Beyond the fog (continued).

The Dutch Safety Board has put together a useful Q&A on the background to its Preliminary Report.

It says:

“The preliminary report provides an overview of the initial, provisional facts a relatively short time after the occurrence. When the report is released, not all investigation data will have been analysed and no definitive conclusions drawn. Additional investigation data, an analysis and the conclusions based thereon will be included in the final report, making it far more extensive and in-depth.”

On the question of why it will not apportion blame, it says:

“In addition to providing a clear understanding of the cause, the aim of the Dutch Safety Board’s work is to increase safety. This is achieved by investigating the causes of an incident and – if possible – making recommendations to improve safety.

This is set out as such in the International Civil Aviation Organisation agreement, which deals specifically with aviation investigations … Among other things, the I.C.A.O. agreement prescribes how aviation accidents must be investigated, and that the purpose of such investigations must be to improve safety and not to apportion blame or establish liability.”

A separate criminal investigation into the crash is being carried out by the Dutch prosecution service at The Hague, involving 10 Dutch prosecutors and 200 police officers. In this case, the criminal investigators have given no time scale as to when their investigation will be completed.

Preliminary though it is, the report deserves some comments.

For instance: satellite images are mentioned to help analyse the crash site after the disaster, but nowhere in the Report is there any mention of satellite images of missile launchers, intelligence from the United States regarding missile launches, or any information or evidence at all in any regard suggesting a missile had destroyed MH17. In fact, the Preliminary Report concludes by stating that the information available must necessarily be regarded as tentative and subject to alternation or correction if additional evidence becomes available.

With the black boxes in hand and a wealth of data from multiple sources both onboard the aircraft and from the ground in both Ukraine and Russia, the Dutch Safety Board seems still hesitant to draw any conclusions.

The Report specifically mentions information collected from Russia, including air traffic control and radar data – both of which were publicly shared by Russia in the aftermath of the disaster. The Report also cites data collected from Ukraine air traffic controllers. The United States however, apart from providing technical information about the aircraft itself considering it was manufactured in the U.S., provided absolutely no data in any regard according to the Report.

Had the American administration actually possessed any credible information to substantiate its claims that MH17 was shot down by a missile, such evidence surely could have been submitted to and included in the Dutch Safety Board’s preliminary reporting. That it is missing confirms what commentators, analysts, and politicians around the world had long since suspected: the ‘western’ premature conclusions regarding MH17’s demise were driven by a political agenda, not a factually based search for the truth. The evidence that MH17 was shot down by a missile as the ‘western’ governments insisted is missing – most likely because it never existed. That circumstance did not disturb the Australian government.

When Dutch investigators published their Preliminary Report, the ‘Western’ powers merely reiterated its original claims, simply imposing their contradictory nature upon the Report – most likely believing the public would never actually read its 34 pages. The United States and Ukraine have accused Russian forces of launching the missile, but Russia has denied the charge, pointing instead at the Ukrainian air force.

The Report came out at a time when the European Union is weighing new sanctions against Russia for its role in stoking the separatist revolt in eastern Ukraine. The nature of the sanctions were left unspecified after a meeting of E.U. ambassadors, but European diplomats had said earlier that the measures would target the Russian oil industry’s ability to raise money on European capital measures.

However, their entry into force was delayed for a ‘few days’ according to a statement from Brussels, to leave time to assess the implementation of a tenuous ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, which was subsequently negotiated.

Because of earlier fighting around the MH17 crash site, the Dutch Safety Board investigators had been unable to visit the scene, but the organisation said it had carried out an investigation based on other sources of information. It added: “Once a secure and stable situation has been established, the DSB will visit the location. This is in order to verify the results of the investigation from other sources and to conduct a specific search for wreckage and other vital pieces.”

The Dutch Safety Board preliminary findings lend themselves to two inferences: 1) the Ukraine resistance is very likely not guilty of the shoot down and 2) the insane hostilities towards Russia are based on a total misread of readily available evidence.

With all due respects to the Dutch Safety Board, they have not expanded their findings much beyond those of thirty year Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko. The pilot had access to a high resolution photograph off of the internet right after the crash, studied it, and concluded that: “The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile.”

There was no mention of a missile, just “high-energy objects from outside the aircraft.” That sounds like the “30 millimeter caliber projectiles” or similar projectiles fired from the cannon of a fighter aircraft. It could be something else but the photograph and finding are compelling evidence. In addition, there is no mention of a missile bringing down the aircraft.

Therefore, the resistance militias maligned with the presumption of guilt by the American administration and its chorus in the European Union and in Australia seems to be off the hook. Since the photograph that Haisenko used was published right after the crash, the resistance should have been removed from the suspect list at that time.

Despite everything else, in a statement 9 September 2014, Prime Minister Abbott said that the explanation provided by the Preliminary Report was consistent with a surface-to-air missile.

“The findings are consistent with the government’s statement that MH17 was shot down by a large surface-to-air missile.” the statement said.

More research will be necessary, the investigators said, to determine the cause with greater precision. But Mr. Abbott had no doubt.

More cautiously, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said that he hoped investigators could return to the crash site in eastern Ukraine before the onset of European winter.

Malaysian investigators travelled to Donetsk in the days after the plane crash and negotiated directly with the Donetsk rebels to gain the handover of the plane’s two black boxes, which were presented to the delegation at a surreal press conference past midnight in the rebel capital.

The handover was negotiated when the Malaysian Prime Minister telephoned Donetsk’s self-declared prime minister, Alexander Borodai, a Russian citizen who has since left the government and returned to Russia.

Barely ten minutes after the crash happened ‘the West’ was told that it had been a Russian BUK system which had fired a ground to air missile to the plane. In fact, the world has witnessed an unprecedented push for war with Russia with N.A.T.O. exercising in Latvia, the Black sea area and Europe and Australia causing untold damage to the Russian economy with their economic sanctions.

The problem of course was that with the internet and the speedy dissemination of photos of the wreckage and the conflicting witness statements about at least one Ukrainian jet following flight MH17 at the moment of the crash it was always going to be a hard task to persuade anyone.

In fact the Russian Military released radar and satellite imagery information confirming that a Ukrainian SU-25 was following MH17 at the time of the crash with a distance of 3-5 km and that their inboard machine guns could hit a target up to 12 kilometres away.

In plain English ‘high speed objects’ or ‘outside objects’, especially if they are all of the same diameter, perfectly round and of a diameter consistent with bullets, are called bullets.

The problem with that of course is that to admit that the plane was downed by a jet – at least three witnesses told of a Ukraine jet following the plane – would be to admit that it could not have been a Russian BUK ground-to-air missile. It would mean that all the N.A.T.O. exercises had no bases other than the N.A.T.O. alliance wanting to have a scrap with Russia.

So, how are ‘Western’ governments going to react to this news? Are they going to demand an open transparent investigation?