You are here

Investigating the MH17 atrocity is becoming increasingly urgent

As the Ukrainian army launches a new attack on the Donetsk Peoples' Republic, claiming to have retaken Donetsk Airport from 'separatist' forces, the justification for such an attack has once again become a subject for discussion. While the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says the new offensive is aimed at 're-uniting' Ukraine, and Western media believe this both to be a reasonable objective and the real one, the actual situation is entirely different...

Much of the perversion of truth on the true nature of the Ukrainian government and the nature of the 'Eastern rebellion' can be put down to the success of the 'False Flag' attack on MH17 - carried out by the Ukrainian air force with as yet unverified assistance from Western intelligence agencies. This tragic state of affairs is thanks to the skill of the propaganda campaign conducted primarily by the US and its close allies, but facilitated by the Western media apparatus. It is tragic because the simplest of investigations of the crash site and wreckage of the plane would have readily demonstrated who was responsible; not only was clear physical evidence of the damage visible, and reported and photographed by some early observers, but forensic analysis would have found traces of the bullets that so clearly perforated the cockpit.

Given this background, the appearance of an article in the Fairfax press by veteran correspondent Paul McGeough describing his visits to the crash site with partner Kate Geraghty should have been cause for optimism; that this renowned 'investigative journalist' seemed uninterested in identifying the criminals responsible for killing so many people and instead focused on collecting sunflower seeds in 'Cockpit village' was cause for exasperation!
I sent the letter below to McGeough, in addition to Jonathan Green who interviewed him on the ABC. It also went to ABC Consumer Affairs, and the editors of the Australian National Review, and the editors of English Pravda.

Dear Paul,

While I admire your desire to give the relatives of victims of the MH17 atrocity something to fill the void left by the loss of their loved ones, I was astonished that your intense focus allowed you to both reveal and overlook crucial evidence that would provide something far more substantial to those relatives.

For those of us who paid no attention to the wild claims made in Western media following the downing of MH17, and made their own judgements based on evidence available, there was little evidence more convincing that photographs of the cockpit of the aircraft showing severe damage from artillery of some kind. For the benefit of the other recipients of this email I copy below your description in the Fairfax press of your visit to ‘Cockpit village’ – the very place where that vital fragment was observed and photographed:

“We headed out of the city before dawn. On a highway strewn with the smouldering wreckage of vehicles destroyed in the previous night's fighting, some with bodies still lying in or near them, we threaded our way through rebel checkpoints, back to what we had dubbed "the cockpit village".

This was Rassypnoe, a hamlet in which locals watched in awe as MH17's nose cone smashed into a field of shoulder-high sunflowers, just metres from buildings on the village's western flank.

When we visited the village in the last week of July, Eugene Lukovkin, a 30-year-old separatist gunman, gave us a graphic account of the crash – "bodies falling like bullets"; the nose section making a muffled sound, "like it landed in a swamp".

Recalling that he had been disposing of his grandmother's trash, Lukovkin told me: "The plane headed towards me. I could see the smoke as it fell to pieces – it had been missiled. One section was coming at me and the rest of it seemed to keep going. I dumped the rubbish cart and started running; others were running too – we think maybe some of the falling people are alive.

"There were lots of bodies – dead." Pointing to the left side of the cockpit, he says: "This is where one of the pilots was – I knew he was in charge because he had stars on his shoulder."

When we returned at dawn on our last day, none of the locals were to be seen. We drove to the field in which the buckled cockpit lay and quietly went to work – chopping enough sunflower heads to fill a big suitcase that we had bought at the market for this purpose. No one came to ask what we were doing.

Thirty minutes later we were back on the road, driving north to the Ukrainian government-controlled city of Kharkiv, from where we caught a commercial flight to the capital Kiev.

You also described this experience in a radio interview on the ABC with Jonathan Green:

While there is little doubt outside the sphere of influence of the Western corporate media that a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down MH17 using both an air to air missile and 30mm cannon fire, the necessary evidence to establish this fact has clearly not been sought by the Dutch investigators, or their findings are being suppressed. Of particular interest here is the report from the ‘separatist gunman’ that he had seen the pilots body in the cockpit wreckage.

In the accepted scenario of the crash, endorsed by the blank black box recording, the pilots were the prime and initial target of the aerial attack; not only are there multiple penetrations of this part of the aircraft, and relatively few elsewhere, but the cockpit came down separated from the main fuselage by some distance.

Examining the high quality photograph of the left side of the cockpit, one can see evenly spaced holes as from strafing, but from bullets fired at the other side of the cockpit – the holes are quite obviously made by objects emerging from inside as the outer layer of the double skin is peeled outward, while the holes in the inner skin are perfectly round and the size of the 30 mm bullets. In the version of your article above there is also a photograph taken by Kate Geraghty of ‘a pilot’s seat’. A forensic analysis on both the seat and the pilot’s body would surely show evidence of perforations by the tungsten shells used by the SU25 and presumed responsible for the damage.

World peace depends on truthful and careful reporting now

Some people may believe that discussion of exactly how MH17 came down is becoming academic, as we lurch from one dangerous crisis to the next. But unlike discussion of the causes of the First World War – so apparently topical at the moment – this is anything but academic. Already the framing of Russia as not just involved but even as responsible for the atrocity has ‘facilitated’ NATO’s expansion eastwards, and enabled the Kiev coup leaders to pursue their corrupt agenda with European approval and assistance. And given that it is now clear ‘cui bono’ as a result of this attack, we must confront the stark possibility that MH17 was an act of state terrorism in which our own governments may have been complicit.

There are already very many commentators, experts and authorities who have come to this conclusion, not simply based on the evidence that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet – which is considerable – but because of the complete lack of evidence offered by Western agencies and governments for their contention that ‘Russian backed separatists’ shot it down with a BUK surface to air missile. Only days after the attack, Russian authorities appealed to the US to release satellite pictures from a new satellite they apparently had directly over Ukraine at the time of the crash. This information has been repeatedly requested by Moscow but with no response. It is not possible to conclude other than that such information would be incriminating both to Kiev and the US – if it showed a BUK missile launch by the Separatists as it surely would then we would have seen such information immediately.

Russia Today has just released a second documentary on the attack – ‘Reflections on MH17’, ( which focuses on the extraordinary failure of Dutch and Ukrainian authorities to properly investigate the causes of the accident, while observing that conclusions on what weapon was responsible could be easily made with some simple laboratory analyses. It could not be said that such an investigation would ‘bring closure’ to the relatives of MH17 victims, but exposing the real culprits would do a lot more for the victims and potential victims of NATO’s aggressive policies in Europe. These criminals who would happily sacrifice a few hundred truly innocent civilians as part of their strategic game cannot be allowed to escape justice, and the wrath of their own citizens.

I must just acknowledge the welcome new perspective brought to the Australian media by the Australian National Review – to whom I am also copying this letter. To my knowledge this is the only mention in our print press of the ‘real story’ of MH17, – but I await its serious discussion from our national broadcaster.