As I understand it, around 80 bodies have not been accounted for, that would be more important to clear up than the evidence of the missile attack. I believe they have sniffer dogs on the job to locate the bodies or parts thereof.

I don't think the issue of what brought down the plane is in doubt, everyone seems to believe it was a missile and there is little choice in who fired it given the locale. In any event, local militias are not necessarily expert in examination of debris, there may be plenty left behind.

An examination of the missile parts might have revealed exactly who supplied it? I'm not optimistic that they will find a lot of the missing bodies given the large spread of the debris area and the time passed but out of respect for the families of the dead it's good that they're having a through examination of the area.

Anyway, they've been on site for a few days now so we'll see what comes of it.

I really don't understand what a huge team of AFP investigators were supposed to find a fortnight after the site had been picked clean by local militias.  Apparently the incriminating evidence around the actual rocket debris had long since been removed.

Citation needed.

As I understand it, around 80 bodies have not been accounted for, that would be more important to clear up than the evidence of the missile attack. I believe they have sniffer dogs on the job to locate the bodies or parts thereof.

I doubt they'll find them all, many would have been obliterated in the crash and resulting fire.

Citation needed.

Obama on 21/7.

As I understand it, around 80 bodies have not been accounted for, that would be more important to clear up than the evidence of the missile attack. I believe they have sniffer dogs on the job to locate the bodies or parts thereof.

I don't think the issue of what brought down the plane is in doubt, everyone seems to believe it was a missile and there is little choice in who fired it given the locale. In any event, local militias are not necessarily expert in examination of debris, there may be plenty left behind.

Most SAMs don't actually 'hit' the target rather they are proximity fused to explode near the plane with the blast/shrapnel doing the damage. Some of the footage shows what appears to be multiple perforations.

Anyway retrieval work has stopped  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-07/dutch-pm-calls-halt-to-recovery-effort-at-mh17-crash-site/5653946

More opinion? It has about the same validity as my opinion that you are talking out of your hat. Try adding some actual fact in it if you want it believed.

I'd love to see some "actual fact" added, unlike many others who seem happy to point the finger based on very little but circumstantial arguments like:

• it must have been the rebels or Russians because it was shot down over "rebel-held" territory, and


• it must have been the rebels or Russians because it was (probably) a Russian made missle.

In each case, certain salient facts are ignored, along with counter arguments of equal strength.

It's true that the opinions of the Ukrainian locals aren't necessarily any more factual than a news report that could be biased, and that we should be focusing on fact rather than mere opinion or stories that happen to suit our political agenda. Ukrainians can be found expressing differing opinions regarding Kiev, Moscow, etc. on various news sources. The Western oriented news outlets tend to broadcast opinions that oppose Russia, while others have shown a slightly different side to the story. Where the truth lies has yet to be revealed.

Anyway, it looks like this story has been drained of sensationalist rating value and is about to be dumped like a dirty rag.

So what do you think brought down the aircraft?

So what do you think brought down the aircraft?

I've already done my fair share of speculating on the matter, along with other members, as you know. Due to lack of evidence, it boils down to something like this: maybe it was the rebels, maybe it was Moscow, maybe it was Kiev. Arguments can and have been made in favour of and against all three positions. There's probably not much point in repeating them.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/desperate-mh-17-intelligence-spin-by-ukraine-secret-service-pro-russian-rebels-had-targeted-a-russian-passenger-plane/5395501

According to the above article, the Ukrainian Secret Service is now claiming that the Russian rebels shot down MH17 using a Buk, but that they were actually aiming for a Russian Aeroflot airliner, as a kind of false flag attack to drag Russian troops into Ukraine. Weird.

Ukrainian (Kiev) government and media reporting is pathetic.

I laugh when some dismiss any Russian media as propaganda but will happily accept Ukrainian reporting - they are both cut from the same tree.

Ukrainian (Kiev) government and media reporting is pathetic.

I laugh when some dismiss any Russian media as propaganda but will happily accept Ukrainian reporting - they are both cut from the same tree.

They are both cut from the same tree, but the Ukrainian branch now has a US puppet government grafted onto it, which magically means everything they say is credible, factual and verified. Even in the absence of facts, it's still factual. Meanwhile, the Russians are lying through their teeth whenever their lips are moving, because... they just are, and if you don't believe it, you're a smeg, evidence be damned! Propaganda is propaganda, nothing's changed in that game. We're victims of it as much as anyone else.

I'd love to see some "actual fact" added, unlike many others who seem happy to point the finger based on very little but circumstantial arguments like:

• it must have been the rebels or Russians because it was shot down over "rebel-held" territory, and


• it must have been the rebels or Russians because it was (probably) a Russian made missle.

In each case, certain salient facts are ignored, along with counter arguments of equal strength.

It's true that the opinions of the Ukrainian locals aren't necessarily any more factual than a news report that could be biased, and that we should be focusing on fact rather than mere opinion or stories that happen to suit our political agenda. Ukrainians can be found expressing differing opinions regarding Kiev, Moscow, etc. on various news sources. The Western oriented news outlets tend to broadcast opinions that oppose Russia, while others have shown a slightly different side to the story. Where the truth lies has yet to be revealed.

Anyway, it looks like this story has been drained of sensationalist rating value and is about to be dumped like a dirty rag.

Such a "dumping" of the story from mainstream media will possibly end up a "good thing". We may actually start seeing some accurate information, Journalists speculation is just that and should NEVER be taken for being of any value at all.

woodford