U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia – against which he is actually systematically building toward war – and not Ukraine (which he’s using as his chief vehicle to do that), is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came from Yanukovych’s State Security Service and not from the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych down and that Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie. He lies a lot, and it’s just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.

If someone wants to verify how rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time of George W. Bush’s Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it, and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many obvious questions it points out, which U.S. “news” media refused to ask and still refuse to ask about the matter, you’ll recognize that we are being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and with no respect for the public’s right to know the truth, even regarding massive history like that. It’s really brutal.

Ignorant “reporters” sometimes slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support the opposite side’s narrative of events and that discredit their own story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times piece, which included the statement that, “Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast, agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about 20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible.”
Additional excerpt:

There’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner: (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it.) Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot himself, producing at his location a huge gaping hole in the side of the plane precisely at the place where the pilot was seated. Furthermore, this gaping hole was produced by shooting into the plane, precisely at the pilot, from below and to the pilot’s left, which is where that fighter-jet was located — not from above the airliner, and not from beside it, and also not from below it.

In other words: this was precise and closely-targeted firing against the pilot himself, not a blast directed broadly against, and aiming to hit, the plane anywhere, to bring it down.

Haisenko explained how this penetration of the plane, though it was targeted specifically at the pilot, caused immediately a breaking-apart of the entire aircraft.

Other readers have responded to my news-report about Haisenko’s article, by saying that shrapnel from a Buk missile could similarly have caused those holes into the side of the cockpit. However, that objection ignores another key feature of Haisenko’s analysis. Haisenko said there: “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 likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that … these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly!”

What this means is that in order to have some of those holes frayed inwardly and the other holes frayed outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side.

That’s critically important, because no ground-based missile (or shrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced firing into the cockpit from both sides of the plane. It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides, that brought the plane down, in that circumstance. This is Haisenko’s main discovery, by his pointing that out. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions. Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile.

Peter Haisenko posted an extremely high-resolution image from that photo which he used, and it shows unequivocally that some of the bullet-holes were inbound while others of them were outbound: Here it is, viewed very close-up.


The fact that a passenger had time to get their oxygen mask on proves that the attack was not a BUK missile exploding right at the pilot seat causing instant depressurization. If the cabin depressurized and oxygen masks were released this information would have been recorded by the FDR’s and the Dutch safety Report should have noted it. They didn’t. Which means that they too are involved in the coverup of what really happened.

The Dutch Safety Report also does not correlate with what an official British government representative told the press.

The DSB report showed fragmentation entering the cockpit from above, of course there is also the improbably large hole right next to the pilots seats below the window. These are anomalies that don’t fit the official version the US/UK media put forth. A proximity fused BUK missile explodes at a distance of approximately 65 feet to target. (The target is seen as a radar image). Therefore it should have exploded ‘below’ (not above) and at a distance that would have sent shrapnel dispersion into an arc upward and blanketed the wings with burning hot shrapnel. This did not happen. The wings show no normal dispersion of shrapnel damage. They show very little damage. They also did not ignite which normally occurs with incendiary heat from burning hot shrapnel.

The fact the pilot window hole is so large in relation to all other shrapnel damage is also an anomaly. The probability of an ‘even’ blast dispersion detonating at 65 feet and leaving a massive hole in one particular spot is incredibly low and highly improbable. It would require an almost direct hit and a malfunction of the proximity fused warhead. It isn’t likely at all with a missile arriving from the ground. The fact that a passenger was able to get a mask on with instant depressurization at 500 mph and the plane disintegrating due to immediate hull stress lends credence to the Russian radar presentation which showed that MH-17 continued to fly after being hit and banked 14 miles to the left. The deviating left turn was portrayed by the DSB as being requested by the pilots, however, it is also improbable that they happened to make a course change request at the moment before being struck by a missile. The fact that the debris field is off alignment by 45 degrees with the flight course also lends credence to the fact that the plane turned. It seems the evidence from the FDR’s is being possibly manipulated to match the put forth narrative. There is also another major anomaly, a British intelligence source reported to the Daily Mail UK on July 18th that MH-17 shared airspace with a Ukrainian military aircraft (IL-76) and therefore requested a course change due to the proximity. This official British representatives information does not match the DSB preliminary report as the Ukrainian military deny they had any military aircraft airborne and the DSB’s presentation shows only commercial aircraft. Why is there no mention of the aircraft reported by the British agent? Link to coverage of the Daily Mail article and the informant:

Duplicate thread-

The anomalies are quite plentiful at this point. When combined with the fact that the US will not release it’s satellite surveillance data showing a missile contrail and the fact that the Ukrainian coup imposed government is comprised of pro Nazi elements who have conducted previous false flag attacks there is strong reason to believe that Russia is being framed. The fact that Russia put forth their radar evidence immediately after the crash also lends credence to their honesty. Finally witnesses on the ground reported seeing a Ukrainian fighter aircraft near where MH-17 crashed. The BBC reported on these witnesses….and then removed their official report from You Tube. However, it was cached by observant watchers. Link here:

Another major unasked question is “why has the Dutch Safety Board not sought the witness testimony of these individuals?” Two and a half months have passed and MH-17 still sits in a field in east Ukraine with no investigation.

Having watched the whole Ukraine crisis unfold from it’s early beginnings, I have no doubt that the Ukrainian Nazis brought down the plane. An SU-25 can reach that height (with modifications and a pilot on oxygen). It can also vector in stealthily for the kill. The ‘Coffin for an SU-25 is within capability. It also could have been a MIG-29. These planes could have been at considerable distance and fired a missile which would easily make up the distance, afterall that is what they are designed for. Why do you consider this improbable? It actually makes much more sense…..especially in light of the fact that we now know someone on MH-17 had time to put on an oxygen mask……and there is no missile contrail that has been reported or photographed by witnesses or made publicly available by the US military who were monitoring the airspace by satellite and from ships in the Black Sea.

A missile arriving from the ground and forward would have meant complete breakup with no time for any reaction. Complete depressurization and winds arriving into the cabin at 600 miles an hour and an instant temperature of minus 50 degrees. The official version makes no sense in relation to physics. The social media ‘evidence’ put forth by the US and UK media has already been proven to have been faked. Here are multiple proven examples of US and UK media lying in regards to the rebels and the crash site evidence.

Vice News footage was manipulated for this first one.

The official envoy to the Australian Prime Minister on TV:

The Ukrainian military have also been caught lying about their own BUK’s in the shoot down zone as proven by this Associated Press article. They have officially lied to the investigative committee. The AP photographed them with BUK missile systems near Slavyansk on July 4th.


The Kiev government has also been caught outright lying about the number of war dead

This recently released video of one Kiev military graveyard near Dnepropetrovsk shows that the total Ukrainian army dead from the war, just for this one graveyard, total well over 6,500 dead. This video is taken by a mother of a dead Ukrainian soldier. She clearly films all the graves and shows the placards which state the total numbers at the 3:40 mark and beyond. These numbers are well in excess of the numbers being reported by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Kiev, European and US media and authorities. The total number of all Ukrainian deaths is being compiled by internet activist investigators and is listed below along with the stand out commentary from the video.
The following link includes much more compiled information on the total Ukrainian war dead.

Video Lady comments:

0:06 – I am now at a burial place in the vicinity of Dnepropetrovsk
1:51 – Graves are labeled by numbers, and DNA samples are kept in a morgue in Dneprpetrovsk, Mechnikov hospital
2:29 – 200 more bodies are in the process of being identified
2:47 – ‘Putin should stop conflict and withdraw troops’
3:23 – Graves with flowers and crosses are those where ‘authorities in Dnepropetrovsk believe that those are Ukrainian soldiers’ . Crosses are numbered and have ‘unknown defender of Ukraine’ label
3:55 – a lot of bodies arrive, they are brought by plane
4:52 – numbers on graves refer to DNA samples (we see numbers 6552, 6554, 6544, 6447, 6076, 6077, 6346, so at least 6076-6554 are there)
5:29 – ‘Putin is to blame, he and his cohort’
Concludes with ‘such a sad report I have today.’ So she maybe a Ukrainian reporter, possibly blogger or activist; I am not aware of such a report being published –Resup (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all numbers are buried at this graveyard. The numbers are the consecutive numbers at the registry at the morgue. Every corpse gets a number when it enters the morgue. Some people are identified and released to relatives. Only the ones that could not be identified end up at this lot. The running numbers only apply to this one morgue in Dnepropetrovsk. Other cities have their oven registries and numbers. The graveyard in Lugansk photographed by Graham Phillips showed morgue numbers around 1000.
Based on the numbers I come up with this guestimate of Ukrainian war casualties (KIA):
In morgues:
Dnepropetrovsk: 7000
Kharkov: 4000
Zaporizhia: 3000
Mass graves on the battlefield: 10,000
Total: 24,000


Additional images of the Ukrainian graveyard at an earlier stage being used by the Ukrainian military. Note that the numbers on the plaques at that time are

thousands of numbers above what the Ukraininan officials are and were reporting.