target of the plane’s entire body.) It came from the Government that Obama installed there in February and that’s now carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine’s southeast, the places where Yanukovych’s voters live (to the extent that they still can and do live).Compare that picture with the following one, which I take from a propaganda-site for the U.S. regime,
and so which is intended instead to support the Administration’s line
on this, certainly not Haisenko’s explanation of how the airliner was
downed, though it actually supports Haisenko’s case:

As you can see there, a plane that’s hit by a ground-fired
missile, instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few
yards away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not
concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane’s pilot is
seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.

Furthermore, note also that the
shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it, which is where
missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing their shrapnel from above,
down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of bullets to the Malaysian
plane’s pilot came from below the plane, aiming upward at the cockpit,
from both sides of the cockpit.

As regards whether there were
actually two fighter jets firing into the Malaysian airliner or only
one, a proponent of the single-jet hypothesis, Bill Johnson, posted as a
reader-comment to my article on August 4th,
a series of extreme close-ups of the side-panel, in which he inferred
that the explanation of the apparent left-side (pilot-side) bullets was
probably the shape of the bullets. I then asked him why he declined to
accept the possible existence of two jets. He said,

“from what I could find Russian military radar detected
only one Ukrainian fighter jet, not two. I have looked and looked for
any type of radar confirmation of a second fighter jet and can not find
it.”

However, the most virginal, earliest, online evidence concerning the
matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlined in the
subsequent English translation, “Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17,” and
it included, “@spainbuca’s TWITTER FEED,” which included his
observation, only minutes after the downing, “2 jet fighters flew very
close” to the plane. Furthermore, immediately before that, he had
tweeted, “The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2
minutes before disappearing from the radar.” So, perhaps the second jet
appeared distinct to him only immediately prior to the downing.


The accompanying news-report, also on July 17th, said:

“This Kiev air traffic
controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was
taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other
foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was
shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on
board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation
and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military
was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated
after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down.” If this is true,
then the radar-records upon the basis of which those tweets had been
sent were “confiscated.”

The best evidence is consistent
that those bullet-holes came from two directions not from one. What is
virtually certain, however, is that at least one jet fighter was close
up and shot down the Malaysian plane. The rest of the tweets from
@spainbucca, there, described the immediate hostility of the Kiev
authorities toward him on the occasion, and his speculations as to who
was behind it all.

And the European Union has been playing along with this hoax.
(If you still have any further doubts that it’s a hoax, just click onto
that link and look.) And the mass of suckers in the West believe that hoax:
it’s succeeding to stir a fever for war, instead of a fever to get rid
of our own leaders who are lying us into a war that will benefit only
the West’s aristocrats, while it inflicts massive physical and economic
harms against everyone else – as if it were the invasion of Iraq except
multiplied in this case a thousand-fold, especially with nuclear weapons
possibly at the end of it.

If we had a free press, the
news media would be ceaselessly asking President Obama why he doesn’t
demand accountability against the Ukrainian Government for their massacre perpetrated on May 2nd inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa, where that newly Obama-installed regime’s
peaceful opponents were systematically trapped and then burned alive,
which the Obama-installed Ukrainian Government has refused to
investigate (much less to prosecute). Basically: Obama had sponsored the massacre. So, our “news” media ignore it, even though it started this civil war on Russia’s doorstep, and thereby re-started the Cold War, as Obama had intended that massacre (his  massacre, and his  subsequent
ethnic cleansing) to do. (Similarly, the “news” media, though all of
them receive my articles by email, virtually all refuse to publish them,
because I won’t let them control what I find and report.)

And while Obama leads this Republican policy,
and Vice President Dick Cheney’s top foreign-policy advisor Victoria
Nuland actually runs it for Obama, congressional Democrats are just
silent about it, and do not introduce impeachment of this fake “Democratic” hyper-George W. Bush neo-conservative President, who’s a “Democrat” in rhetoric only – and though Obama’s policy in this key matter threatens the entire world.

A reader-comment to an earlier
version of this news report and analysis objected to my identifying
Obama as a Republican-in-”Democratic”-sheep’s clothing, and said:

“They may be rethug policies in origin but they are
decidedly BI-PARTISAN to anyone who wants to admit FACTS. The democratic
party you all think still exists is DEAD and only exists in your brain
(the part that doesn’t accept reality).”

However, U.S. Senate bill 2277, which invites Obama to provide direct
U.S. military support to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime, has 26
sponsors, and all of them are Republican U.S. Senators. Democratic
Senators, by contrast, are just silent on Obama’s turn toward nazism (or
racist — in this case anti-ethnic-Russian racist –  fascism); the
Senate’s Democrats aren’t seeking for it to be stepped up.


This is a Republican policy, which congressional Democrats are simply
afraid to oppose. Any realistic person knows that however far right
Obama turns, the overt  Republican Party will turn even farther
to the right, because they have to be to his right in order for them to
be able to win Republican primaries and retain their own  Party’s
nomination. Just because Obama’s game of moving the American political
center as far to the right as he can move it is succeeding, doesn’t mean
that the Democratic Party itself should end. It instead means that
progressives need to take the Democratic Party over, just like
conservatives took the Republican Party over with Reagan. There is no
other hope.


If a Democrat in the U.S. House will simply introduce an impeachment
resolution against Barack Obama, then the right-wing takeover of the
Democratic Party might finally end, and the world might yet be saved,
because the Democratic Party itself could then reject Obama as being a
fake “Democrat,” a Democrat-in-rhetoric-only. It could transform
American politics — and American politics needs such a transformation,
which would move the Democratic Party back to progressivism, more like
the FDR Democratic Party was, so that Republican politicians would no
longer need to be so fascist as they now have become (and as they now
need to be  in order to be able to win their own  Party’s
nomination). If Democrats fail to renounce the conservatism of Obama
and of the Clintons, then the Party will end, and needs to be replaced,
just like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party immediately
before the Civil War. Nazism has become today’s slavery-type issue –
it’s beyond the pale, and Obama’s installation and endorsement of it in
Ukraine is like James Buchanan’s endorsement of slavery was during the
1850s: either the Democratic Party will become the progressive party, or
else the Democratic Party is over.

But that’s just my own theory
of how Obama’s frauds might yet be able to be overcome and defeated, if
they still can be; it’s not part of my presentation of the explanation
of what brought down the Malaysian airliner, which has been an open case
since July 17th, and which is now a closed case. This is past history,
not future.

The present news story is being
circulated free of charge or copyright to all “news” media in the
English-speaking world, in the perhaps vain hope that the cover-ups of
our leaders’ constant lies will cease soon enough to avoid a World War
III, even though communism is long since gone from Russia and so the
ideological excuse wouldn’t make any sense here.

This insanity is actually all about aristocratic conquest, like World War I was. It’s not for the benefit of the public anywhere. Silence
about it (by “Democrats,” and the “news” media) is a scandal, which
needs to stop. The real Democratic Party (the Party of FDR, who loathed
and despised nazis — and even mere fascists — yet today Obama installs
nazis into Power in Ukraine) must be restored, and a real news media
needs to become established in America. Even Republicans need it,
because the very idea of “victory” in a nuclear war is a vicious fantasy. It is a dangerous lie, though there are some people who find it a very profitable one. And time might be short — let’s hope not already too  short.

After all, Obama’s hoax of
having won from Europe the stepped-up economic sanctions against Russia
after the government that Obama had installed in Ukraine downed the
Malaysian plane and successfully blamed it on “Russian aggression,” is
very encouraging to him. And European leaders know that Obama’s entire operation is a very bloody fraud (read the phone-transcript there — it’s a stunner). So, they certainly won’t save the world from it. It’s up to us.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.