Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

You don't have evidence, you have assumptions. Show me some evidence - not stuff that has later shown to be fabricated, actual hard/undeniable evidence - actually link me to your evidence, go on.

There are links all over this thread. Show me the evidence where it has been debunked/or shown to be fabricated.

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place.

Prove this claim in particular - if you can not provide definitive proof, it can be considered a fabricated claim.

The burden of proof is on you to back your claims, not for others to disprove them.

inforfun

Egginacup wrote: »

Also people on here are claiming that Novorussian separatists are destroying the crash site when in fact the opposite is true. The salvage efforts to date (repatriation of bodies for examination, flight recorders to British aviation experts) have been facilitated by the militia who are fighting Kiev forces in the area and they have been publicly thanked by Dutch and Malaysian authorities.
By contrast the Kiev government has stepped UP its bombardment against the people in the area of the crash site despite giving assurances that it would call a ceasefire.

Kiev seems to be going all out to hinder a probe into the cause of the crash while the Novorussian militia are helping.

I don't know what you can draw from these facts but they ARE facts and you can't argue with facts no matter how loud some of the real trolls on here shout that Putin did it.

Now.... i would like to see links, video, whatever you have of that fact.

The only thing i read in the Dutch press, time and again, is that OVSE is being stopped by separatists every time they try to get near the site.

Somehow i dont think Dutch authorities will be thanking them for that

Egginacup

whatstherush wrote: »

Yourself and eggy keep saying this, What has shown to been fabricated?

You are trying to derail this thread.
The thread started out with an echo of condemnation against Russia for involvement in this crime. Speaheaded by people like Piliger and making hysterical claims that Moscow is responsible, the mob have yet to provide a single thing that would even lend creedence let alone prove their claims.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

Prove this claim in particular - if you can not provide definitive proof, it can be considered a fabricated claim.

The burden of proof is on you to back your claims, not for others to disprove them.

But the proof in links are referenced all over this thread. They have been provided. Now please provide the proof that they have been debunked.

You Putinbots have been asked for this on numerous occasions. Does it not compute or something ?

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

But the proof in links are referenced all over this thread. They have been provided. Now please provide the proof that they have been debunked.

You're trying to defer responsibility for providing proof, by pointing back down a 135 page long thread. You are trying to use this obfuscation (trying to send me off on a 'wild goose chase'), to claim you have already provided proof to me, when you have not - the only reason you would not link to your proof now, is to obstruct debate - which means you likely know your 'proof' (if any) is easily debunked.

So either provide proof, or your claims can safely be dismissed as based on nothing/assumption.

comongethappy

KahBoom wrote: »

You're trying to defer responsibility for providing proof, by pointing back down a 135 page long thread. You are trying to use this obfuscation (trying to send me off on a 'wild goose chase'), to claim you have already provided proof to me, when you have not - the only reason you would not link to your proof now, is to obstruct debate - which means you likely know your 'proof' (if any) is easily debunked.

Deferring nothing.

No point digging up links to appease some randomer who has made up their mind anyway.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

You're trying to defer responsibility for providing proof, by pointing back down a 135 page long thread. You are trying to use this obfuscation (trying to send me off on a 'wild goose chase'), to claim you have already provided proof to me, when you have not - the only reason you would not link to your proof now, is to obstruct debate - which means you likely know your 'proof' (if any) is easily debunked.

So either provide proof, or your claims can safely be dismissed as based on nothing/assumption.

These are your words are they not

not stuff that has later shown to be fabricated,

Again I will ask you to put the evidence of where they have been Proven to be fabricated.

All the items I posted have been linked to previously in this thread. It is not my fault that you have been directed to post here decided to respond late in the day.

whatstherush

Egginacup wrote: »

You are trying to derail this thread.
The thread started out with an echo of condemnation against Russia for involvement in this crime. Speaheaded by people like Piliger and making hysterical claims that Moscow is responsible, the mob have yet to provide a single thing that would even lend creedence let alone prove their claims.

Egginacup wrote: »

Any evidence shown so far (conversation recordings and some amateurish video) have proven to be fake.

How were they proven to be fake?

KahBoom

comongethappy wrote: »

Deferring nothing.

No point digging up links to appease some randomer who has made up their mind anyway.

So both of you are happy to avoid having to back up any of your claims with proof - which, for anyone reading this thread, can safely be used to assume that both you and your argument have no credibility at all.

Instead of whining "oh but I've already provided proof somewhere in the last 135 pages, it would be such a monumental effort to link it again (and so easy for you to search 135 pages)", you could easily link to your proof - and the only possible reason for that at this stage, is to try and obstruct debate, and defer responsibility for proving your claims.

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

These are your words are they not



Again I will ask you to put the evidence of where they have been Proven to be fabricated.

All the items I posted have been linked to previously in this thread. It is not my fault that you have been directed to post here decided to respond late in the day.

The burden of proof is on you, to back up your claims - show me your evidence, proving that:
"The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place."

That you can't be arsed providing your evidence, that you want to prevaricate endlessly, shows you just want to derail the thread, and avoid discussing the topic at all.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

Prove this claim in particular - if you can not provide definitive proof, it can be considered a fabricated claim.

The burden of proof is on you to back your claims, not for others to disprove them.

You specifically said "shown to be fabricated"

KahBoom wrote: »

You don't have evidence, you have assumptions. Show me some evidence - not stuff that has later shown to be fabricated, actual hard/undeniable evidence - actually link me to your evidence, go on.

What has shown to been fabricated?

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

So both of you are happy to avoid having to back up any of your claims with proof - which, for anyone reading this thread, can safely be used to assume that both you and your argument have no credibility at all.

Instead of whining "oh but I've already provided proof somewhere in the last 135 pages, it would be such a monumental effort to link it again (and so easy for you to search 135 pages)", you could easily link to your proof - and the only possible reason for that at this stage, is to try and obstruct debate, and defer responsibility for proving your claims.

You're the one saying that all those theories have been debunked. Put up the proof that they have.

Anyone following this thread will know that we and others have backed up all these components of the picture with links etc. You and your bedfellow Mr. Egg keep saying that these facts as reported by numerous media outlets have been debunked.

Who has debunked them?

Where are the links to these counter claims?

Just because you are lazy or incapable of reading I am not going to regurgitate information that is already freely available in this thread.

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

You specifically said "shown to be fabricated"


What has shown to been fabricated?

Show me the proof of this statement:
"The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place."

If you can not show me the proof of that, it can be taken as fabricated.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

Show me the proof of this statement:
"The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place."

If you can not show me the proof of that, it can be taken as fabricated.

So now you are replacing the word "shown", with "taken", thats fine, its your opinion after all. Thanks for the clarification.

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

You're the one saying that all those theories have been debunked. Put up the proof that they have.

Anyone following this thread will know that we and others have backed up all these components of the picture with links etc. You and your bedfellow Mr. Egg keep saying that these facts as reported by numerous media outlets have been debunked.

Who has debunked them?

Where are the links to this counter claims?

Just because you are lazy or incapable of reading I am not going to regurgitate information that is already freely available in this thread.

I haven't said "all" of anything is debunked.

Prove this claim of yours:
"The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place."

If you have a link proving that, provide it. For all anyone knows - given that nobody is going to search back 135 pages - your claim at having provided links could well be bullshít.

You are proving that you want to waste peoples time, and derail the thread, by avoiding providing any links.

KahBoom

No matter how much you guys try to defer responsibility here, it's piss easy for me to show you haven't provided proof of anything (and saying "go read all 135 pages" is not proof of anything), and I'm happy to keep pointing our that bullshít all day - takes me moments to respond to such pathetically weak arguments, while in the middle of doing other things.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

I haven't said "all" of anything is debunked.

Prove this claim of yours:
"The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place."

If you have a link proving that, provide it. For all anyone knows - given that nobody is going to search back 135 pages - your claim at having provided links could well be bullshít.

You are proving that you want to waste peoples time, and derail the thread, by avoiding providing any links.

First few pages of this thread contain the first link from a Russian News Source of the claim.

This post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91319143&postcount=65

You can do your own research and look for the rest.

Duggy747

KahBoom wrote: »

Prove this claim of yours:
"The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place."

The post at 17:50 (15:50 our time) is the archived post that was deleted that also had the familiar videos of the smoke in the distance from the wreckage, which they also deleted.

gandalf

What's that Depeche Mode song called "Enjoy the Silence"

Dear egginacup,

Please provide evidence that phone calls and videos have been debunked.

Your sincerely,

AH Posters.

shruikan2553

So from the past few pages we have:
This is what probably happened
Do you have proof?
Well there's this stuff
No, that's all fake, do you not have any proof?
Can you prove its fake?
No, do you have any proof?
There was that stuff above
So you can't prove it an expect me to go through the entire thread?
OK, here it is again.
No that's fake
Etc etc

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

First few pages of this thread contain the first link from a Russian News Source of the claim.

This post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91319143&postcount=65

You can do your own research and look for the rest.

Finally. You and others wasted a page and a half of the thread, whining that you had provided evidence, when it was more than 130 pages back down the thread!

Instead of wasting peoples time like that, provide a link.


Now - on examining this further: Nobody knows whether Col. Strelkov actually owns/runs that social media website, which makes that website an unreliable source that can't be used as proof.

It is claimed by the website, that the reports there, have been based on reports from the local community - who assumed it was a downed AN-26:
"Information about the downing of the plane was taken from a forum where local residents and militia have discussions."
http://www.interpretermag.com/was-col-strelkovs-dispatch-about-a-downed-ukrainian-plane-authentic/

That's sufficient information for discarding that claim as 'proof' of anything.

17 minutes to examine further?

A prepared response if ever I've seen one!

KahBoom

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So from the past few pages we have:
This is what probably happened
Do you have proof?
Well there's this stuff
No, that's all fake, do you not have any proof?
Can you prove its fake?
No, do you have any proof?
There was that stuff above
So you can't prove it an expect me to go through the entire thread?
OK, here it is again.
No that's fake
Etc etc

Except nobody provided any evidence, for me to claim it was fake - when instead, news media on both sides are publishing a lot of fabricated/dubious information - you're trying to paper over posters stubborn refusal to provide proof of anything, and them expecting me to trawl back 130 pages in order to find the proof they're alluding to.

If people can't provide links proving their claims, without expecting posters to trawl all 135 pages of the thread, they can be considered as deliberately trying to obstruct debate.

aloyisious

I'm waiting for the claim that it was NOT a fact that a ground-launched missile destroyed the Malaysian aircraft killing all aboard, as there are no living survivor-witnesses from either the passengers or crew to the actual event giving statements as to what happened. Occam's razor at it's best, no first-hand evidence proves there's no case to answer, ignoring the fact that those being blamed/accused by the media and the world are refusing to allow the investigators free and unhindered access to the remains of the aircraft and it's crew and passengers to gather evidence as to what happened.

Looking at the reports on the various TV News channels showing photos of the downed aircraft with what are described as shrapnel-type holes in the outer skin, I'm left wondering if it was a flechette-type warhead fitted to the missile with a proximity-fuse to explode at close range to a target, causing catastrophic (atmospheric) structural damage and a possible explosion in wing fuel tanks.

loughside

F.A.O. KomradinaCup... attend to this asap (and it will be re-posted until we get an answer)

`Any evidence shown so far (conversation recordings and some amateurish video) have proven to be fake`

darkpagandeath wrote: »

By whom exactly ?

who_me wrote: »

Yes, I'd also like to see evidence of that.

loughside wrote: »

I`m in the queue too...

Links please!!

preferably of the non-kremlin type komrad

*waits patiently*

shruikan2553

KahBoom wrote: »

Except nobody provided any evidence, for me to claim it was fake - when instead, news media on both sides are publishing a lot of fabricated/dubious information - you're trying to paper over posters stubborn refusal to provide proof of anything, and them expecting me to trawl back 130 pages in order to find the proof they're alluding to.

If people can't provide links proving their claims, without expecting posters to trawl all 135 pages of the thread, they can be considered as deliberately trying to obstruct debate.

Obstructing debate is stamping your feet demanding proof that Russian separatists were involved is more likely to Isreal distraction, Putin assassination atempt, illuminati or space Nazis and then not being happy with what is given without anything to back it up.

KahBoom

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Obstructing debate is stamping your feet demanding proof that Russian separatists were involved is more likely to Isreal distraction, Putin assassination atempt, illuminati or space Nazis and then not being happy with what is given without anything to back it up.

What you've posted doesn't make any sense, as a sentence.

If people want sanctions against Russia - an action that can set in motion a chain of events that can lead to further escalation, maybe even to Cold War levels - they better damn well have solid proof backing it.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

Finally. You and others wasted a page and a half of the thread, whining that you had provided evidence, when it was more than 130 pages back down the thread!

Instead of wasting peoples time like that, provide a link.


Now - on examining this further: Nobody knows whether Col. Strelkov actually owns/runs that social media website, which makes that website an unreliable source that can't be used as proof.

It is claimed by the website, that the reports there, have been based on reports from the local community - who assumed it was a downed AN-26:
"Information about the downing of the plane was taken from a forum where local residents and militia have discussions."
http://www.interpretermag.com/was-col-strelkovs-dispatch-about-a-downed-ukrainian-plane-authentic/

That's sufficient information for discarding that claim as 'proof' of anything.

Actually if your read what you linked to you would find that they have said that the group was actually used as a source for news about Strelkov by numerous media outlets from the East and the West and that it was largely accurate.

So far from this debunking the Vkontakte group as a valid source it actually confirms that it was quite a reliable indication of information from the Pro-Russian Terrorists.

From our long observation of this Vkontakte group and other Strelkov-related pages, we would have to say this is not the case – this group’s publications have long been cited by regional media and the same talking points as the dispatch were also used by Russian state media and Ukrainian media from other separatist sources .

First, the VKontakte group isn’t just a random fan group; it’s an established group of supporters now numbering more than 137,000 followers which has been publishing “Strelkov Dispatches” for weeks, many of which have tracked events corroborated by other sources or which are consistent with the separatists’ narrative as Strelkov himself says on camera in video addresses or at news conferences uploaded to YouTube.