Malaysian Airlines flight carrying 295 people has been shot down in Ukraine

[NYC17]

That's the image I searched so hard for? That's the image?

... Wow. That's a map imported into MSPaint with circles and curved lines drawn on it.

There is clearly no evidence there. I could make a similar map in about 10 minutes and post it to imageshack without difficulty.

Yea, this would be comical now if it hadn't gone on for so many pages. They don't seem to understand, or want to admit, that the "data" provided is rather useless.

[lockedout]

Yea, this would be comical now if it hadn't gone on for so many pages. They don't seem to understand, or want to admit, that the "data" provided is rather useless.

The only real evidence is you tube phone conversations and twitter posts not sure why you would even look at anything else. I mean MS paint with circles and curved lines cmon people YOUTUBE TWITTER you know what the NSA uses.

[bclumas]

The only real evidence is you tube phone conversations and twitter posts not sure why you would even look at anything else. I mean MS paint with circles and curved lines cmon people YOUTUBE TWITTER you know what the NSA uses.

Except the lot of us are condemning both sides of evidence. Here in the US, I'm saying that the information that they presented was a load of shit. I get why they're doing it, but a grand reveal for that kind of information is very, very lackluster. However, so is a grand reveal of Putin's great, great granddaughter's kindergarten art project.

[NYC17]

The only real evidence is you tube phone conversations and twitter posts not sure why you would even look at anything else. I mean MS paint with circles and curved lines cmon people YOUTUBE TWITTER you know what the NSA uses.

Once again, the fact the U.S. has not yet released the evidence you seek does nothing to strengthen Russia's. Their "evidence" exists independently. I laid out the flaw in your thought process multiple times a few pages ago.

It's weird you haven't grasped this concept regarding the evidence by now.

[lockedout]

Once again, the fact the U.S. has not yet released the evidence yous eek does nothing to strengthen Russia's. Their "evidence" exists independently. It's weird you haven't grasped this concept by now.

I'm not saying it does. America did however release evidence or do you not have a twitter account?

[NYC17]

I'm not saying it does. America did however release evidence or do you not have a twitter account?

I don't have twitter. I know what you're referring to though and it's irrelevant to the discussion about Russia's "evidence", or as you called it "data".

[lockedout]

I don't have twitter. I know what you're referring to though and it's irrelevant to the discussion about Russia's "evidence", or as you called it "data".

The U.S. says it has "new evidence" that Russian forces have been firing artillery across the border to attack Ukrainian military positions, and that Moscow is planning to ship powerful rocket artillery to the rebels it backs in the country's east.

"We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful multiple rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said during a daily briefing.

"I can't tell you what the information is based on," Harf said. That's probably because to many people laughed at the other evidence from twitter and you tube.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ps?ft=1&f=1001

[NYC17]

The U.S. says it has "new evidence" that Russian forces have been firing artillery across the border to attack Ukrainian military positions, and that Moscow is planning to ship powerful rocket artillery to the rebels it backs in the country's east.

"We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful multiple rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said during a daily briefing.

"I can't tell you what the information is based on," Harf said. That's probably because to many people laughed at the other evidence from twitter and you tube.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ps?ft=1&f=1001

Yet again, nothing to do with the discussion of Russia's supposed evidence.

I's really, really strange that you don't understand that. Or is it that you were proven so wrong, so thoroughly that you're desperately trying to steer the discussion in a new direction?

[Shalcker]

That's the image I searched so hard for? That's the image?

It's based on sattelite images that were also provided for BUKs in range; and you've seen them too. You can say you're not expert and cannot say using them if they are BUKs or not; but i provided this image to show that anyone saying "I don't remember them claiming that the Ukrainians had batteries in range" is essentially saying "I was not watching their video at all and is basing everything on media portrayal of events".

[NYC17]

It's based on sattelite images that were also provided for BUKs in range; and you've seen them too. You can say you're not expert and cannot say using them if they are BUKs or not; but i provided this image to show that anyone saying "I don't remember them claiming that the Ukrainians had batteries in range" is essentially saying "I was not watching their video at all".

How do you know they were BUKs? You don't. You have to take Russia's word for it.

[Shalcker]

How do you know they were BUKs? You don't. You have to take Russia's word for it.

"I don't remember them claiming that the Ukrainians had batteries in range because that would be a blatant lie" is blantant lie by itself.

[NYC17]

"I don't remember them claiming that the Ukrainians had batteries in range because that would be a blatant lie" is blantant lie by itself.

Do you feel better? Now you should try answering the question that was asked, and not the one you made up in your head.

[Shalcker]

Do you feel better? Now you should try answering the question that was asked, and not the one you made up in your head.

They are BUKs because experts said they are BUKs, obviously. And no other expert denied that so far. As i'm not expert at reading satellite imagery i have to trust experts in absence of conflicting information.

[lockedout]

They are BUKs because experts said they are BUKs, obviously.

Some random on MMOC says they aren't so obviously he's right.

[Kellhound]

It's based on sattelite images that were also provided for BUKs in range; and you've seen them too. You can say you're not expert and cannot say using them if they are BUKs or not; but i provided this image to show that anyone saying "I don't remember them claiming that the Ukrainians had batteries in range" is essentially saying "I was not watching their video at all and is basing everything on media portrayal of events".

The map Russia provided is just a standard air defense plot. I used to do those by hand with chart pack tape. The difference is I knew the validity of the information I was making mine with. Russia provided images of "Gadfly" launchers that are so blurry there is no way to tell what they are. Briefing charts are not proof, they are an explanation of intelligence gathered, which properly would be attached to the brief.

[NYC17]

They are BUKs because experts said they are BUKs, obviously. And no other expert denied that so far. As i'm not expert at reading satellite imagery i have to trust experts in absence of conflicting information.

And yet the experts telling you that the rebels discussed the downing of the airliner isn't enough.

Ladies and gentlemen, absurdity incarnate.

- - - Updated - - -

Some random on MMOC says they aren't so obviously he's right.

No one involved in this discussion has said such a thing. I, and others, have said it's impossible to say they are or aren't because the photos are of such shit quality.

Keep up with the actual discussion and you won't have to make up your own in order to feel included.

[Kellhound]

They are BUKs because experts said they are BUKs, obviously. And no other expert denied that so far. As i'm not expert at reading satellite imagery i have to trust experts in absence of conflicting information.

There is no way to tell what they are from the images provided. Those images are horrible. Google Earth has better resolution.

[lockedout]

And yet the experts telling you that the rebels discussed the downing of the airliner isn't enough.

With evidence from.... are you ready...you tube which was proven faked.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet the experts telling you that the rebels discussed the downing of the airliner isn't enough.

Ladies and gentlemen, absurdity incarnate.

- - - Updated - - -



No one involved in this discussion has said such a thing. I, and others, have said it's impossible to say they are or aren't because the photos are of such shit quality.

Keep up with the actual discussion and you won't have to make up your own in order to feel included.

The experts have lvl 10 wizard clearance and are looking at better photos they can't release to the public. Or you can listen to fake recordings on you tube.

[NYC17]

With evidence from.... are you ready...you tube which was proven faked.

- - - Updated - - -



The experts have lvl 10 wizard clearance and are looking at better photos they can't release to the public. Or you can listen to fake recordings on you tube.

Where was it proven to be fake? By who? A random youtuber? A player from Wow? Oh, the delicious irony.

Your level 10 wizard line is played. it wasn't funny the first time, and sure isn't the 10th. I'd suggest stopping but I kinda like that it highlights your obliviousness. Sort of like how your reply does nothing to address what I stated.

If you wish to believe they have better quality photos that they won't release that's fine. What you can't do is use that as evidence of anything. It's not worth a shit.

[Kellhound]

With evidence from.... are you ready...you tube which was proven faked.

- - - Updated - - -



The experts have lvl 10 wizard clearance and are looking at better photos they can't release to the public. Or you can listen to fake recordings on you tube.

The experts with Top Secret/SCI security clearances are looking at FAR better images than you will ever see, period. Being jealous of it isn't going to change that.