Apart from fake that I linked, Bellingcat was already been caught in the past fabricating fakes with "image analysis" - by the owners of analysis software itself. He's quite capable of writing walls of random text. If you accept him as "very serious", you paint yourself in colors in which you paint yourself @ Klitchko's head (tm).

It seems you don't quite know what Bellingcat is (hint: it's not a person). Let alone that you've read the report.

And again, your link has nothing to do with the research behind the shootdown of Flight 17, so it does nothing to bring its conclusion down.

does not disdain to create fakes for profit. The word "research" and "bellingcat" belong like "truth" and "baron Muenchhausen". I have read its initial "report", which was then [url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html]exposed as lie. Recently they lied again, but I had zero interest anymore.

In addition, its very clear that "Bellingcat" is absolutely into job blowing, as immediately after MH17 catastrophe, it switched into Syria - and again taking sides. Go ahead, surprise me that he is NOT in bed with Soros.

The link which I posted is of well-respected independent organization, which honors its reputation. Sure, my link is about shootdown of MH17, in fact its about MH17 report quality and how its highly biased. And thinking part of the world population also knows why its so - its same with (non-existent, fake) chemical weaponry of Husein. Perhaps, after January 2017, the situation may improve and get back into constructive path, after current nazionalistic Ukrainian junta will be either suspended or overthrown.

Thanks for the link. I've looked at the content.

The criticism here is that Bellingcat accused the Russian Defense Ministry of manipulating satellite imagery, while, according to the article, Russia could have just been adding text blocks to explain it to the public, making it an innocent modification.

This of course is correct, but I don't see how that could be construed as lying by Bellingcat... Do you?

But Belllingcat's stronger argument here is not mentioned in the article, which is that a comparison was made with satellite imagery from Google Earth, which showed that the images as presented by Russia never could have been taken on July 14 or July 17, 2014, like it said they were, which is an important aspect of what the imagery are purported to show, specifically a Ukrainian Buk that is present in one photo and the same Ukrainian Buk that is absent in the other, as if it was active (and thus likely responsible for the shootdown).

Moreover, Bellingcat later on acquired satellite photos from DigitalGlobe from July 17th which underlined their assertion that the Russian Ministry of Defense either did manipulate the imagery to implicate Ukraine or deliberately produced photos from a different date at their press conference at July 21, 2014.

It might even be that both are the case.as the satellite imagery comparison showed the Russian satellite images being more akin to the situation in May / June and the Ukrainian Buk apparently did not move at all from May 30 to September 3, 2014.

You are very gifted at adopting official policies as your own! I'm sure that George Orwell could have found a lot of inspiration from talking with you ;)

What official policy have I adopted? I doubt that I would inspire Orwell much, but current west media sure would.

Not entirely. That initial Bellingcat report used "image analysis" and "image manipulation argument" as a base for whole "research". After he was blown out of water by makers of the software itself, they lost crediblity as being "independent" and "competent". Later, when he created a fake against Anatoly Sharij, he nailed the coffin. Speaking of him, he pointed to 312 as possible launch platform, whom SSU itself used to accuse to and depicted as belonging to RF.

There is Dutch Safely Board and Almaz-Antey, which I trust on case, because they carry responsibilities in case of faking and are competent enough to detect them. Or any independent investigative group, which is a) independent b) with previous professional background c) values own reputation and does not take sides.

I am personally not very interested in finding out who's responsible here, and that was my position in 2014. Fact is - a lot of people died, because the plane was let into the warzone. I understand it as a shoot-out between gangs and the gang controlling the turf, as well as all neighbors then agree to let a child into the shoot out - and then they collectively and in unison blame one of the gangs for doing it without research. In addition, the shoutout itself is controversial itself and political agenda behind it can't be excluded. Thus I blame the one responsible for provoking the situation, which lead to the tragedy. Like police does, when a pedestrian steps into the live high traffic at red light.

It appears to me that Bellingcat's initial overarching argument was that the satellite images couldn't have been from aforementioned dates. And more important besides the manipulation was a Google Earth comparison. I have no idea what the remainder of your argument is about exactly, but you seem to refer to one of the contributors of Bellingcat who said something about Anatoly Shariy, a Ukrainian investigative journalist, which possibly appeared to be untrue, after which Shariy said Bellingcat couldn't be trusted which seems to me like a hasty thing to say. But I'm guessing here as I haven't looked into this.

But whatever it is, and whatever problem you have with the basis for the research behind the downing of MH17, it's distracting as it doesn't punch any holes in the research or its conclusion itself. You can say Bellingcat has an anti-Russian stance as much as you want to -- and this might be true for all I know -- it doesn't mean the research is bad.

It's good that you're trusting the Dutch Safety Board, because they've also concluded the warhead that hit the plane was fitted to a 9M38 missile fired from a Russian-built Buk missile system (while not outright saying the Russian government was responsible).

I find this a somewhat troubling stance, as it would mean that any gang responsible for the shooting of the child -- if we're going by your analogy -- would never have to be held accountable. But your analogy is already misguided as the "child" wasn't even near the "gangs" and it was deliberately targeted. And it's known by which "members".

I did not say that Bellingcat had "anti-russian" stance, I said that its not independent and it follows agenda of its benefactors.

And here is the problem - the Dutch Safety Board has been performing worse than desired, as depicted in report done by independent and respectable Consortium News. Dutch Safety Board are made to follow specific agenda, the RF does this too, to aid own interests. This is echo of current power wars. While its clear that there are no "white knights", it is also pretty clear to me who is the aggressor against whom. I thought this has stopped after Cold War, but it has been running further since then and current situation with MH17 just mirrors, that is a part of large political game, with mass media being big part of it. I remember Focus issue with stone-like Putin face on the cover very well, when they suddenly decided to "devilize" him. I don't remember anything like that in RF media - except when RF customs suddenly found "worms" in fruits from Turkey exactly after F16/Su25 incident. After the situation relaxed, those "worms" suddenly disappeared.

Nobody from civil population wants or is interested in these "power wars". But with proper psychological work, this is easy (see Overton window).

This is also why I said, if Clinton gets to power, we can easily get into WW3. With Trump there is a chance of dialog and suspension of pro-war monkeys. Also, perhaps the governments that partnered NATO finally receive at least supervision access to the nuke silos installed in own land.

That said:
I don't. If pedestrian walks at the red light into the life traffic and gets killed or injured by cars, the police will not accuse one of the cars, but those who made pedestrian walk at red light.
This was a war zone, civil war zone, high caliber stuff flies there and different altitudes.

Projection: send an netherlandish or russian airplane over Aleppo, after it gets shot - directly accuse Assad/US in mass media. This is sadly easier than it could be, as all west commercial passenger airplanes are all fly-by-wire and remotely controllable/overloadable. But the question - what kind of BS would this be? How does one even apply "accountable" to a civil meatshield/excuse? Would you accuse rocket manufacturer for hitting incorrect target/being imprecise?

Aaaaaaand I'm done here...

The people working in the Russian troll factories are paid for invading different (mostly political) discussion forums all over the world, trying to dilute and misdirect the discussion.

One of the tactics they often use is to make lots of (mostly false) claims which are very time-consuming to try to disprove, and you're wasting your time anyway even if you did that as they will just continue presenting more such stuff continuously.

They usually also work in teams, for instance one Putin troll first makes some outrageous claim like "it was actually Obama who shot down MH17!!!!", and then another troll comes after that appearing more placatory (but still trying to dilute the discussion), like saying "Now now, let's not get over our heads. We just don't know who shot the MH17 down, there is no definite proof pointing anywhere.".

Kind of a "good cop, bad cop"-tactic. You just have to remember this possibility when discussing of anything even distantly related to Russia or its interests. Information warfare.

https://www.google.fi/?gws_rd=ssl#q=russian+troll+factory

All hail, this man has the Earnest Voice ever!

I don't really mind to delve into something, but once one ventures into conspiracy theories, comes up with the most outrageous conjecture at the level of suggesting remote controlled planes, using planes as "meat shields", comes up with theories about completely unrelated topics, says in one post the Dutch Safety Board is competent and in the very next one says it's not, you can consider me out of the discussion.

It's dishonest.

DFBW was in development since 1972, most Boeing and recently Airbus planes are for it. I know that at least Boeing 757/767 and Airbus A320 had this capability since around 2010-2011. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk]RQ-4 can easily be used as a relay. The possibility for completely pilotless stock airliners is discussed since a few years. Which "theories"?! Btw, this does not apply to MH17, this option was mentioned by me as an existing possibility in hands certain structures.

Fact that an entity is competent somewhere does not necessary mean that its reliable/trustable. For brightest example may be the current way the western research works for consumer industry, with "research" itself being a product and its sponsor maintaining full control over it via copyright channels - prior, during and after it finishes; which leads to government-sponsored research being the most un-biased and independent. Yet, in the case where government itself has external (politically motivated strategical) interests - its not given and deviation amount does correlate with the political climate. And these deviations do exist, otherwise this would not happen. It goes among the saying "who feeds the girl, dances it".
IMHO, in this situation sufficient reliability can only be achieved by a)redundancy and b)publicly observed dialog between the research parties. Look, this would probably work to make WADA less corrupt and exploitable, both internally and externally.

This is why I said - I respect DSB, but I do not respect Bellingcats.
Yet, this does not mean that I blindly trust neither DSB, nor Almaz-Antey for reasons above.

For the umpteenth time, it's not about the who, it's about the what. Don't give me another ad hominem reasoning. Even an organization or a person that's generally known as incompetent, unreliable or untrustworthy can manage to say or produce something of quality once in a while, something you can't really poke any holes in.

So again, If you can point out any inconsistencies or untruths within the final report of Bellingcat (who I find neither incompetent nor unreliable by the way) or the Dutch Safety Board regarding the conclusion that Russia, indeed, dicked other countries -- including mine -- I'll be glad to hear it. There's always a possibility I'm in the wrong.

Please respond with something they've written. I'm not interested in anything else.

If you cannot, then maybe we should stop boring the hell out of the GoG community by droning on about this topic.