Faked Image Claims to Show Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shooting Down MH17

A television news channel in Russia has released an image of what it claims shows a Ukrainian fighter jet shooting a missile towards Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Skeptics are questioning the legitimacy of the image.


________________________________

The criticisms levelled against this image show that it is a FAKE. It looks like the Russian TV station that aired this image has been fooled.

The most damning fact is that the clouds reveal the original background image was taken from Google Earth on 9/17/2011.

Nevertheless, there are still witnesses to fighter jets in the immediate area following the crash (see video below) and there is Russian radar data indicating the same.

This newly released image may be an attempt at disinformation to discourage people taking seriously the idea that a Ukrainian jet was responsible for what happened.

This is the BBC Russia report that features witnesses to military jets in the area at the time of the incident:



The official story, that a BUK missile was responsible for the shoot down, has major problems. The most glaring issue is the absence of smoke trails that would have been seen by US spy satellites that overflew the area at the time of the attack. The Russians requested the US release their images but so far none have been forthcoming.

US spy satellite pictures would have easily pin pointed the specific BUK launcher allegedly responsible for the incident. The following video shows how obvious the smoke trails would have been to anyone in the area of the launch:



Rather than an accidental shoot down by rebel forces in the east of Ukraine (there is no motive for a deliberate attack), there is the strong likelihood that the government in Kiev, with its backers in Washington, staged a false flag attack in order to vilify their opposition that had shot down a number of attack aircraft and transports.

JFK: A Conspiracy Theory

Everything you wanted to know about the JFK assassination in under 5 minutes. The Warren Commission: connecting the dots so you don't have to!



A brief Corbett Report summation of Oswald, the assassination, the Warren Commission investigation and the media.

Debunking 'JFK: The Smoking Gun' - A Response to Questions about the Film

In an online discussion I was told to watch the documentary JFK: The Smoking Gun which some friends thought provided a good explanation to the killing - that Secret service Agent Hickey accidentally fired the fatal head shot . Having some understanding of the case I ventured the following reply:
________________________________

I just watched the doco and I have report it is another railroading of material. You can check what I am saying by Googling the Warren Commission testimony to see if the doco is being truthful. It's not all bad because the show states that the official account cannot be true. That's a good starting point.

The present McLaren case is based closely on the work of the Howard Donahue hypothesis. McLaren claims he 'forensically' examined the Warren Commission data but this looks to be false because he should have recognised multiple witness testimony to 4 shots - whereas he says there were only three in the scenario presented. He tells us the witnesses should lead us to solving the case but I don't think he followed his own advice. Implicitly he also fully believes much of the official account - key aspects of which have been shown to be highly improbable, if not false. [like the Magic bullet theory]

At the start of the show we see that both McLaren and CBS TV (via their shooting recreation) doubt Oswald could have fired the three shots that the Warren Commission says were fired. The CBS recreation itself has problems because their 'car' does not slow down during the test firing. Anyway, like the testimony in the WC, the doco says that two of the shots were fired in quick succession - too fast for Oswald. The problem we face is that the show wants us to think that Oswald only fired twice and the Secret Service guy once. It says one shot missed because all researchers agree, including the WC - that a bullet struck the sidewalk. Consequently we are now stuck with ONE bullet hitting both JFK in the back and then Connelly - the magic bullet - to cause all the injuries.

McLaren and Donahue believe the magic bullet tale and that the bullet, Exhibit 399, smashed through tissue and bone to be only slightly deformed. E399 is clearly planted evidence. There is no way that bullet broke bone. Watch Mythbusters shooting stuff with various rounds, or even water with a high powered rifle, and see what happens. That slug didn't hit anything like bone.

Also, Governor Connelly clearly recalls that he heard gunfire, that the President had already been hit, when he was turning in his car seat and was THEN hit. The Zapruder film actually backs up his account. This means there were at least two separate hits and the miss into the sidewalk (3 shots) up to this point.

Furthermore, Oswald could not have shot Kennedy in the back and Connelly with the same bullet.

The actual location of the wound in JFK's back was at least 5 inches below the bottom of his collar, NOT in his lower neck. Even [with JFK] leaning forward Oswald's shot could not possibly line up with Connelly. Google image JFK jacket and then JFK shirt. It has been claimed that JFK's jacket rode up so that it only looked like he was struck low but his shirt could not have performed the same manoeuvre if it was tucked into his pants. In any event the folding -especially the shirt- cannot make up four or five inches of distance.

The show has serious problems with how it handles the witnesses they highlight and how they don't fully relate what they say to railroad their hypothesis.

The testimony of James Humes M.D. represents the material put out by the Bethesda examination that was by all accounts very poorly handled - it appears to be a fraud. The show mentions the gag order placed on people in attendance which the radiologist later in show, Jerrol Custer, recalls. Custer in other interviews points to a cover-up of the forensic data and indicates a large wound to the rear of JFK's skull.

Humes' account conflicts with those at Parkland who saw a large exit wound in the right rear portion of JFK's skull. This is one of the main problems with the show in relation to the forensics - it takes the overall WC conclusions at face value in terms of vetting/accepting evidence. It ignored conflicting testimony and photographs including those conflicting pictures from the autopsy (ie the shirt and the head taken from the side pic). 

The show completely ignored what occurred at Parkland beyond the argument with the Secret Service. No mention is made of the accounts by the medical staff who viewed the body of the President.

When it came to linking the head shot to Secret Service agent Hickey the show makes only one claim it supports with testimony - that of Sam Holland who said he saw the SS agent pull a weapon after the first shot. The show leaves out the fact that this is the same Sam Hickey who stood on the overpass with other witnesses and stated he saw a white puff of smoke coming from the grassy knoll. The affidavit read by the actor playing Hickey only spoke the last three or four sentences from his Dallas testimony. They left out the fact that he said he heard 4 gunshots and saw the smoke from the knoll.

The other two witnesses appearing in the show, the police officer and Senator Ralph Yarborough say they saw the SS gun pulled at a time after the last shot. These people do not say they saw any gun before this point. We are then told that there are other witnesses to the gun being pulled before the final shot. This is not a convincing argument in light of these examples.

One point that comes out in the doco is the fact that gunsmoke was smelt by many at ground level - indicating at least one shooter in relatively close proximity.

Final point. All the evidence coming directly from the authorities, who were shown in the doco to be involved in a cover-up of some kind, must be suspect and their material treated carefully. Even the Zapruder film appears to be altered. A witness to an early screening before it was confiscated says that their was white spray all over the place during the head shot and that it lasted for a while - much longer then the red blotch we see today. Also the cop on the bike got blasted with brain matter and so did the SS agents in the car behind (the latter example clearly mentioned in the doco). This seems indicative of a substantial rear exit wound.

The 'JKF: Smoking Gun' doco does not substantiate its hypothesis. Some its claims are refuted or are impossible considering a fuller account of the specific points it raises. Apologies for the long winded reply, but if I just made a short retort that would not help much in understanding the problems with such a slick production. 

I found a very short and concise refutation of the Howard Donahue hypothesis that can be found at the following link:

Did a Secret Service Agent Accidentally Shoot JFK in the Head?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/griffith1.html

It's a quick read that respectfully addresses the failings of Donahue's analysis. Thanks for making it this far if you have read to the end! :) 
_______________________________________________

Related Info:

The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Part 7 - The Smoking Guns
Excellent eyewitness recounting of the evidence of multiple shooters and frontal shots plus the cover-up.


JFK: The 'Official' Conspiracy Theory
Why is the establishment so desperate to reinforce the official narrative behind the assassination of JFK 50 years later?


The truth about JFK will open a very large can of worms - and has already done so to a degree.

Conspiracy to Tell the Truth: Interview with Lance deHaven-Smith [MUST SEE CLIP]

Abby Martin talks to Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University professor and author of 'Conspiracy Theory in America', about some the US' most controversial events and how labeling truth-seekers as 'conspiracy theorists' damages democracy.



Awesome history lesson on disinformation and a discussion about applying logic to suspicious circumstances. Everyone can ask questions, what is important is seeing what evidence there is that either supports or refutes the suspicions. Provable facts count, on a case by case basis, not generalisations. However, when we have a record of State criminality then it is rational to be immediately suspicious of many terrorist events.

Just remember the term 'State Crimes Against Democracy'. High level corruption doesn't just happen in third world dictatorships. A basic lesson for those unaware of the propaganda and corruption that surrounds us.

Debunking the Debunkers Now Linked at DebunkingSkeptics.com

 

I'm happy to announce that DebunkingSkeptics.com has added the blog to their 9/11 links page, as well as to their great blogs list, on the home page.

Related:

Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

Scientism - Why Pseudoskeptics Treat Science As A Religion (even though they say they don't)

My Top 10 Insane Conspiracy Theories

For Infowars Nightly News last night, Paul Joseph Watson counted down his top 10 insane conspiracy theories which distract from exposing real coverups. Many of them were about Alex Jones and himself. His humorous list inspired me to make a slightly more serious list of my top 10 insane conspiracy theories.

10) YouTube meddling with view counts 


It's a conspiracy!

Okay, it wouldn't surprise me if YouTube does meddle with view counts, but I'm sick of people making a big deal over the fact that every video on Alex Jones' channel and other big truth/conspiracy channels gets stuck on 300 views for a while shortly after they've been uploaded. It happens to every channel!

9) The Pentagon no-plane/missile/flyover theory



The circular reasoning of Pentagon no-planers: "There's no plane debris, therefore a plane didn't hit the Pentagon." *Shows pictures of plane debris* "Those pieces of debris were planted!" "Oh really?!" "They must have been, because we know a plane didn't hit the pentagon!" "How do you know a plane didn't hit the pentagon?" "Because there was no debris!"

*Facepalm*

And don't even get me started on the flyover theory.

8) Vaccines do no good



Contrary to what some may assume, I'm not actually "anti-vaccine". Vaccines are 250-year-old technology that obviously have done a lot of good. I actually agree with skeptics on this point. It's not vaccine technology in general that's the problem, but the specific products that the pharmaceutical industry puts out.

7) Lady Gaga is a man


Stefani Germanotta as a little girl

Lady Gaga is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine. Most people in conspiracy circles believe she's an Illuminati puppet who's part of some demoralization agenda. While there probably is some truth there, you have to admit she's very talented, at least compared to many other popular "artists" today (*Cough* Justin Bieber *Cough*). Also, her songs translate quite well to heavy metal!^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

I've never really cared much for celebrity conspiracy theories. Could Kurt Cobain, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse have really been murdered? Well, it wouldn't surprise me, but I haven't really researched any of them so I don't know. Could Disney teen sensations be under some form of mind control? Again, it wouldn't surprise me. We're all under mind control to some degree. That's what propaganda, marketing and indoctrination is. The theory that Lady Gaga is a secretly a man though is just silly.

6) The Moon-landing hoax theory



Back when I was a teenager I actually used to believe this. Eventually I realised a lot of people would have to be involved and fully aware of the hoax. Compartmentalization would be stretched beyond its limits. In 2008, MythBusters pretty much answered my remaining questions.

5) The man in the "fatty" Bin Laden video isn't Bin Laden


Al-Zawahiri and Al-Harbi talking to a fat guy in a suit... apparently.

Again, this was something I used to believe until this 9/11 Myths article set me straight. See, we agree with the debunkers on some things!

4) The Intelligent Design = Creationism conspiracy theory



This is a conspiracy theory advocated by those who attack us: the skeptics. Basically, in early drafts of the intelligent design book, Of Pandas and People, the authors used the word "creationism" instead of "intelligent design". Then in a subsequent draft, all instances of the word "creationism" were replaced with "intelligent design" and all instances of the word "creationist" were replaced with "design proponent", and in one case, since I guess the Ctrl-H function didn't exist in the 80s, "cdesign proponentsists". This is cited as proof by many that intelligent design is simply a conspiracy to sneak creationism into the classrooms. And "cdesign proponentsists" has been widely ridiculed as the 'missing link' between creationism and intelligent design.

I'll admit, it's kind of funny. The problem is, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are just labels. The "skeptics" have it backwards. This doesn't prove that intelligent design = creationism. All it proves is that what we now call intelligent design was at some point during its development referred to as creationism. That doesn't change the fact that they are two distinctly different ideas. Also, there are references to the term "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" going back to the 1700s. The term was even used by Charles Darwin in 1861.

The Skeptics Society: Hard forensic evidence isn't good enough evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but a few old, mined quotations and a typo is all the proof you need for the ID = creationism conspiracy theory! Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories, believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!

3) "That's No Moon!"



I'm fairly open-minded about a lot of what David Icke says, even the reptilian stuff. I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm not completely close-minded to it either. I've heard of crazier beliefs (*Cough* Scientology *Cough*). But his most recent claim that "the moon is not real" is just too much. It's not so much the theory itself but the new age belief that it's part of. Icke essentially believes that thousands of years ago the world was like Pandora from Avatar. There was an abundance of life and we were all spiritually connected and everything was in harmony etc. And then the evil moon - which was actually built by aliens - came a long and screwed it all up. The problem is, if we didn't have a moon, we wouldn't be here!

Because of complex gravitational interactions with the outer planets, the tilt of the Earth would, if it didn't have a large moon, vary chaotically. We know this because we can observe it happening to Mars. The Earth's tilt is at a relatively constant 23 degrees. If we didn't have a moon it would vary between 10 and 40 degrees over periods of millions of years. Millions of years may sound like a a long time, but in evolutionary terms it's really not. Such variation in tilt would cause an erratic climate which would prevent complex life from evolving in the first place. So the moon sort of functions as a cosmic tail rotor. It's not bad. It doesn't screw up a perfect balance. It's a neccesary part of one!

2) "It's the Joooooos!"



Suck my jaggon, anti-semites!

1) TV fakery and fake phone calls



What the September Clues people are arguing essentially is that the entire population of New York City was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. It's no surprise that I would put the TV fakery theory at number one. The reason I'm putting the fake phone call theory at number one as well is because I honestly believe it to be equally offensive.

IT'S A TRAP!!!

God dammit! I hate being duped by disinformation. Ok so there's this image making its rounds around the internets that has been presented as an actual scan from one of the airport body scanners now cropping up all over the globe in light of the recent staged terrorist incident. People in the truth and patriot communities have been using it as evidence that the scanners are more revealing than the mainstream media is telling us. While I have no doubt that the scanners are indeed more revealing than what the media is telling us, I've just learned this image is disinformation.

When the image is inverted it looks like this:


See the above image uncensored [NSFW]

Now at first I, like others, assumed this meant the scanners are even more detailed. That was until I was directed to this:


Body in 360° [NSFW]

It's a CD of royalty-free photos of a nude woman. Here are two of those images:


See the above image uncensored [NSFW]

It would appear as though someone has just taken those two photos, photoshopped them to invert the colours and add weapons and claimed them to be body scanner images. I kind of wish I hadn't shown it to all my friends and said "See, the media is lying to you!" now. Grrr.

Related Info:

Inverted Body Scanner Image Shows Naked Body In Full Living Color

Was sieht man wirklich im Nackt-Scanner?
(The source of the fake images)