Loren Michael wrote:

magikrooster wrote:Here is what Alexander Khodakovskiy said

News Anchor: Alexander Sergeevich, this is very important – you see, in the same interview it says that some other militias received this “BUK” complex. Do you know anything about this, in principle, or not?

Alexander Khodakovskiy: No, I do not know. In response to a question like this from the reporter, I challenged him to provide evidence, because our area is tightly monitored by all means possible, including also satellite imagery. So, please – “BUK” is a fairly large unit, and it can be easily detected from any type of photography – so, please, show your evidence, and we will then have to respond in accordance with its weight.

News Anchor: Once more, I would like to confirm it with you, so you can say it during our live broadcast – does the Militia currently have “BUK” or not?

Alexander Khodakovskiy: I am telling you absolutely – after we analyzed the entire situation and took inventory of the equipment in our arsenal – I can tell you with full authority that the Militia has no “BUKs”. MANPADS – yes, those we do have. But their upper ceiling is no more than …

News Anchor: … You do not now and never had any?

Alexander Khodakovskiy: We do not now and never had any.

That's from another interview after the initial one was aired.

Yes that is correct.

Given that his comments in the initial interview were really dumb I can see why he'd want to walk his comments back,.

You think they are dunb because you are too lazy to check your facts.
Stop spreading bullshit. You don't even know what he said in the original interview. You need to go to the source.
They were discussing different theories which had been suggested, and this got twisted by reuters to make out he was saying this had actually happened. You guys have no shame.

News Anchor: Hello, Alexander Sergeevich. So, how did it happen that the incorrect quotation made its way into all of the global mass media?

Alexander Khodakovskiy: Good Evening. The tragedy that occurred did, in fact, draw a lot of attention. And journalists, representatives of various mass media outlets started frequenting us, naturally with requests to provided commentary with respect to what had occurred, and what the role of the militias was in all of this.

We did indeed have a conversation with a representative of the agency that launched this information, and we discussed the possible versions [of what happened]. The thing is that we cannot be considered, not to any degree at all, to be experts in the investigation of aviation catastrophes. Accordingly, we can only operate on the basis of verifiable information, and, to date, this information has not been published because the commission has yet to finish its work.

This is the kind of information that I provided to them in my interview, which was recorded with a video camera. At the same time, we analyzed the versions, which to date have been disseminated by the mass media, and one of the versions was the accusation that the militias, who are supported by Russia, used a “BUK” complex against the Boeing.

Source?

I think it's obvious this discussion will go no where.

Varangian wrote:Source?

Google the the entire comments and it leads to two sites:

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/07/23/khoda ... proves-it/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014853729

Not convinced. Not even a teeny weeny bit.

magikrooster wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:That's from another interview after the initial one was aired.

Yes that is correct.

Given that his comments in the initial interview were really dumb I can see why he'd want to walk his comments back,.

You think they are dunb because you are too lazy to check your facts.
Stop spreading bullshit. You don't even know what he said in the original interview. You need to go to the source.
They were discussing different theories which had been suggested, and this got twisted by reuters to make out he was saying this had actually happened. You guys have no shame.

Woah woah; I observed that a public figure saying something off-message and attempting to walk it back later is something so common as to be expected, and that what he reportedly initially said aligns with the photographic and social media evidence.

You're posting another interview sourced to two relatively obscure sites. You have no idea if those sources are legit or not, and you have no idea whether, even if they are legit, his accusations are legit.

You're playing this doubly uncertain thing like a trump card, and you're accusing us of having no shame.

That's why it's weird.

Loren Michael wrote:

magikrooster wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:That's from another interview after the initial one was aired.

Yes that is correct.

Given that his comments in the initial interview were really dumb I can see why he'd want to walk his comments back,.

You think they are dunb because you are too lazy to check your facts.
Stop spreading bullshit. You don't even know what he said in the original interview. You need to go to the source.
They were discussing different theories which had been suggested, and this got twisted by reuters to make out he was saying this had actually happened. You guys have no shame.

Woah woah; I observed that a public figure saying something off-message and attempting to walk it back later is something so common as to be expected, and that what he reportedly initially said aligns with the photographic and social media evidence.

You're posting another interview sourced to two relatively obscure sites. You have no idea if those sources are legit or not, and you have no idea whether, even if they are legit, his accusations are legit.

You're playing this doubly uncertain thing like a trump card, and you're accusing us of having no shame.

That's why it's weird.

Well he did accuse both of us of not having done proper research and seeing the actual interview so obviously that means what he posted is straight from the interview translated by himself and not from some sketchy website... Right?

Well it is now a question of paying your money and taking your choices.

The waters have been made very muddy. I wonder why?

It's how conspiracy theories work you can never 100% prove that men landed on the moon, airliners crashed in the world trade tower, and the Queen isn't a Lizard

99.999% certainty just isn't enough for some people

mrjonno wrote:It's how conspiracy theories work you can never 100% prove that men landed on the moon, airliners crashed in the world trade tower, and the Queen isn't a Lizard
99.999% certainty just isn't enough for some people

Well why don't you explain what you believe happened and what evidence you base you belief on.

I'm telling what I think happened and why I think it happened. Apart from that we pretty much have a pathetic pea nut gallery.

It must be nice for some people to have the Internet, instead of standing at street corners handing out photocopied screeds, wild eyes and matted hair prompting bypassers to change side of the street. Just sayin'.

magikrooster wrote:

mrjonno wrote:It's how conspiracy theories work you can never 100% prove that men landed on the moon, airliners crashed in the world trade tower, and the Queen isn't a Lizard
99.999% certainty just isn't enough for some people

Well why don't you explain what you believe happened and what evidence you base you belief on.

I'm telling what I think happened and why I think it happened. Apart from that we pretty much have a pathetic pea nut gallery.

How about I believe whatever the militarises of the US and the EU say happen because they are the only ones in a position to say one way or the other

Yeah it could all be some magic conspiracy but as they are the ones with the evidence so there you go.

As for Putin he needs to go now regardless and the Russians need to be shown that their influence ends at their borders

magikrooster wrote:

mrjonno wrote:It's how conspiracy theories work you can never 100% prove that men landed on the moon, airliners crashed in the world trade tower, and the Queen isn't a Lizard
99.999% certainty just isn't enough for some people

Well why don't you explain what you believe happened and what evidence you base you belief on.

I'm telling what I think happened and why I think it happened. Apart from that we pretty much have a pathetic pea nut gallery.

So no sources? No reply to what Loren said? Typical.

mrjonno wrote:

magikrooster wrote:

mrjonno wrote:It's how conspiracy theories work you can never 100% prove that men landed on the moon, airliners crashed in the world trade tower, and the Queen isn't a Lizard
99.999% certainty just isn't enough for some people

Well why don't you explain what you believe happened and what evidence you base you belief on.

I'm telling what I think happened and why I think it happened. Apart from that we pretty much have a pathetic pea nut gallery.

How about I believe whatever the militarises of the US and the EU say happen because they are the only ones in a position to say one way or the other

Yeah it could all be some magic conspiracy but as they are the ones with the evidence so there you go.

As for Putin he needs to go now regardless and the Russians need to be shown that their influence ends at their borders

Honestly, even without the intelligence information that these governments have, the already released information is pretty damning.

Rooster would like for everyone to ignore all of that, who knows if it is genuine anyway! (totally not a conspiracy theorist), and instead focus on the fact that these governments are not releasing intelligence information... Dafuq? Not to mention when this info gets released he'll likely not change his opinion and instead say the data was doctored... or something along those lines, as all conspiracy theorists do.

Not only that but his posting is INCREDIBLY aggressive and frankly insulting.

Funnily enough, if everyone blamed USA for this and the same amount of evidence was available to implicate Russian separatists would rooster 180 his opinion just to be against the masses? That's how I think some conspiracy theorists operate, honest. What's it called? Contrarian?

Riding backwards on a horse!

Search "Little Big Man".

RS

There is this horrible ideology of 'being different', the utter hatred of being part of the main group, of having to be against the 'man'. Doesn't matter if its politics, music or even what what computer software you use (I use Windows wait for it due the overwhelming advantage that its what everyone else uses)

Been there myself when I was younger and on the whole its bollocks. There is a reason why things tend to be the way they are and its usually because it works.

Problem with people who want to be 'different' is generally they are all the same

Acetone wrote:
Honestly, even without the intelligence information that these governments have, the already released information is pretty damning.

Already released information?
Do you mean unverified youtube videos and other unverified social media information?

Rooster would like for everyone to ignore all of that, who knows if it is genuine anyway!

All of what? We have precious little to go on and none of it has been verified.

What we do have is photos of the Ukrainian BUK launchers around that time. they are the only ones we difinitely know had a BUK in that area.

Do the rebels have an air force? If not why would their opposition (Ukraine) need to forward deploy anti aircraft capabilities? Fear of Russian incursions?

RS

Acetone wrote:

Funnily enough, if everyone blamed USA for this and the same amount of evidence was available to implicate Russian separatists would rooster 180 his opinion just to be against the masses? That's how I think some conspiracy theorists operate, honest. What's it called? Contrarian?

But who are the masses? If you mean the people in this discussion forum then I'd say they are not anywhere near a reflection of what the masses of the world think.

What we have is the USA and Kiev saying one thing, and refusing to release any evidence (except in Kiev's case they release amateurish fake evidence for the most part)
Then we have Russia, saying another thing and releasing satellite images etc to back up their case.

Clearly this makes them look more credible.

theropod wrote:Do the rebels have an air force? If not why would their opposition (Ukraine) need to forward deploy anti aircraft capabilities? Fear of Russian incursions?

RS

And what were they doing moving them around near the time of the crash. Here is a site near Donetsk on July 14, with BUKs indicated.

Here is the same site on the day of the crash. Kiev needs to explain what they did.

Oh, images from Russian Times - the news site where you check your watch when they claim it's 8 o'clock...