the home of online investigations

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link:

Russia’s Colin Powell Moment – How the Russian Government’s MH17 Lies Were Exposed

July 16, 2015

By Eliot Higgins

Translations: Русский

In the year since the shooting down of Flight MH17 in Ukraine on July 17th 2014 there have been many different theories about who was responsible and the exact circumstances under which MH17 was shot down. For much of that time those theories have fallen into two broad categories, that either a separatists controlled Buk shot down MH17, or a Ukrainian military aircraft. Since the official criminal and Dutch Safety Board investigations have begun governments have generally avoided making any specific claims about who was responsible, but in the days after MH17 was shot down governments were making various claims. The US and Ukrainian governments both claimed a Buk missile was responsible, while on July 21st the Russian Ministry of Defence gave an hour long press conference where they presented their evidence of who could have been responsible for the attack.

The press conference covered four main claims:

  • That a video published by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior showing a Buk in separatist controlled Luhansk was in fact filmed in government controlled territory in another town.
  • MH17 significantly changed course just before being shot down.
  • Radar imagery shows an aircraft close to MH17 shortly after it was shot down.
  • Satellite imagery shows Ukrainian Buk missile launchers operating on July 17th.

Since the July 21st press conference it has been possible to establish that all four claims were false, and in some cases involved the Russian Ministry of Defence producing faked evidence to support their claims.

The Luhansk Video

Following the downing of Flight MH17 the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior published a video that was filmed in the separatist controlled city of Luhansk, close to the Russian border with Ukraine, which they claimed showed a Buk, carrying three missiles instead of the usual four, heading towards the Russian border on the morning of July 18th.

In the Russian Ministry of Defence’s July 21st press conference they claimed that the video had in fact been filmed in a government controlled area:

For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11

To support this claim they provided an image of the billboard visible in the video, along with what they claimed the line of text read.

1 - Russian Board

Unfortunately for the Russian Ministry of Defence it was possible to establish the true location the video was filmed using open source investigation techniques, which confirmed the exact location in separatist controlled Luhansk. This location was visited by a Luhansk local who took photographs of the area which both helped confirm the location, and what was written on the billboard.

2 - billboard fake

Here it can be clearly seen that the text on the billboard is completely different from what the Russian Ministry of Defence claimed. This location was confirmed as being correct by journalists who visited the same location, including 60 Minutes Australia and Correctiv, who photographed a very specific piece of vandalism on the billboard.

3 - Billboard vandalism

MH17’s Significant Course Change

The Russian Ministry of Defence presented the following image during the press conference, claiming that Flight MH17 had been significantly diverted from its course:

4 - Flight path 2

The Russian Ministry of Defence stated that:

On the scheme you can see the international airway. The Boeing-777 was supposed to fly on this airway. Draw your attention to the fact that the aircraft followed inside the specified air-corridor to Donetsk, then it deviated from the route to north. Meanwhile the maximum distance from the left border of the air-corridor was 14 kilometers. Then we can see that the Boeing-777 turned back to the borders of the specified air-corridor. Nevertheless Malaysian aircrew didn’t succeed the maneuver. At 17.20 we entered the event of the aircraft rate reduction, at 17.23 the aircraft’s point blinked off on the radar. Why did the aircraft cross the border of the air-corridor? Was it the navigation mistake, or the aircrew followed the Dnepropetrovsk ground control orders? We will find the answers after “black boxes” and communication decoding

The preliminary Dutch Safety Board report did in fact answer the questions the Russian Ministry of Defence asked “after “black boxes” and communication decoding”. The Dutch Safety Board preliminary report in fact showed that MH17 had been on an entirely different course than the Russian Ministry of Defence had claimed, and had not changed course in the way described in the Russian Ministry of Defence imagery. A comparison of the Dutch Safety Board’s flight path and the Russian Ministry of Defence flight path can be seen below.

Again, we can clearly see that the Russian Ministry of Defence is making a claim that is simply untrue, and this is provable using publically available information.

Russia’s Radar Data

The Russian Ministry of Defence also presented radar data that showing Flight MH17, claiming “Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, purposed Su-25, moving upwards toward to the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between aircrafts was 3-5 kilometers.” Chief of Staff of the Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev was then invited to comment on the radar data.

“At 17.20 P.M. at the distance of 51 kilometers from the Russian Federation state boundary and the azimuth of 300 degrees the aircraft started to lose its speed obstructively which is quite distinctively to be seen on the table of the aircraft characteristics. At 17.21 35 seconds P.M. with the aircraft speed of 200 km/h at the point of the Boeing crash there is a new mark of the aircraft to be seen. The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period. Air control officer having enquired the characteristics of newly appeared aircraft couldn’t possibly get them because it is in all likelihood that the aircraft had no secondary deduction system amounted on it, which is put typically for military aircraft. The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.

The detection of the aircraft turned out to be possible as the aircraft ascend it.”

However, radar experts were interviewed by a number of news organisations who gave a different opinion, with Dutch NOS news asking four experts to give their opinions. Comments included “it is really impossible for [it to be] a fighter”, “no aircraft was in the vicinity of flight MH17”, “it seems likely that the signals are the wreckage of MH17”, and “falling debris are the most likely explanation”. Again, another Russian claim that doesn’t stand up.

Russian Satellite Imagery

Russia also presented sets of satellite imagery showing three different locations, including two military bases and a field outside the town of Zaroshchens’ke. At one military base, the 1428, it was claimed images from July 14th and July 17th showed that a Buk missile launcher had moved from the base on July 17th.

5 - 1428 Buk

However, it was possible for Bellingcat to purchase an image from the satellite company Digital Globe of the same location on July 17th, and compare that image to the images presented by the Russian Ministry of Defence. For example, large areas of vegetation visible in the July 14th Ministry of Defence images were absent from the July 17th Digital Globe image.

6 - Tree comparison 1

It was also possible to find historical satellite imagery of the same location from July 2nd and 21st of the same area on Google Earth, which confirms the vegetation had be cleared weeks before July 17th.

7 - Tree comparison 2

Patches of worn away grass visible in the Russian Ministry of Defence imagery were also absent in the Digital Globe July 17th imagery.

8 - Worn Grass

But, as with other discrepancies between the images, the patches of missing grass were visible in earlier historical imagery on Google Earth, clearly showing the Russian Ministry of Defence images were from weeks before MH17 was shot down.

9 - Worn Grass 2

More differences are detailed here, and images of the other areas also showed the dates provided by the Russian Ministry of Defence just didn’t match with publically available satellite imagery of the same areas around the same dates. In addition to that, the Zaroshchens’ke site, where the Russian Ministry of Defence claimed they detected two Ukrainian Buks, was under separatists control on July 17th and locals interviewed by Russian media stated no Buk missile launchers were in the area on that date, and no missiles were launched from the area.

It’s clear that not only did the Russian Ministry of Defence lie about evidence it presented on July 21st, but also presented fake evidence in attempt to place blame on Ukraine for the shooting down of Flight MH17. The July 21st press conference represents nearly all the information the Russian government has presented on MH17 to the public, and it’s clear that the Russian governments reaction to the murder of 298 people was to lie, produced fake evidence, and attempt to deceive the public, the global community, and the families of the 298 people murdered on July 17th 2014. The one big question that remains is whether the Russian government presented this information to the criminal investigation into the downing of Flight MH17.

Eliot Higgins

Eliot Higgins is the founder of Bellingcat and the Brown Moses Blog. Eliot focuses on the weapons used in the conflict in Syria, and open source investigation tools and techniques.

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.


  1. laz ibb

    Why shoot a civillian plane down, deviated course or not, would NOT happen here, yet they simply get away from prosecution, simple, whoever fired was/is a Murderer.

      • AnonymousDefender

        Bullshit. Try upload dont one photoshoped picture but movie.
        Finnish BUK stay on concrete ground, but russian BUK stay on platform. Platform have inclination and based on pneumatic wheels. Also truck can have change base level by road surface and maneurs. Try better lie, please!

        • boggled

          One other thing I would add in the differences is the russian BUK is strapped down tight, and they can alter the slope of the BUK depending on the person doing the strapping down.
          Depending on whether or not they have locks on the shocks to prevent over compression or not and blown fork seals.
          It also depends how lazy the strapping down person was to whether or not they used these locks.
          Kind of like strapping a motorcycle or other offroad vehicle down, your supposed to put two by four between tire and steering knuckle to prevent over compression of shocks and blown fork seals, your trying to prevent them from bottoming out.
          Without those blocks, I can make a motorcycle in the bed of a pickup truck almost raise the rear wheel off the bed of the truck by just strapping down the front, thus changing its whole perspective.

          Fare thee well

          • BowlingDog

            Hi Boggled! I don’t know that I’ve seen one strapped down at all, but I imagine the suspension on a tracked 34 ton Buk is pretty resistant to compression. The one in the Finnish photo seems to be loosely chained.

    • Max

      Ohh, that’s a great try. If xou can’t deny all the other stuff, just claim that the video was fabricated.

      1. of all. you tried, but you failed for good reasons.
      2. You analysis lacks of really really bad mistakes. One example: you claim that the “artist” who fabricated that video had serious problems with perpective “Adding another line that would follow the floor of the trailer revealed the problem. The tracks of the Buk were at an angle that didn’t match the rest of the image. Indeed, it seemed to be sinking through the floor of the trailer. A trick of the light? The angle of the camera? No. As the anomaly appeared repeatedly throughout the animation, the problem had to be with the middle-ground image.”
      Nope the problem is not in the middle ground, the problem is your understanding: if you try to draw a staight line between things that are not aligned you will fail. You tried to connect wheel of the truck and the wheel of the trialer as they where the same size. But they arent. The wheels of the trailer are much smaler in diameter, thats why the Buk stands in an different anggle than the perspective main lines derived from the wheels of the truck. And that is pretty much something, that you could have figured out, but you haven’t. why not is you problem.
      3. motive: there is no reason to fabric the video, but one. Ukraine odered the killing to blame the Seps. Otherwise there is no reason to fabric the video. But as every conspiracy, a high number of unforeseeable problems can ocure by making such evil plans.
      4. how can an “artist” produce that video that rapidly and include all the facts that came out later by investigation of bellingcat f.e. How can the “artist” see all the info’s in advance, and produce all other media about that lorry? strange story, allmost impossible for my taste.
      5. And again the great question: If Moskwa has nothing to do with that stuff and is not involved, why did they involve their selves by producing one stupid story after an other, just to get out?

      sorry, nice try, but noone eat the sh… you try to present.

      • BowlingDog

        2. The line connects with the wheel of the truck to the bottom of the loading ramps. It is not necessary for the wheels to be the same size. Drawing a line where the wheels of the truck and trailer meet the road makes the overall perspective worse – reversing what would be found in nature.

        3. Sounds like a fine motive. Unforseeable problems like posting a clip as having been taken in Krasnodon and later having to admit it was in Lugansk perhaps? You would think if it was taken by one of the SBUs operatives, they would know where it was taken. Perhaps there was not too much of a risk if there was a lot of similarly fabricated “evidence” that seemed to tie the clip into a series of sightings that formed a compelling narrative.

        4. A few seconds of animation could easily be done in one night, and the “video” was released the next day. There is also a possibility that even before the mh17 incident, a project was underway. Lysenko was claiming on the day of the shoot-down that the NSDC already had video of an anti-aircraft battery in Luhansk. Odd they did not release that one also, but of course it did not tie in with the narrative being created.

        5. Moscow, like much of the world, may have thought the clip genuine – and that their beloved rebels had indeed shot down a civilian plane.

        • Max

          “2. The line connects with the wheel of the truck to the bottom of the loading ramps. It is not necessary for the wheels to be the same size. Drawing a line where the wheels of the truck and trailer meet the road makes the overall perspective worse – reversing what would be found in nature.”

          Well again, that’s the point. you have no clue of perspective. you draw the lines that they fit your mindperspective, but not in a proper manner to work with nature. To get lines that find a Zero point you need to draw through the denterpoint of the wheels, when they have same size. If they are smaller, they have a different elevation relative to each other (like the case between truck and trailor). So a line trough that wheels never ever lead to a zero point. A line from wheel of truck to the lower end of the trailer is as stupid as the wheely stuff. If you don’t get that, you disqualify yourself at all.

          • BowlingDog

            It follows the line of the trailer, and in most cases, the level of a low loader
            seems to be pretty level with the ground.

          • BowlingDog

            … and no matter what size the wheels, they will meet the ground at ground level.

    • David

      I don’t mean to offend, but this is beyond silly. Your explanation of how CGI works is very flawed and ridiculously basic, I get the feeling that your understanding of this is extremely novice. This level of execution can NOT be achieved using flat imagery, because it’s simply too good. You would need a professional CGI studio with several days setting up the scene and a couple of days rendering the video. Even for Hollywood it’s hard to present animations reaching uncanny valley, and I’m telling you everything from lighting to angles in this video is correct. There’s not a single detail hinting that this would be a fake. Your attempt to draw perspective lines is hilarious, since you try to align object that aren’t straight to begin with. Furthermore you’re not taking into account that the video is extremely zoomed in, thus removing most of the depth and perspective distortion.

      • BowlingDog

        No need for CGI or 3D animation. There is no change in the size or the aspect from which the vehicles are viewed. The lighting on the vehicles does not change, they do not turn corners or interact with other vehicles. Wikipedea can tell you how 2D photo animation works, but I must admit it is hard to find a good example on YouTube. Everybody is using fancy programs these days! THis one uses a moving background and is pretty crappy I guess I’ll just have to make my own.

        • David

          I can’t believe I have to do this, but here I made you a gif from the video to crush all your statements:

          In the gif I’m tracking the position of the truck, this was you can easily see the perspective changing as the truck pass by. You can also see subtle independent movements from tires and the BUK itself.

          So please, for the sake of not spreading ignorance on the web, remove your analysis or at least write that you were mistaken.

          • boggled

            Nice effort David and thanks for the bonus GIF also.
            And speedy too.
            Demonstrates your point completely.

            Fare thee well

          • BowlingDog

            That is amazing! Thank you for taking the time. I don’t know that it explains everything, but it has surely opened my eyes to changes I hadn’t noticed. How do you explain the missing railings and the optical tracker?

          • BowlingDog

            Watched it again and again. Seems to rotate rather than changing perspective, but demonstrates some of my points as well. I think I will make one. Roosters crowing. I better get to bed. Thank you again for your time.

          • boggled

            BowlingDog, if you have the time there is a video about 11 minutes long, but it is in Russian.
            You can click on CC – closed caption – and turn it on, then click on settings and chose your close caption language, it is not a perfect translation but it is adequate enough to understand the informative video about a variety of BUK’s and their variety of missiles and the variety of support vehicles.
            If you look after 3:40 you will see a BUK without rails.
            At about 7:50 there is a section specific to the M1 version.
            There maybe others, but that is the first one I came across that was a little more informative then a 30 clip.

            Just like the T72 tanks the separatists are using, they modify them in individual ways, and if a piece is broken they are antiques so I am guessing that many of the broken pieces go to the scrap yard and get replaced.
            I cannot answer directly if it is a launcher that was made that way originally or was modified.
            I imagine of their years it goes through many reiterations and ‘aftermarket’ parts.
            I think the missile ( the SAM or Surface to Air missile) itself has gone through about 10 different versions, and a few are backwards compatible to the original BUK system, but others with only work with the more modern launchers.

            Why a missing optical tracker?
            Who knows, they took it off because they didn’t figure they needed it? Maybe they had a planned target and did not think about civilian traffic, they were going to take on all ‘birds’ that fly in their skies.
            They knocked it off driving through trees in full bloom of July getting to the farmer’s field?
            They knocked it off going under a low bridge?
            It is something kept inside the cab and only mounted on site and they took it down afterwards?
            All guesses, but they make sense.

            Maybe it is possible the BUK that came from the Russian base was a modification such as a modern drive train (the tracks) and an older turret.
            Maybe it had more modern and smaller tracker put into the base as opposed to mounted on the turret?
            I am guessing some mechanic made many modifications to it to keep it usable.
            I mean how many lawnmowers do you see running after 35 years?
            A BUK is a lot more complicated and I am sure they had many times took the parts from 3 broken BUKs to make one working BUK over the years.
            I think the BUK has been around since the 1979.
            A good article about the moderanization and many changes of the BUK launcher can be found at

            I am sure your a big boy and can google BUK and look for images without the rails and optical tracker and those sites connected to the image may confirm what I guessed at above why they are not there.

            Fare thee well

          • boggled

            On the shorter video at about 17 seconds in you can see a different smaller optical system.

          • BowlingDog

            I had a look at Google images. Seems they only appear without rails in Russian propaganda films. The one in the the Luhansk clip actually does retain the rails on the far side – which should rule out a low bridge – and there seems to be just a fragment of a tracker suspended above where the tracker should be mounted. It follows the Buk as it moves. I think it has been edited out. . In the Torez photo, there is a distinct hump in the netting that could be little else but the optical tracker. I fancy I can see at least some of the railings also. The rails and possibly the tracker seem to be there in the Snizhne photo (with the pretty blue smoke that might be worth a closer look) So far as I know the transported Buk was not seen driving through farmer’s fields between there and Luhansk.

          • BowlingDog

            The suggested launch points seem to be pretty close to roads and quite open.

          • boggled

            Although you might be right about it not coming across low hanging branches, it was mentioned as a possibility BowlingDog.
            The BUk hides out of satellite imagery until the plane comes into range then it moves into or out of satellite range and crashes through branches, is just a guess.
            Some more examples
            A few images of it without the optics –

            Another and notice the painted on numbers –

            Another without optics or rails –

            One without rails –

            Without rails or only part of the rails are visible, not the full set –

            One other item of interest that is different from BUK to BUK is the amount of boxes or doors that are on the side and near the pivot point of the missile launch mechanism or the tail of the missiles is that some are two, and some are three door units.
            It varies.
            Anyways, those are just a few.
            As those parts vary, I would imagine the chassis vary somewhat from launcher to launcher as well.
            To that, some of these next images vary in the way they are either tail heavy, front heavy or completely level which I imagine can be the case in the pitch of the BUK while it is on a trailer as well.


            Like I said they might have removed the optics to transport it back to Russia.
            They might be the more valuable part.

            I seem to remember a Belorussian BUK lineup of multiple BUK’s near a rail line that all had their optics covered with some sort of burlap it looked like but the rest of the BUK’s was not covered in netting or tarped over.
            Look up BUK m1 Belarus and you might find it.

            Fare thee well

          • Max

            He can’t. Some guys, to keep perspective, what sounds pretty funny regarding the toppic here, need to argue and argue and argue, but never admit that they made a mistake. That guy is one of those.

          • Bowling Dog

            First one looks odd. Says Buk M1 but has the later missiles. Second has a tracker hiding amongst the branches. Any more and it will sound like I”m arguing, but I’ll have a look at them all. Thanks for the help and information boggled. I think I’ll just stop annoying you all.

          • boggled

            So Max, you think it was just a little bit of self promotion and free advertising of his site on this comment board hoping he could be the next GWP?
            Or just arguing for arguing sake and being stubborn?
            And no matter how you prove him wrong, he just can’t admit someone else is right and all his time creating the site was wasted time.
            I guess you could be right.

            Fare thee well

          • Bowling Dog

            Ahhhh. That last picture solves a related mystery. Excellent!

      • Mr Fox

        You won’t convince them, they probably don’t even believe it themselves but they’re taking Polonium Putins money so they’ll argue the toss, try to muddy the waters and claim Bellingcat is faking it somehow.

        The work in Russia’s “troll house” at 55 Savushkina Street.

        So… tame Russian trolls… How does it feel to be attempting to cover the murder of 298 people by your own military? How does it feel to know you’re denying justice and closure to grieving families? Do you sleep at night? Do you have a reflection when you look in the mirror?

        What utter scum.

        And the best part? They’re really obvious. Their language is passable but their mannerisms aren’t. Shit like “fair thee well” LOL! Do you idiots actually think anyone in the west has talked like that in hundreds of years?

    • Max

      hahaha, great. At first I stopped after I saw the first mistakes you made in your highly “proffesionel analysis”, but I went on reading now, just to make shure that I don’t missed a point. But here is the judgement and like you proffesional are doing it to, and advise to the audience prior I give the evidence. Dear Readers of this Post, following the link of BowlingDog is just a waste of time, unless you like to see a funny bending of reality by nit taking serious the methods other ppl are using in a great manner: but now letz get into it.

      1. a Photo animation is not the same as a video animation oder fabrication. If you look at the luhansk video, it is possible to measure distances between distinct points in fore and background. If they have a relative movement to each other from frame to frame, than they must be filmed. So one advice: look at trees and so on and make shure that no relative movement is the fact. I did and I found at least to objects that have this movement. so your conclusion, here is a photo animation is busted.

      2. Your perspective drawinglines. I mentioned them before, but again. You point that they mismatch, and that they dont lead to zeropoint (perspective point). Well, the way you rughly appiled your drawing lines can lead to this conclusion. But if you do it properly, what I did within some minutes with PS, it comes out, that the perspective lines of the BUK in both pictures U mention, have the same zero point. Furthermore, the elevated angle of the mounted rockets are the same based on the angle of perspective. The Missiles are a little bit elevated in reference to the chassis of the BUK. so here again is no fabrication or collage, it is just a BUK with slightly elevated Missiles.

      3. perspective lines of the trailer: well thats a cheap one again, the angle of the line that can be drawn between the wheels of the truck, can not be continued on the trailer. The trailer has a slope, because on the front it lays on the truck and in the back it has smaller wheels. A slope and therefore a different angle for the deck of the trailer is obvious. What can be seen in the picture of the whole vehicle from side.

      4. The metal bracket evidence. Great example how bloody you work. The bracket apears on both sides (mirrored is your conclusion) because the trailer has brackets on both sides. you claim the truck is just mirrored, evidence: fueltank and side mirrors. Great isn’t it? But the fueltank on the one side turns out to be a fuel tank on the left and a storrage for tool on the right. If you are familiar with trucks, you would know. Mirrors on both sides 🙂 whowho, guess what, that I leave for you. But now the very big question: if I just mirror the truck, why am I making that big effort to copy the air intake that is mounted on the left side and make this the only item look correct? Why me as an “artist” is so eager to work this out, but forget to do this with the bracket… Think abou it Dog.

      I don’t like to go on, but what you prooved on your webpage, well let me be polite and just call it bad.

      • BowlingDog

        I’m not an expert, just a dabbler. Certainly knowing nothing about 3D animation.

        1. I don’t see any relative movement between foreground and background. Perhaps you could point it out?

        2 I recognise the missiles are slightly elevated at the front (viewer end), but if anything that should increase the perspective effect.

        3 The low-loader tray I have assumed to be reasonably flat – as they usually are. Viewed from the rear, they often seem to slope down towards the truck. That is perspective. I still don’t see whey the tracks should seem to sink into that line, or why it should diverge greatly from the point of contact between wheels and road.

        4 I was thinking that it was mirrored, but I can see your point about the toolbox, and there might indeed be only a half-size mirror on the drivers side. The bracket still doesn’t appear on the right in the Torez photo, but that perhaps it is the photo that is at fault. I’ll concede a loss on this one.

        • Max

          ohh cmon, u still don’t get it, that the loader has a slope elevation from rear front? That slope comes from different heights of the bearing points of its mainfraime. that isn’t so hard to recognize, especially you use one picture in your analysis, where this can clearly be seen. so lets make it as simple as possible to understand.
          if a plane has two bearing points that have different height, the plane can’t be parallel to a corresponding surface. so every objects standing on that plane will have the same angle to the corresponding surface (here the BUK to the road) therefore they cant be used to get a perspective point… that’s the pretty simple fact. something my Kids learn in school, its called geometry, a subject of mathematics.

          Better go to bed, stay in there and when you get up tomorrow, please start reading a elementary school book about perpektive, geometry and a how to find a zero point. And please, don’t rely on your analysis skills when you try to find a good job, it could turn out that your will end up jobless.

  2. Shahna

    The questions surrounding the flightpath would be very easily solved if Kiev would release the ATC comms and data. …Why don’t they?

    • boggled

      Shahna, because the evidence has been giving to the JIT and DSB and they will release what they think of the evidence in the near future.
      How long does an airplane disaster investigation normally take?
      Has other countries always released evidence before investigation is done?
      That is not how it works where I live.
      The reason they don’t is some is false evidence and has to be thrown out.

      Bellingcat has done a great job to do an investigation with what evidence they can find don’t you think?

      Fare thee well

    • Mr Fox

      They did… It was your employers, Polonium Putin who didn’t release their air traffic data.

  3. Sabs

    I think all the debate is comical. For weeks before this incident the terrorists were launching missile after missile into the air. Why is it so hard to believe they got it wrong and accidentally shot down the wrong plane? After all, either they were trained Russians and shouldn’t have made the mistake of hitting the wrong plane, or they are untrained as Moscow would have us believe and thus would stand a damn good chance of getting it wrong.

    You don’t need to try and analyses a photo or video, just use your brain. After all, there is more than enough evidence out there to say Russian troops are in Ukraine. Even Putin has confirmed he gave the order to send troops to control Ukrainian sovereign territory. So where is the debate?

  4. Mr Fox

    Excellent work as ever Eliot. Hope you’re not letting Polly Putes trolls bother you. I saw RT’s attempt at discrediting you by siting some drunk conspiracy theorist in Alabama. About the most comical attempt at an Ad Hominem attack I’ve ever seen.


    Use what you have to run toward your best – that’s how I now live my life.

  6. Ukukrman

    Every Russian citizen should hang their heads in shame over the lies that their leaders support about MH17 and the Russian governemt s involvement in the invasion of Ukraine…. But they don’t…they support it…..evey single Russian citizen is as guilty of these war crimes as putin


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the following link: