Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
July 22 - 28, 2014

Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in the Ukraine
Another Faked Crash
The Jim Stone Evidence Late in this Update

I accidentally used "July" in last week's URL-address instead of "Jul," which explains why you could not enter the last update if you tried. It's fixed now; it covers Iraq's developmental details. Whenever you can't enter an update, just check the URL to find the problem to fix it yourself. It's likely a one-letter problem, or a period in the wrong place. Only the latter part of the URL needs to get changed. The URL for this update uses "4Jul4.htm," meaning that it's the 4th update of July, 2014. One can go instantly to the 4th update of July, 2012, by changing this URL to 2Jul4.htm. It's that easy. If you see the URL as 4Jul.4htm at the 404 page, just change it to 4Jul4.htm, and click to go there.

The whole world must know about this crash. Obviously, if the West shot the plane down, the American evidence against Putin has been fabricated.

In just the same way that Assad would not have used chemical weapons against civilians only to bring world opinion down on his head, the Russian rebels are expected not have chosen, at this crucial time -- when Putin is trying to win world opinion for their cause -- to do something so drastic and useless as to shoot down a passenger plane. What benefit is there? The civil war had not been lost, and the rebels were hoping that Putin would give them the means to win. What a bad time to do something so USELESS AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE for their cause. There is NO MOTIVE for the rebels to shoot down this plane.

Some suggest that it could have been a mistake, where the rebels thought the plane was a Ukrainian fighter jet. However, the debris-field evidence proves beyond a doubt that this event was orchestrated.

In the opinion of many Westerners, the West has a diabolical group that has been doing wicked things like this, with the finger typically pointing to American and British agents as the plotters. And here we are with those two governments coming out swinging on this crash issue, seeking to make the world believe that the evidence points to no one but the Ukrainian separatists. Photographs and stories concerning dead passengers appeared quickly (before the story goes away) in Western media to maximize world sympathy.

It is logical to have the fabricated evidence prepared beforehand in a false-flag operation. In the first days, the Ukrainians "knew" exactly what the rebels did to shoot this plane down. And the Americans are "proving" that the Ukraine is correct. In a false-flag event, it is important to get solid evidence out as soon as possible while sympathy and anger are greatest. It would do the Ukrainian cause little good to have some evidence against the rebels one or two years later.

Can it be argued that the West / Ukraine needed this a false-flag operation at this time? A resounding yes, because the Russians were winning the media war to make the Ukrainians look like the aggressors. Even Western leaders were finding it necessary to come down on the forcefulness used by the Ukrainians. For the West, it was a bad time for the world to start opposing the Ukraine, before the war was won. This plane disaster has the potential to make the rebels look worthy of being stamped out.

Is Malaysian Airlines part of this conspiracy? Would it be Malaysian Airlines that reports the names / details of passengers? Does anyone recall any incident where Malaysian Airlines may have been involved in a controversial downing of an airplane? Here's the ethnicity of the passenger list according to Malaysian Airlines, with nearly 200 Dutch:

There are said to have been 27 Australians on board, important because I felt that the Australians were involved with the British in fabricating the crash location of Malaysians Airlines 370. In my opinion, the best way to fake passengers is to pay them to move and "disappear," but for this method, the airliner needs to be complicit with the crime. And that's why it's important that the downed plane in the Ukraine was likewise a Malaysian-Airlines flight. When flight 370 disappeared, it was not solid in my mind that Malaysian Airlines was complicit, but, now, with the shooting down of flight 17, one can now make that argument on a preliminary basis.

In the faked-weapons attack against the Syrian president, the U.S. claimed to have intercepted a radio conversation wherein some commanders in the Assad camp were discussing the attack. This convenient evidence seemed faked, and few in the world may have taken it seriously, especially as the radio conversation was not released to the world. Now see Wikipedia on flight 17: "Ukrainian security services said they intercepted two phone conversations in which pro-Russian separatists discuss with Russian intelligence officers having just shot down a civilian plane. On 19 July [two days after the disaster], Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the SBU, told a news conference: "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens.'" This tight-case evidence seems too good to be true, and moreover it cannot provide the motive for Russian participation in the shooting down of a plane filled with Dutch, Malaysians and Australians.

But there was even more tight-case evidence put forth within days of the crash: "Alleged separatist conversations with Russian intelligence agents were also intercepted, in which rebels reportedly express satisfaction that they are in possession of a Buk missile system." The Buk has the capability of achieving passenger-jet altitudes, wherefore this "evidence" was absolutely needed by the insiders in order to make this accusation fly.

There was yet more: "Previously, on 29 June 2014, the pro-Russian rebels of the Donetsk People's Republic had boasted of having captured a Buk missile battery from the Ukrainian army and posted a picture of it on Twitter. The Twitter post was deleted by the rebels after the Malaysian aircraft had been shot down." How do we know that Ukrainian / American agents didn't put that message up on Twitter?

Wikipedia shares a point that tends to acquit the rebels, for it can be deemed certain that the rebels are not experienced in using the Buk system: "Kevin Ryan, director of the Defense and Intelligence Project at Harvard University said that without extensive training crews would be unable to hit anything at all and concludes that if the plane really was shot down, a professional military force was responsible." No one denies the ability of the rebels to steal a Buk missile launcher, but if it takes much experience in shooting a plane down, chances are the Ukrainians will fabricate evidence to the effect that the Russians came down and trained the rebels. And that's why the West needs the evidence to lump the Putin government into this affair.

"The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) published what they said were wiretaps of separatist commanders reporting that a civilian airliner had been shot down.. According to one of the recordings, Flight 17 was shot down by a group of pro-Russian separatists manning a checkpoint near the village of Chornukhine, Luhansk Oblast, some 80 km (50 mi) north-west of Donetsk. Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew." There you have the "evidence" that the Russians came down with a "crew" to help the separatists shoot down the plane. It's purely fantastic that the rebels would relay such incriminating messages if Ukraine Intelligence could listen in on every word spoken by them.

The Wikipedia article goes on to expose that the Australian government is rejecting the guilt of the rebels, but laying it instead squarely on Russia. Such speedy accusations are perhaps evidence of collusion (or at least follow the pied piper) on the part of the accusers. The EU insists that the black boxes, when retrieved, must be foremost under the supervision of the Ukraine, insinuating that the rebels cannot be trusted with them, and yet why should the Ukraine be deemed trustworthy? Is the world to assume that everything Western is angelic?

The black boxes are very problematic in this scheme, for with a plane downed in the territory of the rebels, the West needs a sure-fire way to get at them before the rebels do. This can explain why multiple debris fields were faked, as we shall see. The purpose may have been to get the rebels to concentrate on one debris field having no black boxes. The Westerners would then scoop down to the real debris field to get the boxes. In this scenario, we would expect the West to provide a plan beforehand for providing the rights of Western agents into the debris fields.

The Americans are being more cautious than the Australian prime minister, accusing the Russians of merely assisting the rebels to shoot the plane. I do not read in the accusations of the Americans that error may have been the problem; it seems that the West is bent on portraying a DELIBERATE, first-degree shoot-down. I'm reading that the rebels warned the world not to send planes over this zone...because, I assume, they didn't want the problem of confusing a passenger jet with a military jet. But so far, I'm not reading that the Americans are so much as open to giving the rebels some slack due to making a mistake; this instant steely attitude is another reason for viewing the event as a faked one.

The U.S. did not allow its passenger jets to fly over this war zone. As it was the Ukrainian aviation people which allowed the Malaysian Airlines flight over that zone, perhaps the aviation people bear some responsibility, and of course the buck stops at the Ukrainian leader(s). The Ukraine was using fighter jets to kill the rebels, justifying (by world standards) the rebel use of anti-aircraft missiles. As the Ukraine even admits that the rebels had shot down some fighter jets, doesn't that make the Ukraine government responsible for the shoot-down of the passenger jet? Think of the irresponsibility on the part of the Ukraine to allow passenger jets to fly over the Donetsk area. It's a small curve to fly around it.

If Obama takes the word of the Ukrainians as gospel truth already, isn't that suspicious? And that's why we can expect the CIA or other U.S. Intelligence report to echo the Ukrainian report, because the U.S. is the enemy too. Yes, the U.S. is the war enemy of the Russian rebels, and therefore not an independent group. When some European leaders call for an independent investigation, they are not, surely, including the U.S. But then look at this laughable statement: "'[Ukraine] President Poroshenko welcomed the assistance of international investigators to ensure a thorough and transparent investigation of the crash site,' the statement said, highlighting the US has offered its assistance into investigating the tragedy." There begins the ludicrous theater.

There is even a CNN photo (July 17) online of Obama in his government jet speaking on the phone with Poroshenko (website below). Doesn't this seem to you like theater? How do we know that he's on the phone with Poroshenko? We can't even know the date of the photo. But patriots wish to believe that America is on the angelic side of life.

Hmm, here's a point that CNN is surely NOT to cover: "21:47 GMT: RT's [Russian media] Spanish correspondent, Francisco Guaita who is now at the crash scene in Donetsk region says the situation on the ground is 'very complicated,' with aircraft parts spread around. Guaita says that after talking to firefighters, no bodies were found by them, but they said the death toll was close to 300 people." It reminds me of the lack of passenger bodies at the Pennsylvania and Pentagon crash sites on 9-11. Although this report is likely from a pro-Russia agent, I tend to believe it because I've seen photos of at least four BURNED-OUT debris fields. I have little problem believing that a plane, when shot down by a missile, could provide two or three debris fields, but not four of them if they are all burned out, for fuel is not likely to land on four different debris fields.

Let's talk about that for a moment. The fuel is in the wings. If either wing is cut in half by the missile(s), its fuel burns and spills out in flight, rendered far-less likely of creating a burned-out debris field. Moreover, if only the outer part of a wing crashed anywhere, there would not be any cargo at that spot. Therefore, when we get to the photos of the burned-out debris fields, check for cargo / baggage items. No more than one field should have both cargo and a burned-out area.

The website above has the following that may underscore why the O-people are demanding that the black boxes go to the Ukraine: "The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, which controls the area around the crash site, says that it will pass the flight recorders of the downed plane to Russian authorities. "In Moscow, they have high-class experts, and they will be able to determine the cause of the crash, though it seems obvious enough anyway,' said vice-premier Andrey Purgin." There's not much the Russians can do but destroy all or part of the voice recordings. That is, they can't add to them. But there is a question as to whether any part of the recordings can be ruined, as that invites suspicion.

Question: why was the pilot(s) unable to send any report over the radio as to being hit? We are told that the airport people simply lost contact...evoking Malaysian-Airlines flight 370 out of Malaysia a few months ago. Missiles aim for the engines, allowing pilots and/or computer equipment enough time to send at least one distress call.

The downed flight was one day after Poroshenko warned that Russia was about to enter the war with "targeted" strikes. Was he trying to set Putin up? Looks like. But only a hasty mind would believe / profess that Russia would shoot down a flight filled mainly with the Dutch over the Donetsk area. Putin can't be so moronic under the current circumstances.

The Russians countered by reporting that, soon before the flight's crash, the Ukrainians moved their PUK missiles into the Donetsk area. It doesn't matter what you or I believe on that point, but whether the Russians can convince an independent investigation that this is true. If that can be done, then the Ukrainians need to prove that the rebel side stole at least one missile system from them. Acceptable evidence has to be more than the mere word of the Ukrainians or their friends.

One blogger writes: "An hour ago, approximately 8pm GMT summer time, flight radar dot com (h t t p:// ) indicated that MH17 never left Schiphol and was in fact CANCELLED. Double checking on their website as I type this comment is still listed as such."

The only way to claim that a flight went down in the Ukraine, if it never took off, is to have both Malaysian Airlines and the passengers complicit with the crime. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. If the U.S. military learned how to fake 2 or 3 passengers 50 years ago, it could have learned to fake 200 to 300 today. If the U.S. military convinced some airline companies to play along with its false-flag events 50 years ago, just think at how skilled the insiders would be by now.

Just so you know, I share webpages like the one above not necessarily agreeing with all the bloggers. One blogger has a link to a story: "Rebel Leader Says Many of the Dead Bodies in MH17 Weren't 'Fresh'"

The not-fresh story actually comes from an AP article, carried, for example, by ABC, which is very surprising because the point suggests a false-flag operation that the mainline media are not supposed to engage. Really, why would AP and ABC entertain a rebel leader with such a claim as this? I suppose some reporters choose to be free radicals.

A top pro-Russia rebel commander in eastern Ukraine has given a bizarre version of events surrounding the Malaysian jetliner crash -- suggesting many of the victims may have died days before the plane took off.

The pro-rebel website Russkaya Vesna on Friday quoted Igor Girkin as saying he was told by people at the crash site that "a significant number of the bodies weren't fresh," adding that he was told they were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition.

Try to imagine the rebels, with or without the help of Russia, bringing in corpses to fool the investigators. The rebels would first of all need to get corpses of some Dutch people, perhaps a few Malaysians, etc., not at all likely...meaning that the Ukrainian / U.S. side provided the corpses, if they exist at all. In a false-flag event, providing corpses to act as dead passengers is nothing short of logical. They could be dropped by high-altitude craft into the open fields without the rebels seeing it.

Then, ABC, in another article, quotes others saying "bodies scattered everywhere" and "There's blood splattered everywhere." There's no talk here on pre-dead bodies, and the witness turns out to be...John Wendle, a freelance reporter for ABC News. It's as though one reporter was reluctantly allowed to report on the corpses story from AP, to be opposed by an ABC reporter supposedly on the scene who supposedly witnessed "splattered" blood, a thing that corpses don't provide. The ABC corpse story was published July 18, a day after the Wendle story, and the crash took place on the 17th. ABC may have known of the AP story on the 17th, thus explaining the Wendle story.

"Blood splattered everywhere" is an unsightly and uncalled-for phrase. That is, a journalist should not use such a phrase because it goes without saying in an airplane crash. But, in this case, the phrase was apparently needed to discredit the corpse story. AP was definitely at one debris field on the 18th and/or the 19th, but I have seen no photos with Wendle's or ABC's name upon them.

Some of the bloggers at the corpse page don't get it / argue correctly, saying how ridiculous it is to have living people board planes with corpses in the seats. I say that these bloggers are ridiculous for even suggesting it. If corpses were used, they must have been plant by some other means. The reports of bodies scattered throughout the fields plays well to a corpse scheme. The problem is, the West needs to get the bodies into their hands before the rebels/ Russians do, for the latter can serve to reveal that some of the dead are not the people on the passenger list.

It's possible that the flight did not depart at the scheduled time, and that the insiders delayed it for a purpose. They may have had a second flight to feign flight 17, and then arranged flight 17 to crash at a certain location of their choice, where the bodies could be recovered only by the West. In fact, most of the bodies (over 250) were recovered by July 21, and yet I've read that the rebels possessed only less than 40 by that time. It could be that the rebels have in their possession bodies that were never on flight 17.

The rebels decided, under world pressure, to let the Western investigators in, some two days after the crash, and of course the first Western priority was to collect the faked bodies. Clearly, if the debris fields were faked, ditto for any bodies collected there.

A funny thing just happened. I clicked from the corpse story to the Wendle page, but when I went backward to the corpse page, the link to the Wendle page was gone. I had to google the Wendle page separately to get the URL for you.

In order for false-flag events of this nature to work, the main media need to be notified that this story is for reporting only, no investigations into the homes/addresses of the victims, etc. False-flag operations cannot work if the main media go nosing around to verify the reports. The U.S. military / CIA, and the highest level of government, need to have the main media trained to do report-only stories, ask no questions, trust your government, or else. Not all reporters will take kindly to such news casting, however.

Where are all the John Wendle photos? I would like to inspect them. Below is another ABC page mentioning John Wendle, but there is no photo from him, even though there are five photos provided that were taken from the crash region. Here's the accusatory storyline just one day after the crash: "But [U.S.] officials did say that based on preliminary intelligence, they believe the missile was an SA-11 and that they have reports showing an explosion in the air following the missile launch. In addition, an official said the missile was fired inside Ukraine in a territory controlled by Russian separatists."

Near the bottom of the page above, I see a debris field still on fire. In my opinion, the debris in this picture does not match the debris in four other fields that were likewise burned, meaning that there can be as many as five burned-out fields. If there were two planes, one feigning the other, four or five burnt fields could be explained. The large chunk of debris in this image looks like it can be nothing other than a wing spar, or at least part of it. By the way, the ABC page above is acting funny; it's going to the URL below without my doing anything to prompt it. In the below, a John Wendle page at Twitter, look at all those pictures (sarcasm) of the wreckage: there's just one photo.

If one changes the latter part of the URL from "photo/1" to "photo/2" or "photo/3" or "photo/23", the same page, with the same photo, comes up, as though this one picture is faked with nothing else to add with it. John Wendle, I'm calling you out as a liar. I have tried all four URLS to verify that the same page/photo comes up on all. I can only conclude, temporarily, that Wendle was not at the crash site, and that he and ABC are complicit in a fake job. Where are all your photos, John???

It's doubtful that the photos are faked if they show the rebels' faces, or the faces of workers who were at one of the debris fields. Wendle's picture shows no person.

Let's Roll with the Photos

Let's start with a photo showing what's supposed to be a burned-out area, meaning that the wings and fuel tanks supposedly came crashing at this spot. Virtually the entire picture looks black-and-white, aside from the bright clothing of the two women standing in the debris. It doesn't appear that these ladies have walked more than a half mile into an open field. The question, how close to a road is this crash site, comes with good reason. If it turns out to be at the very side of the road, would that be suspicious? Yes, it could be, because a faked crash site would by force be near the street, if the debris was trucked in. Nothing in this photo looks like it's from a Boeing 777:

Next, let's look at an older woman in what appears to be the same debris, but shot from another angle. This time, the woman has a cane, assuring even better that she hasn't walked more than a half mile to the site. Plus, we see an electrical pole in the top-left quadrant, meaning that the site is very close to the road!

How close? There is only one electrical pole in the picture. That means that the first pole closer to the camera than the visible one is out of the picture to the LEFT of the shot; the first pole further from the visible one can only be situated behind, and obscured by, the top-most part of the debris. The aging woman is therefore facing the road.

The white area at the extreme right of the first photo can be seen at the extreme left of the second photo. I'm sure I have that right, meaning that the same field is shown in both images, albeit with a camera shot from opposite ends of the field. There's no way to have the white along the right margin versus the left margin unless the camera is pointed inward from opposite ends of the field. This means that the road must be on the RIGHT of the picture where the white strip is on the right. The white strip / object is generally parallel with the road, in other words, and very near to it. In the image with two women, the black, central strip within the white area can just be seen barely on the right margin.

To prove that the two photos are of the same field, the photo below (with the two women no longer there) shows an electric pole too, with a piece of the road barely visible coming along the right side of the image. In the photo with the two women, the road must, therefore, be to the right side. TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, VERY IMPORTANT, the road is to the right of the engine when the front of the engine can be seen. Or, the front of the engine faces up/down the road, not at the road. I can even see the white strip bango-next to (and parallel to) the road, underscoring how close to the road this debris field is.

The engine, along with the burnt-out look, means that at least one wing came to this spot (if this is a true debris field at all). Why shouldn't the second wing have hit here too? Where is the second engine? Here it is below, but it's not at the same debris field. I can be sure about that because the electric wires can be seen (in a close-up) strung toward the left of the picture (off an electric pole near a man's head). That means that, if one were facing the front of the engine, the wires and the road go away from the debris field. Yet, in the image directly above, the road crosses along side the engine.

Besides, it doesn't look like the same engine type. The outer area of the front of this engine is thinner than the same on the engine in the image with the two women.

So, we have two debris fields, both of them smack next to a road. What are the chances of that in a plane-crash scenario where the pilots cannot control the plane? How could the plane be controlled if one engine and its wing end up somewhere besides where the other engine and wing fall? In the engine photo with the man, there is nothing around the engine to convince us that a plane crashed there. All we see is a flat area looking like it was lit up to flames. It should be added that both engine shots are by (or at least owned by) AFP Getty Images. The engine with the man is said (by Daily Mail) to be "near the town of Shaktarsk." It's on this map.

To prove further that the debris field with the two women is the same as with the old woman, the BurnedSite4 image below is where the two women were, only this time the strip of background trees (in the smoke above the engine) can be seen to be in the exact shape as per in the image with the old woman.

Below is a third debris field, next to a sunflower patch. The items are very colorful, and there is no evidence of burning. There is no evidence of luggage. There is a large box (above what looks like a burgundy comforter) that could only be construed as coming from the cargo deck. We are to believe, apparently, that the items have fallen out of the sky, and yet the box looks like it's in great shape, exposing fakery. In a close-up (after copying the images to my Pictures folder), the one corner of the box is a perfect line, an impossibility because the box is made of cardboard or, at best, thin wood. No wood / cardboard box, and especially not a corner of a wood box, could survive a landing from the sky unscathed.

Someone trucked that box to the site, and men either carried the box to where we see it, or it was dropped by an on-board crane. All of the debris, therefore, was trucked in. You can see more electrical poles (!!!), meaning that this debris field is likewise beside a road. Only a ninny in the media could believe that these three debris fields are real, and yet none would dare to tell you what I'm telling you...unless they were willing to lose their jobs and reputations. Plane debris and plane parts do not come down smack beside three different roads. Thus far, there is no reason to believe that the three fields are on the same road.

I would guess that this sunflower site is at an intersection because the line of electrical poles does not come near enough to the debris field. A second road is therefore predicted to be there from which the items could be dropped off without entering the site too deeply with the truck. The fakery would be exposed if a long clearing / path was made for the trucks. It gave the fakers no choice but to have debris fields very near a road. Therefore, where we see the debris field below, chances are that the cameraperson is standing at the road. The debris is likewise at a sunflower patch, and the sunflowers look to be in a growth stage / condition that matches the ones in the image above.

The image directly above is said (by Daily Mail) to be "near the village of Rozsypne" (not on the map above). The caption says that a rebel fighter is looking at the nose cone, but I don't see anything in this image to prove that there are 777 parts. My opinion right off the bat is that someone took junk from a junkyard, while other items were pasted in to give it a filled-up look. But where's the plane? A plane crashing at hundreds of miles per hour sends debris scattering, not heaped up as when trucks back up to dump it in one spot. Why was nothing set on fire at this location if the nose cone struck here? Did the nose cone come in without the wings? If the nose cone and some fuselage came here without the wings, why isn't the nose cone and fuselage visible? Without fire, the insiders can't claim, as they did with 9-11, that plane parts disintegrated into thin air with the heat.

Images of the crash are multiplying at Daily Mail like rabbits. At least two of them show a single passenger supposedly fallen from the sky; one landing in a garden and another along a private road along a sunflower field, giving the impression that bodies somehow got out from their seat belts and fell randomly throughout the open area. Is this part of the hoax, to have us believe that the bodies were scattered about when in fact they were not? Apparently, yes.

Let's go back to the first sunflower patch (with the woman). The burgundy item, and what look like two blue tarps, show sunlight effects. Under inspection of the shaded areas too, as well as the brighter spot on the top of the woman's black top, the sun can be gleaned to be high in the sky in the direction that the woman's head is pointed. Yet, her body casts no shadow whatsoever.

I count at least ten stuffed animals that this woman has gathered and set up in a line to her front. Is it likely that travelers would bring that many stuffed animals with them? How many little children could there have been on this one plane, or, how many mothers bring stuffed animals on their plane trips abroad? Other photos will show still more stuffed animals at other crash sites. Does this strike you as reality, ladies, or as an insider plot to better gain the sympathies of the world? Why are there at least ten stuffed animals but no signs of baggage / luggage?

Still in the same photo, notice the sizeable gap between the thick sunflower patch and the debris. Falling debris doesn't create such gaps. The gap at her head is wide with neither debris nor sunflower plants. How could the plants not be there if no debris fell on them? It looks like people were in there trampling the sunflower plants for to plant the debris.

In the photo below of the same woman, with more sunflowers in the background, it's important to note the row of tall trees behind her, for the other crash sites to be treated next do not show these trees nor the sunflowers, and yet the other sites too are directly beside a road(s). What are the chances of that?

Below is a photo showing some body bags beside the road. A little up the road, one can see some plane parts. Along with a larger piece that looks like a leaning hut from this perspective, there is a large piece partly on the edge of the road but mainly on the road's shoulder. What are the chances of these two pieces falling from the sky and landing there? Only a media ninny could believe that. Or, put it this way, that if a truck were to attempt placing these heavy items deep into the grass field, the fakers would risk making tire-tread marks, wherefore the only choice the goons had was to unload such large items at the side of the road. It becomes very apparent, with alternative photos, that the truck had crane for this particular operation.

In my opinion, the body bags show no evidence of rain water in the folds and creases, even though there are water puddles visible on the road. Other photos to be treated below show roads completely wet, but the body-bag photo shows a road mainly dried out, with few damp areas though the rain had stopped no more than two hours before. We are therefore to conclude that the body bags (I count at least a dozen) were filled and moved after it ceased to rain. In all the photos presented here, there is no evidence of any human shoulder or head having been in the rain, suggesting that everyone was in a vehicle or building while it rained.

Some of the body bags appear to have two people each. If correct, then most of bodies were not far out in the field (otherwise it would have taken much more than two hours), especially as the photos of that day show few workers gathering bodies (I've seen two teams only, each with four men). The bodies in these bags are predicted to be planted, not of flight 17. But where's the debris field? I have noticed a conspicuous thing, that the media people taking photos of this location were very inclined NOT to show the debris field. Why not? Perhaps the insiders (they would have instructed the media) did not want the public to see yet another debris field smack beside a road.

Further up the road, one sees two white vans, wherefore we assume that there is some plane debris up there. The two brown buildings beside the vans look to include this make-shift building. Why are the vans and make-shift buildings so far from the body bags? Shouldn't the bodies be inside the buildings? Yes, but why does it appear that one body (in a bag) is being carried away from the make-shift building? Why are the bags left out on the roadside susceptible to the sun? We will get the answer later: the rebels decided to take the bodies from the Westerners at the site.

The photo below shows the same body bags as well as a shot across the street, with no debris field visible. Later. we will see no debris field on the other side of the body bags. The bodies are therefore being placed outside of the main center of that the Westerners cannot inspect them, I assume. Below is BodyBags3, an EPA photo taken a second or two before the BodyBags2 (AFP Getty Images) image directly above. One can see that the location on the road is the same one as in the first body-bag photo...because, in both, a white object is in the grass across the street.

Below is the same group of four men carrying a body bag along the road, with a large red-and-white piece of aircraft part on the road's shoulder. This part is the same leaning-hut-like object as seen in two body-bag photos above. Beside the red-and-white object, to the front of the two men at the right, there is the second object seen that's not attached to the larger section. How could anyone believe that the larger one fell out of the sky and landed right there? In fact, it is standing UPRIGHT, as could be expected if it was unloaded by a truck with crane. If it had fallen from the sky, it would have rolled, not likely coming to a stop in an upright position, and certainly not directly on the road's shoulder. The journalists at this event know that this was all faked, but are not informing us.

The photo above shows that the red-and-white object is a little taller than a man. It has a roundish cross section, but, from this and other photos, does not appear to be an engine housing for a 777 (about nine feet in diameter). The red-and-white object is definitely not large enough to be a piece of fuselage from a 777 (about 16 feet in diameter), unless it's from the smaller nose-cone area. The interior part of this object appears to have straight rib sections rather than circular, but in the image below (shows a few DRY journalists on the WET road), it can be seen that the ribs are circular:

I don't know whether any one of the journalists in the image above is John Wendle. The ones above seem to have arrived on the 18th/19th in co-ordination with the OSCE crew, but Wendle speaks as though he was there on the 17th, wherefore, if he was telling the truth, we'd expect him there in some of these images under discussion.

Here's a better shot of the curved ribs showing the other object too, what appears to be a ripped-out part of the floor:

The larger item can be seen, in the Ria-Novosti image below, to be the rear tip of the rear-side fuselage, which I will call the tail. At first, I thought it could be the cockpit, but certain details deny this option. There is just one electrical pole in this picture, and I'll call it the one across from the tail. An image will be shown soon with the debris field to hat I think is the pole's immediate right. The dark strip in the picture is not part of a debris field, but bushes/trees. The white strip can be seen, on close-up, to be a row of buildings in the distance, and the dark strip of trees is yet further away. There will be a question on whether this image could be doctored, as the dangling electrical wires (from the pole) may indicate. Do a close-up of the pole and see the wires no longer strung toward the adjacent pole beside the body-bags bush. We can see the wires dangling toward the ground. Are we to believe that the wires were knocked out when the tail piece came flying / bouncing / rolling across the street? Apparently, yes.

In the AP image below, the one end of the tail piece can be seen somewhat. The road is wet, but no one shows evidence of becoming wet from the rain. The dark bush in the top right, a little down the street, is the bush beside the body bags. The man (Alexander Hug) with both hands in his pockets is said to be a "deputy chief monitor" of OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe). The spot where the body bags lay, or will soon lay, is obscured.

The tail is in another image below, with the OSCE deputy standing there again. The internal area of the tail's end can be seen clearly, betraying to us that this is not a part of a large fuselage through which people can pass. Of the full span of a fuselage from nose cone to tail tip that could have fallen here, what are the chances that the very tail piece would fall here...and end up STANDING UPRIGHT precisely on the road's shoulder (actually, it's probably upside-down, but still more upright as opposed to lying on its side)? Forget it. You understand that choosing to use a fuselage section some 16 feet in diameter is difficult (to cut and handle), and, besides, it's risky to truck it in, for it would need to be on an open, flat-bed truck, very visible to passers by, even if draped with tarps. On the other hand, the tail piece is probably small enough, all round, to fit tucked into a truck with side walls, making it non-visible to passers-by.

Below is how large the tail piece should be in relation to the cockpit or the rest of the fuselage. This photo is of the plane that crashed in the Ukraine:

To help prove that the body bags were not on the road's shoulder until after the skies started to clear up, the image below shows the dark bush again (above a camera tripod), with no body bags beside it. The road is wet. Therefore, all the body bags in the body-bag image were collected after the tripod image was taken, and yet, in the body-bags image, we can clearly see all three electrical wires strung up normally between the bush and the pole across from the tail. Either the owners of the Ria-Novosti image doctored it to make the wires appear knocked down, or the owners of the body-bags image (EPA) was fabricated to make it appear as though the wires were not knocked down. We can clearly see in this image below that there is no debris field directly beside the bush and under the electrical poles, but we are not quite able to use it to verify whether the dark strip in the Ria-Novosti image is a debris field.

If you have your bearings right, the tripod is across the road from the tail, though it's at a distance of one electrical pole UP the street. Perhaps for a reason, the tail piece has been deliberately obscured by all the observers on the road. The tail has definitely been exposed by certain details to be situated between the bush and the tripod, for the body-bags image shows the tail about one electrical pole up the road, while the tripod is two poles up. Did you see the other problem? In the body-bags image, there is one set of dark poles only, but in the tripod image, there are two sets of poles, one dark and one light, yet the scene is identical. Who's trying to fool us, and why?

In the tripod image, there are wires strung up normally from the pole near the tripod to the pole across from the tail, meaning that there are no wires down between the bush and the tripod, a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to the Ria-Novosti image. A person seeing these things is compelled to think that these images are showing two different spots. A third alternative is that men took the wires down in the middle of the day, after the tripod and body-bags images were taken, but this unreasonable unless one can think up a reason for doing so.

As the lighter posts have no electrical wires, a good guess is that someone pasted them into the tripod image to convince us that the scene is not the same as the body-bag scene. In the tripod image, spot the man in jeans closest to the woman, for he is seen at the tail, tending to prove that we are NOT seeing two different locations, but that the tail is indeed across from the tripod while the body bags were indeed down from the tripod. Let's call this man, the black-shirt man, for he is about to appear in a controversial picture that provides yet a third case of doctoring. Someone has doctored some images to keep us from knowing something, and I think (for the moment) they want to conceal the tripod area as being across from the tail. Moreover, they don't want us to know that there is a debris field off the picture to out right of the tripod.

Look to the white debris to the right of the tripod, and note the short grass in that area...where insider people walked in to set up the debris field. At the far right of some white debris, a dark part can be seen that is likely the start of a burned-out debris field. How many burned out debris fields could there be? We are about to see the black-shirt man standing in this same spot, near the right side of the white debris, with a burned-out debris field amply visible.

The fakers have a major problem here, for the AP image shows the tail piece and the body-bags bush, only this time the bush is shown with both the dark and light electrical poles. Is someone trying to deny us from viewing the bush as the body-bag bush? The crooked pole at the bush has wires extending normally up the street to the pole across from the tail (whereas the Ria-Novosti image does not have these wires strung up). The black-shirt man is in this AP image, standing at the tail piece, wherefore it's some evidence that the tripod is across from the tail. At least, it's not likely that the tripod scene is at a different location altogether. He and the deputy are looking toward the debris field with what looks like dismay / disappointment on their faces.

The bush in the AP image MUST BY FORCE be the body-bags bush because the body-bags image itself shows no bush between the body-bags bush and the tail piece. Therefore, it is A FACT that the AP image is the same setting as the body-bags image, and yet the lighter posts are not in the body-bags image. In the AP image, the dark post extending out the top of the bush is very cooked, but it's not crooked in the tripod image. I would argue that the doctoring is on the part of the one (i.e. AP) providing the crooked post. The possibility is, once again, to deny us the view that the tail is across from the tripod...and yet both the AP and tripod images share the dark-and-light-post combination. This is a mess for the photo doctors.

To put it another way, the insiders may not have wanted us to know that the body-bags bush is in the tripod image. I have compared the bush in the tripod image, again and again, with the bush in the stuffed-animal image below, and have concluded that it's the same bush. As with the tripod image, the stuffed-animal image has the dark-and-light pole combination, which argues for equating the bush in both images, thus tending to prove that the bush in the tripod image is the body-bags bush, and, consequently, that the tripod is across from the tail.

A soldier holds a stuffed animal beside three other rebel fighters, apparently denying entry into the debris field to his right. The black rod on an angle, coming off the left hand of the bald fighter, may be one of the tripod legs. One can make out that the man holding the animal stands at the white debits beside the tripod of the tripod image. From the road edge, all the way down to where he stands and beyond, the grass is short, as when people drive and walk on it plenty, to plant debris. There must be a major debris field off to the picture's right, since, after all, the tail is across the road. That is, the fakers would have been sure to have a debris field where the tail came crashing down. Don't you think?

The tripod image shows a row of dark-green trees cutting across the body-bags bush. The debris field is to the right (off camera again) of these four fighters. They are standing in the path leading into the burned-out debris field. However, the caption for the tripod image, from the Daily-Mail article that I got it from, reads, "The officials took photos of fallen debris, including a Apple Mac laptop left virtually intact." Who are they taking for fools? The heap consists mainly of typical baggage, which, along with the computer, suggests that the insiders plotted to have part of the fuselage land here, tending to explain the tail across the road.

The bald soldier can be seen in the convoy image below. At the Daily-Mail article (link further below), the caption to this image reads: "Mission: A convoy of vehicles arrive with the European observers, surrounded by armed militiamen." There is evidence, to be presented below, that the fighters did not allow the European observers into the debris field, not at all meaning necessarily that the rebels faked this debris field.

The vehicles are parked facing up the street toward the stuffed-animal scene, and two of the vehicles show "OSCE" on the side, though in the Russian alphabet. The road is still wet without dry spots (one can see some of these vehicles in the stuffed-Animal image). The vehicles are lined up as far as some major "potting" (= hole damage) in the pavement, and therefore the vehicles are parked beyond the body-bags bush (there are no pots in the body-bag image). In all photos, the bush can be gleaned to be where the road stops declining, just before it begins to go uphill.

By the way, I did not see anything, in any of the images above, or others at Daily Mail, that remotely looks like the object presented to the world by John Wendle. Nor do I see any photos with "ABC" stamped upon them.

So, if there is a major debris field to the right of the tripod, where are the photos of it? Well, for one, I think that ITAR-TASS took one. There are no light-colored poles visible in the picture, just the dark poles, though it's debatable as to whether the light ones are slightly off-camera.

Behind the OSCE deputy (the same one shown earlier), the grass is short, and in that short grass, I can see the tip of a white line of debris where I think the soldier was standing who was holding the stuffed animal. But, in his image, there are light-colored poles. Note how small the debris field is, and that it does not extend further down than the pole that is itself one pole up the road from the tail. This particular positioning between the tail and the debris field will become an issue later to help prove fakery. I don't have any other Itar-Tass pictures at this point, and so note that this, the only picture I've got of the debris field across from the tail, is from a news source owned by the Russian government. The Russians are showing us the debris field that the Western media are denying us, so far as I can tell.

As the OSCE deputy is in several images of the tail, it's not likely that this ITAR-TASS image is on another street or on another day (I saved this and other Daily-Mail images on the 19th, the date of the Daily-Mail article). The clouds in the Itar-Tass image are essentially identical to those in the images where the deputy stands at the tail piece. But the commonalities don't stop there.

In the AP image, the woman can be seen (beside the OSCE deputy) that is also in the Itar-Tass image. Across the road of the AP image, one can make out a short piece of what looks like police tape, used to keep people out of a zone. The Itar-Tass image shows identical (red-and-white) tape vividly, definitely to keep people from entering the debris field. The tape across from the tail can be seen clearly at the left side of the Ria Novosti image. This particular tape seems to be for the purpose of keeping people away from the downed electric wires.

BIG POINT. Although the tape across from the tail does not extend up the street beyond the pole to the front of the tail, yet one can realize that this tape section is right beside -- one pole away -- from the tape section in front of the debris field, for one can spot the white houses of Rozsypne in both images. I have done close-ups of both the Itar-Tass and Ria Novosti images to verify beyond doubt that the strip of houses are identical, and moreover both images include a long, white building above the tree line.

There's more commonality yet, though the paragraph above is sufficiently convincing that you can skip this paragraph. In either the stuffed-animal image (by AP again) or the tripod image (AP again), one can see a row of dark trees on the horizon. Below this strip of trees, there is a strip of dark-green field, and below that field there is a lighter, goldish field in which the electrical poles are situated. Between the gold and green fields, there are some sporadic bushes. All of these things are also seen behind the OSCE deputy in the Itar-Tass image, which makes sense if the two scenes are the same setting. As in the tripod image, the strip of trees at the horizon becomes thinner toward the small village in the distance (Daily Mail says it's Rasssypnoye / Rozsypne). In both images, the green field becomes larger toward the village.

THEREFORE, the tail is indeed directly beside the Itar-Tass debris field. It is a burned field, apparently, but has nothing within it to prove that a 777 crashed there. Without jet fuel involved, crashing plane debris cannot ignite. How can there be such a small burned-out debris field here while wings are not shown to us? Where is the strip of plowed dirt expected of a crash landing? Wouldn't the media people want to show us such things as priorities? Yet, this debris field seems off-limits to our viewing, and was shown only for a special reason: apparently to show the disappointment on the faces of the three European observers standing at the tape.

Below is a debris field taken by Reuters that might be the one in the Itar-Tass shot, but this in not conclusive at all.

On the Public-Relations War

The Russians have made a good point:

"It was stated that U.S. technical intelligence data and satellite photography confirmed that the missile was launched from the territory controlled by the rebels. Question: Where are these data?" Antonov said in an interview with Russia 24 TV channel.

If the Americans are going to publicly accuse Russia, or even the tiniest, least-significant people group, that it launched a missile that downed a 300-man jetliner, then the Americans had best release their evidence for all to see. But even if the missile was launched from rebel territory, it happens that the Ukrainians are legally permitted in that land. There are many pro-Ukrainians in rebel-held areas. It proves nothing even if the missile did come from rebel-held lands. The Ukrainians are able to fly into rebel-held lands without anyone's permission. It's their country.

Fox news can be expected to push the military agenda, which, according to me from last week, is to ruin Putin's reputation because the world is starting to respect him in regards to the Ukraine, Iraq, and even Israeli situation. Here's a Fox headline that speaks exactly what I hear the military saying: "Putin: Peacebroker in Mideast or international con man?"

There would be no genuine black boxes if the flight did not come down. Or, the multiple debris fields could include at least one real site where a plane actually crashed. Either way, it serves to reveal that the U.S. military is complicit, if not the originator, of this mass murder. The motive: a political tarnishing of Putin and his Russian fighters. A group can't get lower than that. Hell was prepared for such as these.

On July 19th, the rebels claimed to have possession of the black boxes, saying that they're prepared to hand them over to the International Civil Aviation Organization (a UN body). In a CBS article sharing that item, we also read a tarnishing of the rebel side rather than praise for handing the boxes over: "Associated Press journalists saw reeking bodies baking in the summer heat Saturday [July 19], piled into body bags by the side of the road or still sprawled where they landed in the verdant farmland in eastern Ukraine after their plane was shot out of the sky. By Sunday morning, AP journalists saw no bodies and no armed rebels at the crash site." In just two days, the rebels were prepared to hand over the boxes, but CBS didn't comment on how that makes them appear innocent.

The article claims that the rebels refused to let the "emergency workers" have the bodies (I think that's true), and that the rebels are keeping them in a cooled condition until Malaysian authorities arrive to assess them. It sounds like the emergency workers (the ones in blue carrying the bodies, I assume) were not working for the rebels, but below you will see the rebels using a phrase, "our emergency teams." As AP is suspect in pasting the light electrical poles into their images, or at least purchasing / selling the photos in a tampered condition, it's important that AP was exaggerating when saying that the bodies were "baking," as though out in the sun, for, as we saw, there was little sun the day that the body bags were set at the road. According to the page below, the highest temperature on the 19th reached no more than about 24 C, a little more than 75 F. "Bake" is not the correct word. It's a media onslaught, isn't it, of a kind that will one day come to anti-Christ-rejecting Christians everywhere.

Moreover, AP gave the impression of seeing bodies collected out in the fields, yet there is something wrong with that picture too, if the area being referred to is the one at the tripod / tail. How do bodies get scattered in the field if the site was faked? What a gruesome picture, of the fakers planting dead bodies for to fake the passengers. It was someone at AP who reported the claim of the rebels that corpses were used to fake the passengers. Didn't everyone at AP take that seriously? Didn't AP witness the standing-upright tail on the shoulder? Hello? Why is AP a willing partner with the mass murderers?

It's been my opinion that the Russian government has decided time and again not to come out to accuse the U.S. openly for conducting false-flag operations. The strategy helps the Russians to "act dumb" and learn the goals and tactics. This time, however, when the case goes right to Putin, we might see something of an expose. Eventually, the Russians may decide to come clean with all their evidence for all false-flags events, but then perhaps they do a few of their own too that they don't want the Americans to expose.

Russian media report two scenarios for the handing over of the black boxes. Just think of how great the possibility is that the pilots said something on the way down that proved the attack to be from the rebels or Russians. Do you think that either group would be so willing to give the black boxes up so soon?

Having arrived in Donetsk, the group of Malaysian experts decided to go to the east of the region, in the area of the crash site near the town of Torez, where they were to inspect the train with the dead bodies. Halfway, the Malaysians witnessed the air raid of the Ukrainian aviation: the aircraft bombed the road from Donetsk; a car that was traveling on the road was burnt in the attack.

Afterwards, the Malaysians decided to return to Donetsk, where the Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk Republic, Alexander Boroday, handed over flight recorders from the crashed plane to the experts. The train loaded with the bodies of the victims [no number given] of the crash arrived in the city later.

This morning, July 22nd, the Malaysian experts will make another attempt to go to the Boeing crash site.

From Ria Novosti:

The Moscow-based Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) said [July 23] its expert will take part in retrieving and deciphering data from black boxes of the crashed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 plane.

"On 22 July 2014 an official representative of IAC joined the work of international commission on the investigation of the incident with Boeing 777 aircraft which was established after the adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution and will participate in the reading of flight recorders "black boxes" data in the UK," the IAC statement says.

...Earlier in the day, MH17 black boxes were delivered to the United Kingdom, where they will be studied by Air Accidents Investigation Branch experts in Farnborough. It's one of the two labs in Europe that can extract data from flight recorders. The second one is located in Italy. According to the UK officials, the deciphering process may take about two days.

...On Monday, the Russian military presented information that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter had been gaining altitude in the direction of the Malaysian plane prior to the catastrophe.

It figures. I was half-expecting it: the Russians cannot read the black boxes. They were made to be read only by certain organizations, and one of them is the British one that partook in providing a fake crash site for Malaysian Airlines flight 370. It gives the British great power over the interpretation of plane crashes, especially if the recordings can be altered prior to release to an oversight committee. Wikipedia's article on flight 17: "Australia sent a 45-member panel headed by former Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, who had earlier supervised the MH 370 probe." It figures.

It looks like the Malaysians got the boxes first, and then had them transferred to Britain. Prior to handing the boxes over, the rebels may have been happy to see Russia negotiate its involvement in the oversight committee. The boxes eventually made their way to the Dutch, who said that the boxes were not tampered with.

It's beginning to appear that flight 17 did crash in the Ukraine, and yet the crash site cannot be where a tail is standing upright. What can we make of this? Why were OSCE people sent to a faked site? Were they there to retrieve faked black boxes, wherefore the recordings upon them needed to be faked...a thing that seems too difficult to get away with, but not impossible. If it's reported that the boxes came from the standing-tail site, I'll know they were planted, and that a wicked conspiracy "recorded" them. It would shed new light on how false-flaggers from the West conduct their plane-crash operations.

Am I rushing too fast to conclusions by pegging the West for creating the faked crash sites? I don't think so. If the rebels downed the plane, and especially with Russia's assistance, I doubt very much that they would so much as admit to having the black boxes. It would be easy to claim that they simply don't know where the boxes fell. They would not have allowed anyone into any debris site until they had secured the boxes. This handing of the boxes over so soon is a very strong argument on behalf of the rebels not downing the plane or faking the debris fields, but it's not the end of the evidence on their behalf.

Shortly after 6 m, July 20, I found the following updates at Wikipedia's article on flight 17. Look at how quickly the rebels announced their possession of the black boxes, and, under the circumstances, note that the rebels, rather than OSCE, likely found the boxes to begin with:

However, during first two days of investigation [assume 18th and 19th], the militants prevented OSCE and other international observers from freely working at the crash site. According to Ukrainian government [can we trust this?], the separatists are destroying all evidence of the crime "with the help of Russia", including moving 38 bodies to Donetsk. Andre Purgin, a leader of the Donetsk People's Republic, declared later that "we will guarantee the safety of international experts on the scene as soon as Kiev concludes a ceasefire agreement", meaning that victims' bodies and other evidence will be used as bargaining chip.

...On 18 July it was reported that the flight recorder was in the hands of the separatists. On the same day, the head of Donetsk Regional State Administration, Kostiantyn Batozky, stated, "Two black boxes have been founded {sic} by our emergency teams. I don't have any information as to where these boxes are at the moment". Rebels said later that two boxes were moved to Donetsk.

Where it says, "two black boxes have been founded by our emergency teams," it's likely because the OSCE people were not permitted to go in and seek them. If I recall correctly, black boxes are kept in the tail of a passenger jet to minimize damage from a crash, but I've yet to see, in any debris field, what looks like the tail, nor have I read where the tail landed. If there is some monkey business going on with the black boxes, we may never hear where exactly the tail or the boxes landed. However, Russia knows that the standing-tail site was faked, because the rebels know it, and Russia also knows where the rebels found the boxes. If they were found at the standing-tail site, the Russians will wield some great power against the West and the Ukraine. The Russians may decide to use that power while remaining hush concerning a global exposure of the hoax. That is, blackmail: in return for some concessions from the West, the Russians will remain hush.

My conclusion: at least some of the debris fields were faked. At first, I thought that the only side which could fake them, inside rebel territory, was the rebel side. I was asking whether they did it to try to pin a disaster on the Ukrainian fighters. But that initial thought proved nuts because the rebels could not fake a crash of a plane with a departure in Holland. I had to re-figure that the Ukrainians could plant the evidence in rebel territory, probably after midnight, without being caught. And that's the scenario that I'm sticking to, that Western powers conspired with Ukrainians to conjure up and plant evidence. If the bodies prove to be those on flight 17 (very likely), I will accuse the West and the Ukrainians of mass murder in the first degree.

Some of the images I used to this point were from the Daily-Mail article below (= Western propaganda). The OSCE deputy can be seen in multiple pictures near the tail piece, at times with hands in his pockets. He was apparently waiting to be allowed into the debris field across the road, but, according to Wikipedia, he was not allowed, fully expected if the rebels realized that this was a faked debris field. Later, we saw him standing at the red-and-white tape that again suggests his inability to enter. It was Itar-Tass, a Russian state media, that took the picture with that tape, showing that Russia is not opposed to showing the OSCE people being mistreated by the rebels.

Take a look once again at the Itar-Tass image, noting that the electric wires are strung from the visible pole to the pole (out of the picture) in front of the tail. Then see this Ria Novosti image again, with the electrical wires downed and dangling at the pole in front of the tail. A straight line from the tail piece to the debris field does not cross the area where the wires are collapsed. A straight line from the tail to the debris field goes to the right of the pole with dangling wires, where the wires are still strung up. Therefore, why didn't the fakers take down the wires to the right of this pole rather than to its left? What are we supposed to think was the cause of the downed wires if not the tail piece crossing the street? But the way they have the wires down, the tail piece would need to take a drastic curve (i.e. a near-90-degree angle) in getting to its final position.

However, we have yet to know whether the wires were downed or not, for the body-bags picture (EPA) does not show them down. Should we trust Itar-Tass' picture for the reality? Did EPA make the wires appear connected normally to deny viewers the reality that this Itar-Tass debris field is the one at the body bags and tail site??? What motive would there be for such a denial? For one thing, the downed wires are wrong. Secondly, there is no hole in the ground seen in the debris field; it doesn't appear that a jumbo jet crashed there, and especially not with a steep nose dive.

Or, does Ria Novosti have cause to doctor an image by fabricating collapsed electrical wires when in fact no wires were downed? I can't see a motive. It would be dangerous for a Russian media to fake such a thing because the locals and other Russian media would know that no wires were downed.

It's possible that the wires to the left of the pole were downed because the truck, with built-in crane, was parked there in dropping off the tail piece, wherefore, in a hasty or thoughtless move in the night, the plotters could have decided to ask the crane operator to pull the wires there, rather than moving the truck one pole up the street to do it. Or, the crane swung around and accidentally took the wires down, perhaps not seeing them in the night.

PROBLEM. The body-bags image shows no wires, that I can see on close-up, up the street from the pole to the front of the tail. If this is correct (the alternative is that the wires are strung normally but not visible), it is in contradiction to the Itar-Tass wire situation. The body-bags image seems to have adjusted the wire situation to allow the cockpit to knock the wires down logically. That is, the body-bags image seems to have doctored the image to correct the situation. The body-bags image is by the European Pressphoto Agency, a Dutch company to boot.

As the Itar-Tass debris field has nothing resembling a cockpit, fuselage, nose cone, or wing, how can we explain a tail piece landing at this site? The Western media has arranged to tackle this question by doctoring images for the purpose of denying us the ability to argue that the tail came down across from the Itar-Tass debris field.

The Itar-Tass image is cropped sufficiently that a viewer cannot know / argue whether the lighter-colored poles are, or are not, at that scene. It's possible that the lighter poles were at the site in reality, but that they were "rubbed out" from the body-bags image.

The body-bags image has two posts connected at their tops, standing in an inverted v-shape. These two posts are midway between the tail and the next post up the road (the pole at the tripod). Now see another image (with baggage on the ground that looks plopped from two-feet high) that seems to expose that the v-shape was doctored, for in the image below, one of the two poles (extreme top right) stands perfectly vertical, while in the body-bags image, neither pole stands perfectly vertical. It's as though someone is attempting to deny us a reality. What don't they want us to be capable of proving?

Note that while the road seems to have a slight shine, and a dark coloring indicating an image taken after some rain, none of the luggage / baggage appears wet. Pasted baggage? A paste job can render viewers incapable of equating one scene with another. It is very clear to me that the baggage image above is showing the spot where the tripod, and the soldier with stuffed animal, were standing, for the tufts of grass near the road, and the shape, look identical. The baggage is not the same as in the stuffed-animal image (though at the lower-right of the latter image, a black bag with something red/burgundy on top can be seen, as with the baggage image). Do a close-up of the baggage image to see that none of the bags have damage, or even dirt or mud smudges, from poundings and rolling and bouncing after crashing at 100's of mph. Don't be a ninny; this crash site was faked. Look at how clean the white bag is while sitting next to a burned-out site.

As expected if the tail stood across the road from the stuffed-animal scene, the horizon in the baggage image looks to be identical with the right side of this alternative tail image; half the horizon without a strip of trees is cropped out in the baggage image, thus denying us the ability to equate the two scenes with complete confidence. The point is, the tail is indeed at the baggage-image scene, but off the right of the camera, and the double-pole v-shape was changed to deny us the ability to prove it. If the v-shape was not changed, but rather if it the double pole was simply cropped out, then one could yet argue that the tail was off the right of the picture, but by changing the v-shape, one has difficulty making that argument. The baggage image is stamped with "AP."

Wikipedia, after telling that the rebels were handling 38 bodies, goes on: "181 bodies had been found as of 18 July." Where did this high number of bodies come from, if not from other debris fields on different roads? In that case, why does Wikipedia use "the crash site" instead of plural sites? Is the tail site "the crash site"? We may never know if it depends on Western information.

Another Daily-Mail page says that Ria-Novosti reported the crash six minutes earlier than it happened, but, the question is, which crash site was Ria-Novosti reporting on? Suppose that the Ukrainians lit one or more debris fields six minutes before flight 17 crashed? That could make Ria-Novosti innocent of any accusations. It has got to be true that fuel was spread over the faked sites, and lit.

Below, see another debris field (AFP Getty Images) that I cannot match with any other. The background is a tall, green grass rather than goldish. The caption (by Daily Mail) reads, "Grim: Bodies lie strewn among the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a day after it was shot down over pro-Russian rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine". Bodies have been blurred out, tending to indicate that we have not seen this debris field, or at least this part of a field, in any image shown above. How many fields were there?

Wikipedia: "17 July 2014: An unnamed Associated Press journalist saw a Buk launcher in Snizhne, a town in the Donetsk Oblast, approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) southeast of the crash site. The reporter also saw seven rebel tanks at a filling station near the town." The accusations are nothing short of heavy-duty. If the anonymous AP reporter is lying, expect AP to be playing a crucial role with the insiders. Many other media, including some big ones, get their news from AP, the pied piper of global news.

Below is a night-time view (on the 17th) of the debris field that I showed first of all when starting this section. The one below has small flames burning, and a lot more debris that went missing by the time the two ladies visited the site on before the 19th. The rebels must have collected some of that debris (there are multiple different reasons for doing so). The photo happens to be owned by Dmitry Lovetsky of AP. Was Lovetsky at the site on the evening of the 17th / morning of the 18th? The caption reads, in part: "People walk amongst the debris, at the crash site of a passenger plane near the village of Grabovo, Ukraine."

Is this particular field in Grabovo where the bulk of the bodies were found, and is this where the black boxes were retrieved? Why is there not more than one crash site on this map? We saw an engine supposedly landed "near the town of Shaktarsk," more than five miles from the Grabovo/Hrabovo crash site. Does that work? Not very well, for the plane was flying south-east from Holland, and so if we are to believe that the engine was shot clear off the plane (by the missile) at Shaktarsk, how did the rest of the plane get a few miles north-east (to Grabovo) rather than further along in a south-east direction?

I have not to this point confirmed where the tail site is as regards the closest village, but as the village of Rasssypnoye / Rozsypne is visible in the Itar-Tass image, and as I think this image is across the road from the tail, that was my best shot at locating the tail. With this in mind, see this story that centers the plane crash smack on Rozsypne:

Rozsypne, Ukraine - First came the loud explosion that made buildings rattle: then it started raining bodies.

One of the corpses fell through the rickety roof of Irina Tipunova's house in this sleepy village...

"There was a howling noise and everything started to rattle. Then objects started falling out of the sky," the 65-year-old pensioner said in front of her grey-brick home.

...About 100 meters (330 feet) from Tipunova's home, dozens more dead bodies lay in the wheat fields...

...Another local resident in her 20s who refused to give her name said she ran outside after hearing the plane explode. "I opened the door and I saw people falling. One fell in my vegetable patch," she said.

It was not only bodies that fell from the sky. Chunks of metal, pieces of luggage and other debris came crashing down to the ground in this agricultural area about 40 km (25 miles) from the border with Russia.

The front of the plane fell in a field of sunflowers about one km (1000 yards) from Tipunova's home. Debris, bodies and body parts were scattered for miles around.

...Some of the corpses have been wrapped in almost transparent plastic sheets, the corners held down with small mounds of soil or stones [i.e. not the body bags]...

Among the dead were many women and children, including a boy of about 10 still lying beside the cockpit, his small body covered by a plastic sheet.

Let's talk about the first sentence, "First came the loud explosion that made buildings rattle: then it started raining bodies." This explosion could not have been the missile impact 33,000 feet up, for bodies falling out at the initial missile strike, from that height, would not fall anywhere near the crash site on the ground. We either decide that this verbal "evidence / testimony" has been faked by Ukrainian insiders, or that another explosion took place close enough to the homes to rattle them. In that case, we could expect either a bomb on board, a second missile strike, or one or two wings exploding due to fire from the initial missile strike. If the latter was the fact, then we need to expect that the plane was on fire as it came down. I don't have a television to know whether any video has come out showing the plane in its last moments of flight, whether it was aflame or not.

"Chunks of metal, pieces of luggage and other debris came crashing down to the ground in this agricultural area about 40 km (25 miles) from the border with Russia." Falling chunks of metal require a huge explosion, and such an explosion can explain a tail piece all alone...though it cannot explain a tail piece standing upright exactly on the shoulder of a road. For that, we need the luck of a lottery winner or the crane of a truck. We saw no marks on the ground where that tail piece rolled and bounced to the shoulder. If the tail rolled to the shoulder, the media photos would have been sure to show the "footsteps" of the tail.

The article above goes on to mention what could be the two make-shift buildings, although I've read that there were four of them altogether:

In an effort to clean up some of the carnage, body parts have been washed off the pot-holed road where they fell to the earth, along with parts of the fuselage and wings showing the red and blue Malaysia Airlines logo.

Emergency workers, few in numbers on [July 17], had arrived in force by [July 18], setting up base in two large tents. Journalists and local residents wandered largely unimpeded through the ashes and charred wreckage.

This seems an exaggeration, for we didn't see many emergency workers "in force" in the images. The idea that many bodies were on the road but washed off may explain the wet road, but the weather website I shared did show rain forecast at that time from about noon onward. I don't have enough information to comment further on this aspect.

Below is what appears to be more a part of a wing than a tail section. It if was a tail piece, it should have the same shape on both sides, and yet it looks flatter on one side, more typical of a wing. The piece lies in a burned-out area that I have not seen in any other image. The tall, white grass is of the type seen in the tail image shortly above.

Even if the plane is still 3,000 feet up, it will travel a lot further ahead than the bodies if the bodies fell out at 3,000 feet. Did it glide from 33,000 feet to a low altitude, or did it end up in a significant nose dive? Why didn't the witnesses comment on the details of the plane if indeed they saw bodies falling out? Perhaps they did, but I haven't yet found the comments in the media. Is there something that we are not supposed to know about the condition of the plane over Rozsypne?

On July 21, from Kiev, came the report that "Rescue workers...have recovered a total of 282 bodies out of the 298...Yatsenyuk [Ukrainian prime minister] said...810 workers were combing through the wreckage of the crashed Malaysian plane, including 355 from the government service for emergency situations. Search parties are scouring an area of 120 square kilometers around the plane crash site." The photos I shared above did not suggest anything like 810 + 355 workers. Where were they all??? Is this a complete fabrication to make it appear that so many bodies could be found so soon? Where were the bodies really? It seems certain that most of them were not at the standing-tail site.

On July 22: "Dutch officials noted that rebels had said that the train was carrying 282 bodies but that a hard count showed only 200 on board, the BBC reported. They had no immediate explanation for the discrepancy." Perhaps there never were 295 on board; perhaps the West had purposely exaggerated the number of passengers, and is now blaming their disappearance on the rebels. The article from which this statement is taken has a claim from an OSCE agent, saying: "The rear part of the aircraft, one of the biggest intact pieces, has definitely been hacked into." It's one of the biggest probably due to the great disintegration of the plane by whatever struck it, and because this tail piece was one of the few pieces trucked in that was never from flight 17.

To explain the absence of plane parts, the same article makes a typical accusation:

International monitors who gained full access to the Malaysia Airlines crash site in eastern Ukraine said [July 22] the Boeing 777's cockpit inexplicably had been sawed in half while under the control of Russian-backed separates.

The monitors said large parts of the cockpit -- and every part of the fuselage -- were carried off. They said they are not sure why such vital pieces of evidence from the downed plane were tampered with.

..."All of which begs the question: What are they trying to hide?"

To the contrary, what are the rebels trying to FIND? They are looking for evidence to prove that the West shot down the plane and faked at least one debris field. If the rebels shot down the plane, there would be no reason to carry away the plane parts, as any missile they may have used could have been used by the Ukraine. The discovery of missile damage on the plane can prove nothing as to who shot the missiles. If the rebels wanted to keep anything from the West, if the rebels were guilty, it would have been the black boxes. To carry away plane parts is highly suspicious, and so I say the rebels would not have done so if they had shot the plane down.

Wikipedia: "The plane crashed outside Hrabove, near Torez in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast. The moment at which a fireball rose due to the impact was captured on a video clip." Here's the video; no plane is visible, just a fireball in the distance, proves nothing:

Wikipedia's article on this flight shows no plane in flight, but it does show the same plane on an airstrip in October of 2011. The red stripe is beside a blue stripe, with the blue between the red and the white, but the tail piece near Rozsypne has no blue stripe below the red. At the tail of the Wikipedia picture, there is no blue stripe, however, suggesting strongly that the piece on the road's shoulder is indeed the tail piece.

It wasn't until writing down here that the July-18 article below was found. The date verifies that the OSCE team, and the bulk of photos at the standing-tail area were there on the 18th.

About 30 officials, mostly from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, arrived at the crash site between the villages of Rozsypne and Hrabove, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the Russian border.

The rebels allowed the team to perform a very partial and superficial inspection. While the delegation was leaving under orders from the armed overseers, two Ukrainian members lingered to look at a fragment of the plane by a roadside, only for a militiaman to fire a warning shot in the air with his Kalashnikov.

The above tends to verify that the CRASH SITE is where the tail -- the "fragment of the plane by a roadside" -- was standing. We now know, also, that the tail was BETWEEN Hrabovo and Rozsypne, tending to locate Rozsypne on the south side of the tail piece. Therefore, the Itar-Tass image is looking at least somewhat to the south when Rozsypne is in the background. See map again:

At the map below, we find Rozsypne somewhat between Hrabovo and Shaktarsk (shown, extreme lower-left). That is, Rozsypne is about two miles south-west (more west than south) of Hrabovo. In its post-missile descent, the plane was supposedly moving northeast, well off its normal southeast flight path to Malaysia, and it supposedly crashed while flying east AWAY from Rozsypne. Fine. In the Itar-Tass image, the debris field lies between the tail and Rozsypne, meaning that the plane, according to this fact, was moving further AWAY from Rozsypne rather than nearer to it. Fine, we have consistency thus far. However, the Itar-Tass scenario places the debris field on the WEST SIDE of the road...with the tail rolling to the east side.

BUT the map with the red starburst has the debris field on the EAST SIDE of the road. Yes, if one does a close-up of the map above with red starburst, a small white road can be seen marked in black print to the southwest of the starburst (this road is on the other map too). The road goes east toward the starburst, and then turns north (into Hrabovo) when passing by the LEFT = WEST side of the starburst, meaning that the crash site is, on this map, on the EAST side of the road.

One may argue that, perhaps, the providers of the map put the starburst on the wrong side of the road. Case closed. But the case is not yet closed because the Itar-Tass camera is pointed south west in the very line that the plane supposedly took (i.e. the plane flew toward this camera), for which reason the tail is supposed to be further UP (more north of) the street, and yet the tail is one electrical pole DOWN (more south of) the street. This is likely the reason the we never see the tail together with the debris field, as if all the media were avoiding this like the plague, for the stooges of the plotters parked the tail in the wrong place, or else created the debris field in the wrong place. Either way, the plane did not crash down at the standing-tail location; we are being lied to with a not-so-well-orchestrated fabrication. The plane came down elsewhere.

The final moments of the flight, well off of its normal flight path, and in a straight-ish line from Shaktarsk to Hrabovo, suggests that the pilots were in control of the plane to the best of their ability, as opposed to a plane operating in total chaos due to extensive wing damage. Apparently, we are to believe that the pilots turned the plane in order to avoid the missile-launch location shown on the map.

With the tail situated between the neighborhoods of Rozsypne and Hrabovo, how did the Ukrainian side get away with faking a debris field here? First of all, the Itar-Tass debris field looks to have material that a single truck could have brought in. The debris could have been spread by workers within a couple of hours, then lit on fire after the truck had departed. I don't know how many bodies were at this site, but that report of planted corpses makes sense here. The plane did apparently crash nearby, if the eye witnesses are correct in seeing bodies falling from the sky. I find it suspicious, however, that none of the witnesses in the story presented earlier are quoted mentioning the plane's condition / positioning / speed / elevation / direction...just nothing but bodies falling from the sky.

Now that I think the EPA doctored the body-bags image to correct the downed-wire situation, look at another EPA image (taken by Robert Ghement), as presented in an Itar-Tass article of July 25. This is a very good image of the tail-and-wing combination as viewed from the road. However, there is a large burned-out-like area between the road and the tail, and the tail appears to be as many as 15 feet from the road. Yet, in the tail image with the stretcher passing by, one sees green grass at the edge of the road, and the shoulder goes slightly DOWNWARD (typical roadmaking design for rainwater run-off purposes) until it meets the grass; there is no upward slope toward the grass. Yet, in the EPA photo, the dirt at the shoulder goes ABRUPTLY UPHILL to the grass. My impression is that the EPA inserted items to make this look like part of an authentic, burned-out debris field, whereas the reality is that there was no burned-out area on this side of the road.

Or, compare with this tail image where the red item sits, as it does in the tail-stretcher image, on the border between the shoulder and the grass. As that shoulder goes downhill to the red object, one can plainly see NO UPWARD slope of to the tail piece. The small and long white object (looks about a foot long or less) on the shoulder, beside the deputy's pants, can be seen in the same position/location in the tail-stretcher image. More importantly, the long and white large piece of aircraft can be seen extending FLAT from the grass to partially upon the road, but it's not anywhere near on the road in the EPA image.

Or, see how the tail seems to be no more than four feet from the road in this tail image with the masked man. I can only conclude that the plotter circle around the EPA decided it was best to have the tail as far from the road as possible, and looking as authentic as possible for a crash situation, for the sake of people like me who tell you that the thing was dropped off by a truck's crane. Bad, EPA, very bad. I now know that this Dutch company gets involved in false-flag operations.

One might argue that the abrupt slope in the EPA image (disregard the red object in this image) is not at the same place as the red object shown above. True. The EPA slope is a few feet DOWN the road from the other large plane piece (long and white), while the red object is a few feet UP the road from the same piece. But then compare with what you see in a close-up of the body-bags image: a long white object partially on the road, with what seems to be a round cross section. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this shape, and perhaps it was moved off the road later, but, in any case, one can clearly see that the ground under is FLAT as a pancake underneath it. And there is NO SLOPE ANYWHERE toward the tail!

Nor is there a burned-out section, for one can see the green, green grass of reality. If one argues that the burned-out section is underneath the partially-on-the-road object, then the fact yet remains that it's perfectly flat under that object. It's doubtful that the EPA people trucked in some dirt, specially for the EPA photo, after the crash date, and so I'm assuming that the photo has been doctored to provide the slope.

If the image disappears from the ITAR-TASS page, see it from my files:

One long, white object showing well (in the EPA photo) looks like a wing spar. It does not reach above the soldier's hip in height. Below is a wing spar for a Boeing 777 at the factory; it looks to be about the same size as the one at the EPA image:

Next, see how tall the tail is (EPA image) in relation to the soldiers walking past it. As the tail is thus made to appear twice as tall as the men, it provides the conditions for accusing EPA of further doctoring, for the tail is, according to other images, little more than the height of the OSCE deputy; see this tail image, where the camera must be at eye level (or inches lower possibly) from a camera operator on the road i.e. at the same level as the deputy. With a camera at eye level, shooting on a horizontal line past the deputy, the height of the tail can be ascertained. As the top of the tail is at about the level of the deputy's scalp, and as the tail is a few feet only behind him, it is barely higher than six feet. But if the tail s argued to be on higher ground than the road, it must also be argued that it's shorter than the deputy.

Compare the deputy's height again with the tail in this other tail image. If the "top" of the tail were still there, it might be seven feet tall at most. EPA, bad. EPA has liars and reality-shifters on a world-class level.

Put it this way, that if the deputy were to walk uphill to the tail from where he stands on the road, his head would be higher yet when getting there. As it is, his head reaches significantly into the red stripe of the tail, but in the EPA image, the men standing right beside the tail do not reach as high as the red stripe. Keep in mind that the camera angle in the EPA photo is as-though taken from well below the heads of the men; if the camera angle were level with the heads, the heads would be lower yet in comparison to the red stripe.

Look at how distant the far end of the spar (it may not be a spar, but I'll call it that) is from the road, and note the black square shape at its far end, for we see the same in the tail image with the journalists. But the end of the spar is very near the road in the latter image. Plus, we can see the area that is grey or burned-out-like in the EPA image, yet it's green green green as can be in this image, and without all the debris seen in the EPA image. Note what looks like a half-burned piece of cardboard.

We read earlier that the road was washed with water to get rid of the blood, but I didn't take that report seriously. It may have been a way to deny rain that day, seeing that some images showed wet roads but nothing else looking wet. The journalists appear to be on a wet road, yet the road-cleaning truck didn't wipe the debris away that we see at their feet. That's because there was no road-washing truck, was there? As all of the road is wet in various pictures, rather than a spot here and there, one can argue that a typical road-cleaning truck came along, the type that sweeps all dirt away. But the debris still on the wet road suggests no such truck. (I have seen roads dry in less than one hour in the summer).

The Itar-Tass article:

The first reports saying that the plane could have been shot down by the militias appeared in the day of the catastrophe. Ukrainian secret services published an audio recording of the rebels' conversation, where they were allegedly discussing the elimination of the Malaysian Boeing. However, a group of experts studied the recording and drew a conclusion that it was made up of numerous unrelated recordings.

Therefore, if true, the plotters may have fabricated the black-box recordings too. As the article goes on to say, "US intelligence agencies believe that the airliner Malaysian Airlines was shot down 'by mistake' militias who apparently mistook him for a military aircraft," it is made apparent that U.S. Intelligence does not find the Ukrainian audio recording authentic. That is one good reason to suspect faked black-box recordings, especially where the EPA has doctored photos. On July 24, the day after the Russians made their accusations, an article came out telling that an ANONYMOUS "American intelligence official" claims that the voice recordings above are "authentic." But in this case, an anonymous official counts for nothing, and the report needs to be rejected until a known official makes that claim. The article goes on to directly counter the claim of the Russians:

The [American un-named] officials said that the possibility that Ukrainian military forces might have shot down the plane was "not a plausible scenario", because Kiev had "no antiaircraft missile system within range of the Malaysian flight at the time it was struck".

Can we really trust what the Dutch will release as per the black boxes? The public-relations war continues:

Russia's Defense Ministry reported, that the Boeing 777 crash site was within the coverage sector of two S-200 surface-to-air missile systems and three Buk-M1 medium-range surface-to-air missile systems. "Russian radio-technical facilities during July 17 were recording the work of the 9s18 Kupol radar station of the Buk-M1 squadron, stationed in the area of the Styla settlement (30 km south of Donetsk)," the ministry added.

Russian monitoring systems recorded up to 4 Ukrainian Buk M1 air defense systems in the crash area on the day of the accident. The point where the plane was at the time of the accident was within the Buk system's coverage sector. According to Russia's Defense Ministry, Russian air data records indicate that a Ukrainian Su-25 warplane might have been flying towards the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane on the day when it crashed in eastern Ukraine.

Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Department of the Russian Army General Staff, said at a news conference that the Su-25 attack plane can fly at altitudes of up to 10 km. It is armed with P-60 air-to-air missiles that can hit targets at a distance of up to 12 km and reliably within 5 km. Russian military experts support the version that Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25 attack plane.

Mikhailov said he is convinced that the Boeing was not hit by a missile from a Buk air defense system, as the wreckage on the crash site speaks in favor of that version. "A hit by a Buk missile would have produced an instant explosion, which should have resulted in much more damage," noted Mikhailov. According to him, another flying object was detected being near the place of crash for four minutes. The object was barraging over the crash site in order to control the situation.

I don't know what "to control the situation" could mean in military talk, unless it's jargon for doing the dirty deed. Recall the "howling" noise just before the explosion low over Rozsypne. Did the howling come from "another flying object" that was "barraging" for four minutes? What if the barraging craft is the thing that made the loud boom, and moreover dropped the bodies while getting away from the area at supersonic speed? One article said that some 40 bodies were witnessed as falling from the sky. What sort of boom or loud noise causes dozens of bodies to be instantly released from, or cut through, their seat belts?

Not too many weeks ago, I mentioned Rinat Akhmetov, the billionaire mine owner of the Donetsk region. I couldn't conclude whether he was pro-separatist or, as were his claims, pro-Ukraine. The article below thinks he's pro-Ukraine and possibly the motivation behind the involvement, in faking some crash scenes, of the mayors of three communities at the various debris fields. The writer has a good point, I suppose, that the area is ruled invisibly by Akhmetov and his coal businesses. The article has this map of four or five debris fields, three or four of them on the one road (from Rozsypne to Hrabovo) I spoke on earlier in this update.

Think again on how unlikely it is that authentic debris fields should be smack on roads while faked crashes are virtually required on roads. It's hard to see, from the line of debris fields on this map, how an engine fell in Shaktarsk, for the flight path is too east to go over Shaktarsk. Perhaps the latter location was of the real crash site of flight 17. To explain the debris on the roads, one might argue that the pilots were attempting to land the plane on a road, but that doesn't give them the power to make aircraft pieces fall on the roadside without a single skid mark to the final resting position. The insiders might yet feed us such skid marks, in doctored photos, except that the hoax has not been conducted on their territory alone, but also on the land of their mortal enemies, who have seen the truth first-hand regarding the skid marks.

I have noted that not one debris field that I saw was of a far-off shot where the whole debris field can be seen along with the land surrounding it. I did not see one crater formed by the crashing plane. Apparently, the fakers did not bring in a machine capable of disturbing the ground; they merely dumped or plopped items on the ground as-is.

The writer of the article above takes his information from the Wall Street Journal, and includes a photo (below) of a large piece of debris -- a box as many as eight feet long -- stuck in two trees. He gives three clues as to why it has been faked. The first two are at the top: not one branch is whacked out of place above the box, impossible for a box falling at a roughly 100 miles per hour. The third clue is the straightness of the box at its bottom: crashing and coming to a stop in a few feet of tree material, yet retaining its integral shape.

Here is a recent event: "Pro-Russian separatists stand guard outside the house of Rinat Akhmetov in the eastern city of Donetsk May 25, 2014. Scores of armed pro-Russian separatists massed outside the walled home of Ukraine's richest man..." That was just two months ago; it doesn't say whether the rebels are for or against him, though "stand guard" sounds like they are for him. The article has a Reuters photo of the guards outside the billionaire's home. He is reportedly in cahoots with Mafia people. It should not be merely assumed that he's involved in faking the crash, or in tarnishing the rebels due to the crash.

Reuters has the story too, revealing that the rebels are in political opposition against Akhmetov:

...The 47-year-old Akhmetov...was in the capital Kiev when about 200-300 separatists and supporters advanced on his residence, a spokesman said.

...Alexander Boroday, one of the [rebel] leaders of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" said negotiations had begun with Akhmetov and a picket would be maintained outside his residence until there had been a "positive result".

He did not say what demands they were making on the multi-billionaire but earlier separatist representatives said they were insisting he make tax payments into the Donetsk People's Republic's budget, Interfax news agency said.

Some say that he has a secret relationship with the rebels, as could be expected if he's still free / alive. The rebels are seeking his political support. But others are saying that he's in Kiev to hide from the rebels due to throwing his lot in with the Ukrainian government. It is possible that he is the core of the faked-crash event in his hometown area. Mere speculation: his workers could have planted the debris using a truck(s) that the locals see often, that the people would not find suspicious. The map above shows various coal mines in the area of the debris fields.

The Sawed-Off "Cockpit"

Let's go back to a news quote shown above: "The front of the plane fell in a field of sunflowers about one km (1000 yards) from Tipunova's home. Debris, bodies and body parts were scattered for miles around." But in images of the sawn-apart cockpit, it's not in a sunflower patch. Moreover, the cockpit is being shown as the tail piece that I've been talking about.

The image of the sawed cockpit can be seen below as shared by the Huffington Post in an article on the sawn-cockpit story.

See that same "cockpit" as taken by AP, and note two things: 1) the angle of the shot is identical to the one above; 2) the cockpit is once again smack beside a road. In fact, it's about four feet off the road.

The OSCE deputy and his black-shirt buddy are in the picture, and it's sunny this time. The Daily Mail, where the AP image was borrowed, says that the image was taken on the day (July 22) of the article. The "cockpit" is indeed my "tail piece" on its side. To prove this, see the silver cylinder in both the image above (beside the man's head) and in the image here:

The cylinder is in the same location relative, for example, to the rectangular, black opening beside it. The field and horizon in the background of the AP-cockpit image are identical to the background in the tail-piece images I've been showing. The square opening is the same size in the AP-cockpit image as it is in the body-bags image.

There is a question of whether it was truly sawn in half by the rebels, or whether the Western plotters had it sawn some airliner scrap yard, for example. How was it sawn in half, anyway? Vertically down the cockpit, or horizontally? Clearly, not vertically. But I am now claiming that it was not sawn in half horizontally either. I'll tell you why. I'm claiming that it was not sawn in half at all. It was sawn off the rest of the fuselage by the plotters, but it was not sawn in half in any direction.

The plotters may want us to believe that the "cockpit" was sawn in half horizontally through the lower end of the doorway. If that were true, then the bottom half of the cockpit should be missing from the scene. But even if we entertain that idea, let's ask ourselves whether pilots could sit in the remaining top half while flying the plane. No, they cannot.

Below is a good shot of the doorway. The rectangular hole (assumed to be a doorway) looks to measure at least nearly the full length of a standard doorway. It's longer than it looks because part of the doorway, at the top of the picture, is partially obscured by some metal piece cutting across it. The doorway is upside down, meaning that this tail piece is upside down. I'm assuming that this is a doorway to some utility room in the tail, and may even be the location of the black boxes. Yes, the Western plotters may have provided faked black boxes in this tail piece, and then, to disguise their trick, they are sending word out that this is the cockpit.

For a long time while writing this update, I was sure that my "tail piece" was a cockpit, even though it did not have the blue stripe that the flight-17 aircraft once had on the cockpit (see image of plane in 2011). I was thinking that the plotters had to get the cockpit of some other plane, and, to boot, they got one that was way too small. As we saw, this plane piece is way too short (no more than about seven or eight feet tall) to be a cockpit for a jumbo jet (explaining why EPA made it look twice as large by doctoring a photo). Then, I realized that this piece could not be a cockpit when noting how a pilot cannot see out of it. Here again is the one end of the piece showing that there is no way for anyone inside to look out:

As you can see, the end is impenetrable by humans, and there is no glass windshield to see through. If one argues that this end is not the front of the cockpit, then it must be the back of the cockpit, where pilots leave the cockpit into the passenger compartment, and yet it can't be that either. Therefore, it can only be a tail piece. Yet, to help prove that the media are not merely mistaken, which is to say that the media and plotters are seeking to have us falsely believe that this is a cockpit, the EPA image "grew" the piece to roughly 12 feet in diameter. Plus, for all the other images that people may see that do not look like such a large diameter is in play, the plotters seem to have falsely circulated the report that the rebels cut it's size in half. Why are they doing this?

It seems that the plotters (or their representatives) sat at a meeting to discuss the post-crash operation, as could be expected, and someone brought the issue up of the black boxes being given up willingly and quickly by the rebels. Someone may have commented that it looks very conspicuously suspicious to have the black boxes at a debris field where the only plane pieces are at a tail piece on the shoulder of the road. Wikipedia's article on a plane's data recorders: "[Flight data recorders] are usually located in the rear of the aircraft, typically in the tail."

The situation was further made code red for the plotters when the rebels decided to take the bodies into their possession rather than giving them up to the white vans that were parked in front of the two tents. With the rebels catching on that this debris field was faked, the plotters decided that it would not look good to have the black boxes sitting pretty on the road's shoulder, and so they claimed that this piece was a cockpit, even though other reports had the cockpit in a sunflower patch.

Or, possibly, the plotters were unable to get a cockpit at an airliner scrap yard, and fixed the tail to look like a cockpit (in a decision prior to the crash not to use a tail piece at this debris field). They had the three fins of the tail removed, and sawed it apart to make it look like a piece of the plane's front. At first, I thought that the rectangular holes that can be seen below the red stripe (see this image especially) were the side windows of a cockpit, but when a cockpit was ruled out, I realized that the rectangular holes were the slots into which the two side fins of the tail penetrated. As you can see in the 2011 image, the tail fins are in the white-paint area, a couple of feet from the red-only stripe, a match with the piece on the road's shoulder. With the red stripe up and the slots further down, it appears that the tail piece (at the side of the road) was planted in an upside-down position. It's the right size for a 777 tail piece (in the 2011 image, the extreme end of the tail is about half the diameter of the roughly 16-foot fuselage).

The "cockpit" in the image from Huffington Post shows a white-only paint (no colored stripe) to the viewer's left. The all-white side is the part that sat for days on the ground. The red stripe without the blue (evidence of a tail section rather than of a cockpit) was, as of about July 22, turned to face the sky, no longer visible to cameramen / viewers on the street. The USA-Today article that reported the cockpit cut in half claimed that the OSCE people finally gained control of the debris field where the sawed-off "cockpit" was located....allowed them to flip the piece on its side under any excuse they wished to use.

It should be noted that, if the bottom of the cockpit has been sawn off, then the all-white side would need to be the top of the cockpit. Impossible. The only other alternative is that the cockpit was sawn in half longitudinally. That is, it's been made about half its length, and the larger-diameter part with the windshield was taken away by the rebels by the 18th / 19th. But I'm not at all prone to taking that position. If you look closely in the Huffington image, about eight circular areas in yellow color can be seen at the very top of the white, which could be holes that receive bolts for attaching the third / vertical tail fin (on one of its two sides). These yellow spots were originally facing to the ground, i.e. not seen by camera shots. These holes are not to be photographed by media people, perhaps explaining why both the AP and Huffington images are from the same angle, showing only the one end of the "cockpit."

The OSCE monitors were at the site as of the 18th, and yet we did not hear from them until the 22nd that the "cockpit" had been sawn in half. This and the related accusations look like a pack of lies to garner more world support against Putin. The flipped tail piece remains the same in the Huffington image as it was on the 18th / 19th.

Global control has already begun, make no mistake about it. I cannot find intelligent articles that claim fakery for this event, likely because the globalists have come to control the search-engine companies that willingly blacklist all people that have the word- and thought-power to expose false-flag fakery. One can find a few websites claiming fakery, but they are not compelling in their arguments, and we could expect the globalists to allow certain webpages of "conspiracy whackos" to come up without fear. The push to take the world by force of engineering new governments, and in the meantime suppressing the enemies by forceful means, has begun. They will FORCE the masses to carry their agenda, and the masses in the West, anyway, look very prepared to do so.

What can we expect from the black boxes? Is the pilot going to express, first of all, something to the effect of, "we've been hit." Or will the pilot begin the non-normal part of the recording by speaking on an incoming missile? Will he give the direction and positioning of the missile in such a way that it condemns the rebels more than the Ukrainians? How possibly can a pilot do that? He doesn't have much time for saying anything prior to the missile strike because he had no time to send a distress call. If the missile was still 15 seconds away, one of the pilots had the time for a short, incoming-missile statement, to the ground station. It is to be predicted that the black boxes will not show that the pilots knew of an incoming missile for many seconds, if they knew it at all.

Media is already talking about this. From USA today (the same media as per the sawing of the cockpit):

Justin Green, an aviation lawyer at Kreindler & Kreindler, said the recorders won't be as important as finding who authorized the missile shot and who pulled the trigger. But he said the voice recorder could prove whether the pilots were warned before being shot down.

The recorder "will answer the question whether the rebels shot without even asking any questions of the Malaysia air Flight 17 crew," Green said.

Steve Marks from Miami comments: "I believe our government would have picked up any of these types of [radio-warning] communications. That type of information would have already been released, if there were that type of warning." It makes it sound as though the U.S. can hear every word out of a cockpit to another cockpit or radio device on the ground, and probably that's the global-control aim. But comments like this can give the masses the impression that the United States just knows everything and can be trusted for matters such as this. Contrarily, the Unites States puts much effort in providing a trustworthy image for itself precisely because it uses fabrications routinely to control situations.

Apparently, the black boxes are not going to have the pilots speaking to a radio in the hands of the rebels prior to the missile strike. That might be a little over the top. But the black boxes can be faked with the pilot telling something like, "It came from [over there]." That is, the missile came from a location held by the rebels, exactly where the media has already reported the sighting of a sophisticated missile launcher in the hands of the rebels.

If the black boxes tell nothing of rebel guilt, I will be perplexed, because I feel sure that the black boxes have been faked. However, I have yet to learn the particular debris field in which the boxes were found. If it turns out that they were near Shaktarsk, then I would suggest that they could be the authentic black boxes. But if they were found at the tail piece near Rozsypne, then they were planted as fakes. And that's why we may not hear where the black boxes were found. (I could cover this story much better if I had television coverage).

The Washington Post has a strange statement: "If the [black boxes] are correctly hooked up to a power source and allowed to run, the data on them can be rather easily overwritten in the same way that you might record over a VHS tape." Hard to believe, especially as the Dutch said immediately that the black boxes were not tampered with by the rebels / Russians. How could they know? One way, by listening to them to see if the faked recordings were all still there. Media reports that the recordings have been retrieved successfully. It should all be released to the public any day now, right?

The Washington Post makes it sound as though people can just plug them in and listen, but my globalist-empire senses suggest much to the contrary, that the globalists would seek to pre-arrange the black boxes of the future to be tamper-proof by all, but them.

I have read two media reports telling that the black boxes were not handed over until the rebels negotiated terms with the Malaysians. If the Russians have the technology to listen to the boxes, and if the West knows it, then the Westerners are now incapable of changing the recording because a Russian agency will sit at the meetings overseeing the black-box recordings. In this regard, it looks all-good / safe for the Russian side of the public-relations war. If there is anything condemning the Russians in the black boxes, the Russians may think they have a way to re-interpret the recordings in such a way that blames the Ukrainians, and perhaps the accusations released by the Russian government in the last days of this past week have everything to do with an alternative interpretation.

The Washington-Post article adds: "The recordings, though, could include audio of people on the plane seeing the missile attack as it was taking place." It also tells of noises / operations from the plane's mechanical devices that can be recorded. It should be easier to fake these noises than to fake the voice(s) of the pilot(s). Some say that a missile strike could knock out the ability of a voice recorder to record voices.

By the way, the article above says that both flight 17 and Malaysian Airlines flight 370 were 777s of the same 200-ER model. This allows conspiracy theorists to claim that flight 370 was hijacked a few months ago by the United States to provide for major aspects of the flight-17 orchestration. An alternative explanation for both flights having the same Boeing plane model and airliner company is that these planes are outfitted with equipment conducive for false-flag, crash events. For example, these planes may have pre-engineered ability, from Boeing itself, to be disabled, but controlled alternatively, by a remote pilot. Such a feature can be advanced and justified legally as the craft of the future for the bogus purpose of saving hijacked flights.

The entire globalist world is being changed for to be geared to fighting the bad buys at every level, though in reality the purpose is to hamper the general public, take away its power and self-respect, and relegate it to mere numbers in a plastic world of "democracy." The Russians have every inclination to fight this democratic hallucination. As a Christian headed into the last days, I really don't know what's more frightening, a overly-technological West or a modified Soviet Frankenstein. Perhaps it's unfair to use the latter phrase, for it's been three decades since the new Russian generation has been out from the Soviet umbrella, and, probably, the new generation does not honor old Stalinism, for example, the movement that persecuted the Ukrainians to the point of mass murder. I really don't know how to describe the new Russia except that it's puking due to Western intrusions, and preparing for war against the United States. There was evidence not very long ago that the O-people were seeking to topple Putin in the way that we just saw the Ukraine go to the West. We can't blame Putin for retaliating, and yet he plays the calm type lately. Calm before the storm?

The downing of flight 17, and especially the way in which the West has accused Putin prematurely, plays into the hands of Russia and her allies, for it makes it rather easy to convince her allies that the West is the real monster conducting false-flag events. While the trusting masses may respect the word of their governmento-military leaders, the leaders of nations know political trickery because they've been in the game long enough to become the leaders. Leaders of nations will look at the potential motives, and realize that neither Putin nor the rebels had a motive to shoot down a Dutch flight. It might all have been viewed as an accidental shooting on the part of the rebels had not the Ukrainians created "evidence" of pre-planned sabotage. That gives national leaders the first clue that the Ukrainians have fixed this event, and moreover they have caused the deaths of innocent passengers. It is more grievous where Britain and the United States have come out to categorically support the Ukrainian game. The motive is amply visible as an anti-Putin campaign as part of the Crimean war theater where the rebels are proving too strong for the Ukrainians to overcome.

Therefore, while it seems too obvious to Westerners that the rebels are guilty, much of the rest of the world will take the opposite view. This is the global schism that Russia hopes to advance, looking too much like the global schism that causes mankind to self-destruct. If world leaders come to believe that flight 17 was 370, the NATO-blubbing west would either have to back off on its globalist agenda with head held down in shame, or ram it through by greater force before they think it's too late to finish the job. The article below may be making an excellent argument for a flight 17 = flight 370 equation. Look and see:

What Some Videos Reveal

By the end of the week, I was at a place where I could view videos; but my computer still has no sound. I am a very crippled "reporter" of the news, I'll agree. The video below, in the beginning, shows the debris field on fire where the two ladies and the old woman had ventured upon. Is this the real crash site? The debris in contact with the old woman's head is exposed in another image (below), after much of the debris has been removed, to be something akin to the tie rods and related ball joints in the front end of a car, only much larger: At 30 seconds, a large plane piece lies by itself in a gold field; I can spot the logo painted on the upright fin of the tail. At 44 seconds, an intersection can be seen; look at how close to the intersection the plane supposedly fell. Is this proof of yet another faked debris field? I can believe an authentic tail piece in the middle of a field, but for the main part of the plane to land at the side of an intersection may be another matter. Keep in mind that the video does not prove that the fin is beside the particular debris field being shown. Also, recall that this debris field has one engine while a second engine is at a debris field at/near Shaktarsk. Again, I can't hear the video in case someone tells where this smoking location is. The woman in blue in the image at the "one engine" link can be seen in the video. The intersection is proof that this field is not where my so-called "tail piece" was planted on the shoulder.

At 46 seconds in, it appears that another debris field is being shown, and this time it looks like the Itar-Tass debris field across from the tail piece. Do you think that the video above seeks to make us believe that the tail fin is at the debris field with the tail piece? That tail piece is shown at 49 seconds. At 50 seconds, look at what I claimed to be a wing spar, and see how different it and other things are from the doctored EPA image. Where, in the 50-second shot of the video, is the split in the wing spar? It's now just a few inches from the road. What a sham! It doesn't even look like a wing spar. At 52 seconds, after showing the tail-piece area for 6 seconds, the video returns to a man at the other debris a depression of the land.

The video below shows the tail fin from another direction, and there is a road there about 100 feet away, though the camera shot may make the road appear further than it really is. There is a smoking debris field immediately beyond the road, but I cannot identify which field it is, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONE AT THE "TAIL PIECE." The nearness to the road means that the fin may have been transported there by truck, and yet, if no tire tracks were made in the field, it suggests that this was the authentic flight 17's crash site. But I'm still having a problem.

Assuming it's an authentic fin from a real crash, the fakers would have the immediate problem of covering up the tail piece at the other debris field, which can now provide a very good motive for their trying to convince us that it's a cockpit, or even for withholding what part of the plane it comes from. In other words, they can't have the tail fin at one debris field and the rest of the tail section (to which the fin should be attached) at another debris field. They could not control how the real crash would end up, and so this tail fin getting away from the disintegrated plane parts created a problematic item.

The debris field across from the tail piece is smoking at the start of the video above. At the very end of the video, a red truck is shown that was in front of the Itar-Tass debris field, only this time the row of electrical poles are showing...which match the poles in the body-bags image. The problem is, the video has the burned-out debris field in the wrong place! It's now more than two poles down the street from the very-crooked pole, smack beside the body-bags bush...and therefore under the wires that were shown collapsed in the Ria Novosti image. We saw, in the tripod image, that there was NO FIELD directly beside the body-bags bush. In the tripod image, the debris field is between the pole showing, and the very-crooked pole not showing. It appears that this image in the video was doctored so that the tail piece could be envisioned as hopping over the road from the crash site, and knocking down the wires while hopping. SHAM! The media pictures are involved in the sham, seeking to patch over the critical problems created by the fakery team. Have you ever imagined anything so low from the "most trusted name in news"?

One can now address the fact that the video image of the poles shows no lighter poles along with the darker ones, yet the tripod image shows the lighter ones, as if to paste lighter poles in for to deny us the claim that the bush in that image is the body-bags bush. We can now know the reason that they want to deny us: they want us to believe (falsely) that the debris field is at the body-bags bush rather than beside the tripod. But, even in the body-bags image itself, we see the two brown-orange tents way up beside the two white vans, all of which are at the tripod area of the road. To put it another way, the tents and the vans would be down by the bush if indeed that debris field was there.

There can be more to glean in the video below, showing, for example, a man supposedly finding a black box (colored orange) in a golden field, the color of the field at the tail-piece location; see it at 2:47. At 1:07, the debris field behind the body-bags bush is showing, only there never was a debris field there. The black boxes are not attached to any plane part, wherefore we've got to assume, if it's an authentic event, that the men unbolted it from a plane part out in the field. Certainly, a black box would not be by itself unattached to a plane part. But I have not seen nor read any details on where the black boxes came from, which is to be expected from a sham operation with problematic items.

At the very start of the video, we see seven men in blue military pants. Some of them show in the doctored EPA image, standing at the tail piece. In the video shot of these men, we see the body-bags bush at the left margin, and tail piece behind them, as well as what looks like a piece of plane a little ways into the field (on the right margin). It is definitely not the tail fin that we saw in the other video. This other piece has not shown in any other image I've seen. For example, in this tail image with the stretcher, the piece out in the field must be obscured by the tail piece (why is it obscured?). Therefore, the black box may have come from the piece on the right margin (it may be on the right margin of the EPA image too). If I'm not mistake, one of the four men in the tail-stretcher image is the carrying the black box.

See the gold field without the mystery object showing BodyBags3. BodyBags2 has a dark object in the right spot that I thought was a person. Perhaps it's not a person.

However, the trees in the background where the one man carries the orange black box do not look like the trees expected at the tail-piece location, as they are too near and too large for my expectations. But, in this game, background can grow larger and nearer at the click of a plotter's button. The video shot of the man carrying the box ends as soon as he is about to get to the road, apparently, a road that could help the viewer to identify which particular part of the debris field the box was in.

We never see a fuselage. At least, I have yet to see it. The baggage didn't disintegrate, and yet are we to believe that the fuselage did so? Fuel-tank explosions of jet crashes DO NOT disintegrate fuselages. Or, should we believe that very-convenient claim that the rebels cut the fuselage into pieces to carry away? It would have taken days to do so, and so where are the early pictures of the fuselage that every last media company would have taken when coming to it? There was no fuselage in the faked-debris fields, was there? It was too difficult to transport to any field, isn't that right? They didn't do it in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon at 9-11, and they didn't do it now either. What will be their next excuse at the next faked crash for not having a fuselage? If that tail fin is authentic, shouldn't the fuselage be in that area too?

At about the 1-minute mark of the ABC video above, a burned-out debris field is shown that I cannot identify. It has a badly-leaning pole at the street that I've not seen before. It tends to suggest yet another burned-out debris field at yet another side of a road.

At 1:25, the tail piece is being strapped for hoisting away (under blue skies, the day that the fighters in blue military pants were there), and the piece I thought might be a wing spar does not at all look like one. But wait. Before it's taken away, it needs to be set back down on its side so that AP can take the "sawed-off cockpit" image. That means that they are in the process right now of putting it on its side rather than taking it away! Yes, for it's still standing as it was from day one. Note that the tail piece is not much taller than a mini-van even when the latter is further away. Furthermore, no burned-out dirt can be see beside the tail piece, as the doctored EPA image shows.

At 1:31, yet another burned-out debris field shows that appears to be under a bridge. I've lost count.

The Flight 17 = Flight 370 Claim of Jim Stone

If you want to know for a certainty that the crash was a false-flag event, this section is for you. I've gone into more detail than you may need, but I'd like to cover all the bases anyway. In case you didn't get to go to the article earlier, showing some evidence that the plane used for flight 370 was used also for flight 17, let me quote from it and discuss the evidence:

When it was first announced that flight MH-370 disappeared without a trace, there had been voices suggesting that the same plane will be later used in a false flag operation.

Personally, I tried to ignore the speculations thinking that no secret agency could ever conduct such an insanely-obvious operation, expecting that the rest of the world is stupid enough to buy it.

Boy, was I was wrong!

...The aircraft allegedly shot down over Shaktarsk is a Boeing 777-200, ID number M9-MRD.

The missing MH370 was the same model, 777-200, but with a different ID number M9-MRO.

The information above, written by Alexander Light, not by Jim Stone, is no smoking gun, but it is very useful for the smoking gun of Jim Smith that follows. Let's go on:

The crashed plane had a different configuration of windows than MH17

Unfortunately for those who staged the false flag event, the MH17 plane had an extra window (bellow) next to the second right-side door, which MH370 did not -- and neither did the wreckage of the airplane!

The page shows the extra window in three different photos, as well as showing two different photos of the plane that was flight 370, but not having the extra window. I was confused by this statement because the debris piece (shown) does obviously show the extra window (albeit with a white cover), and, later, on close examination, I realized that the two flight-370 pictures also show a white cover over the "extra" window. Perhaps what is meant by the claim that there is no extra window is that the window is not open, but covered. Therefore, there is no smoking gun as yet if both planes and the debris piece all have the extra window.

But it goes on with some compelling goods. First, it shows that the one edge of the flag, on the 370 plane, lines up with the first window over from the door (see image from my files if necessary, where the ID number can also be read clearly), while the edge of the flag for the plane that is flight 17 lines up with one window further toward the cockpit (image from my files, ID number likewise visible here). He then goes to the flight-17 debris photo to show that the flag edge lines up in the same way that the 370 plane does (see image here). Case closed, and yet the author of this material makes an unacceptable claim: the plane that crashed, or this fuselage debris used to fake the crash, was the old 370 that supposedly crashed into the Indian ocean off Australia. Could the globalists and their media stooges be this stupid?

First of all, it is not conclusive proof that the old flight-370 plane was used for the Ukraine crash just because its flag positioning matches that for the debris piece. There can possibly be other 777s from Malaysian Airlines with a flag-window alignment just like it (from which the debris piece could have come). HOWEVER, the evidence presented above PROVES that FLIGHT 17 DID NOT FURNISH THE DEBRIS piece. Although we, for the moment, must argue that the extra window is on the debris piece, the flag edge is not painted at the same spot as compared with the flight-17 plane. For me, that's a smoking gun. This crash is a sham event, and the accusations against Putin are false while the West is guilty of a world-class fraud.

We now have two alternative scenarios for the plane having the debris piece under discussion: 1) there was a plane crash; 2) there was merely planted debris without a crash.

This story is apparently originated in a reporter, Jim Stone. The story is circulating in the regular conspiracy websites, and it has the mustard to make it to the major media, but, so far, I haven't seen it go that far. Here's a development:

Unfortunately for the secret agencies involved in this false flag, the internet buzz created around this information made them panic and the official REUTERS images showing that piece of the wreckage have been Photoshopped.

Miraculously, a window [of a plane] appeared in at least two of their pictures, where previously there was none: example one / example two. The pictures belong to Reuters, there's no question about it (one of them is hosted on Reuters' website, while the second one is hosted on one of the most respected media websites in Russia and in the world -- the 26th most read website in Russia and 505th most read in the world). Expect broken links and missing pictures soon, but remember what you saw -

This seems exceptional, with big media like Reuters appearing to change their photos to keep the insider secrets. It helps me to understand that Reuters is in bed with the fakers. I have copied the two Reuters examples above to my files in case the insiders find a way to get this material offline. The point is, Reuters changed the white cover over the window (installed by Malaysian Airlines) into a clear, normal window, and, whatever the reason. That is, I agree that they doctored it, though others have an alternative explanation. This move by Reuters is in itself evidence of a false flag.

Here are the two images from my files:

I don't know why Reuters felt that it would be advantageous to remove the cover, as this has the potential to expose Reuters for what it is. It could be that the debris piece was not photographed / released by any other media beside Reuters. But, until Reuters and others also change the flag-to-window alignment, the Jim-Stone homework stands. And very good homework it is.

We should now turn to those who are already working to debunk the Stone claim. Mick West worked hard to debunk the 9-11 truthers, and so let's go to him at a blogging site because he has come out already to tackle this problem: "No. The [Reuters] image is actually not Photoshopped. It's a different image taken a few days later after the window cover has been removed - possibly to check what is underneath." Ah, so the plotters are decided on spreading the story that the cover was removed to check for any dirt on the glass. Maybe there might have been a dog tick in there of great concern from one of the heads of the rebels. Why, pray-tell, Mick, would anyone remove the cover, and how would they do it? I'm sure it's glued on, not fastened with bolts. It's just a piece of scrap now, and it is just a 2-inch-thick hole in the piece of scrap, so why would anyone at the crash site go to the trouble of removing the cover? Did they want to look through the window to see the grass on the ground? The lack of an answer is why I'm taking the doctoring position.

See the Stone redaction (he doesn't redact every one of his claims) in Mick's post, which in-part goes like this: "So I am leaning towards pictures of flight 370 being tampered with on the web after all of this was mentioned, with the originals nowhere to be had but have to redact this report anyway because the original flight 370 photos are not out there anymore." :

I don't buy that argument from Mr. Stone at all. There is no need to redact the report for that reason given, though he does (for the moment, anyway) need to redact the claim that this plane was from flight 370. I think Mr. Stone realized his error made in haste, and now wants the story to be removed so that people don't see his error. But he is standing behind the smoking gun in regards to the flag-edge alignment. I've made dumb mistakes, lots of them, in the confusing work of explaining faked events. It's okay to make a mistake, if you just correct it. Mr. Stone had claimed months ago that the United States stole flight 370 for the purpose of using it in a false-flag event at some time later. He therefore had great excitement when discovering the flag-alignment problem.

The flag-to-window alignment is a little confusing because of the extra window, but spending a little time on this claim allows one to get it. The flight 370 plane has the flag edge on the first window over from the door; the debris piece has the flag edge in the same spot (same distance over) but two windows over from the door; the flight-17 plane has that flag edge three windows over from the door, not in the same spot at all.

Jim Stone is an anti-Israeli. he and others in conspiracy land think that the downing of Flight 17 is related to the Gaza war. I reject that idea outright, at least until there is evidence. There is no reason to link the Ukrainian war to the Gaza war. We probably need to make a distinction between the Zionists or "Jews" involved in American / British globalism, and the current Israeli government. Stone also takes the position that the globalists are seeking to start WW3, though in its mildest form, this position is more simply an aggressive plot to overtake Russia, with war if needed. But regardless of Mr. Stone's position on these matters, we can be thankful that he did his homework -- he got his ruler out and started to fiddle, checking to see if the two planes were one and the same -- and he found a smoking gun. He has conveyed to the world that flight 17 is not represented by the piece of debris on the ground in the Ukraine.

Along with Mick West comes a string of bloggers (possible insiders) trying to convince you that Mr. Stone is seeing things when he sees the flag not aligning in the same way on both planes. This argument will fail. If this is the best they have, they will fail and be found out.

It may be that the plane that was flight 370 is indeed crashed in the Ukraine. The first piece of evidence is the white cover on the window. Why would an airliner cover a window in the passenger area? It makes more sense that the people who had control of the flight 370 aircraft cut a hole in the side of the plane to mimic a window, then covered it over with a solid piece of metal / plastic rather than inserting a window. The purpose was to feign the flight 17 plane as best as possible. While this is a real possibility, it can't be a solid claim yet. There needs to be more evidence that the debris on the ground is from 370.

There is a claim online, supposedly originating at Malaysian Airlines, that the white cover is a change to the plane, meaning that the plane flew in earlier years without the cover. There could possibly be good reasons for covering a window next to the door, as for example that area's passenger seat was removed and re-vamped for another purpose.

Which all begs the question: did flight 17 fly at all? If it did not, then even the bodies in the Ukraine have been a part of one very elaborate hoax. If flight 17 did crash, its fuselage must be somewhere, and that could mean that two pieces of the same part of the fuselage could turn up, underscoring the danger (to the plotters) of using a faked debris piece as well as a real plane. Why use faked debris pieces at all if a real plane is slated to crash? There is an answer, actually: to retrieve faked black boxes. But if the debris fields were faked while there was also a real plane crash, it would require a lot of juggling and string-pulling by the plotters and their media partners to keep that reality from becoming known.

Throughout this update, I've been leaving open the possibility that a real plane did crash, but only because over 200 bodies have been recovered. The only way to feign such a thing is to have elaborate means, with many organizations / companies complicit in the hoax. Such means does not develop overnight, but over decades of conducting such hoaxes. We just never had the internet before 1996 to easily share evidence and learn news facts from other countries. We not only have the ability to realize that such hoaxes can be conducted, but to expose their methods.

The Stone story said that the differences in window arrangements is on the right side of the plane (to the right of a pilot in a cockpit). That is, it sounds as though the left side of the flight-17 plane does not have the extra window. In a Moscow-Times article (Western media, founded by a Dutchman) on the flight-17 crash, dated July 21, a photo by Reuters (from article below) is provided showing the left side of a Malaysians Airliners 777. Was this deliberate? I cannot make out the ID numbers either on the front or back. If this is the flight 17 plane, it could be noted that the flag is of the square design rather than the highly-angles side edges that were showing on the other side of the flight-17 plane. That is, if this plane is the flight-17 plane, it would have two different flag designs on either side of the fuselage.

Mick West was suggesting that Mr. Stone is in error due to a trick of eyesight caused by the curvature of the plane. Good luck on that argument, especially as both planes have the same curvature. If one studies the flag on the piece of debris, it can be plainly seen that the flag is almost square (on all four sides) as compared to both angled side edges on the flag of the flight-17 plane.

The curvature of the plane cannot be appealed to, to explain the differences in the angles of the sides of the flags. The left-side line of the 370 plane does not come down anywhere near the door, while the left-side edge of the 17 plane comes very near to the door. Lines don't lie when a straight edge / ruler tells the story.

Mick is suggesting that there is no problem because both the right-side edges of the flags on the 370 and 17 planes come down to the same window, and on this point he is correct. That's why he can argue that the curvature of the plane must be causing Jim Stone (as well as you and I) to be fooled. But Mick is wrong to deny Stone's claim because the upper right tip of the 17 flag is directly above (on a perfectly vertical line) a window that is not the window in a vertical line from the upper tip of the 370 flag.

To put it another way, draw a line, from the right side of the second window, to the upper tip of the flag. You can plainly see that this line is not nearly vertical, and that the curvature of the plane does not explain the line being so far from vertical. The line on the right side of the second window (from the door) DOES NOT come anywhere near the upper tip of the 370 flag. To the contrary, the vertical line of the same window DOES go to the upper tip of the flight-17 flag.

Having said that, let's go back to the flag on the piece of debris, where one can clearly see that the edge of the flag on one side does not point anywhere near the door, but rather it goes through the white cover.

It wasn't until writing here (11:30 Tuesday morning) that I saw what looks like a white cover on the large flight-370 image above. Jim Stone may have initially missed this white cover, perhaps explaining his redaction. But it doesn't change his argument on the flat edge. If you are jumping in here after I wrote this section initially yesterday or added to it early this morning, you should re-consider what was said in light of the white covers on the flight-370 pictures. I haven't had the time this morning to reflect on whether this is important.


The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents