By Alexander Rogers
I am sorry to say this but the “investigation” based not on the facts, but on “someone wrote so in social networks”, is difficult to take seriously.
Complicated. It is difficult to find the reason in continued existence of the “Bellingcat” office, which spreads fakes. Everyone has long realized that this is a drain tank of the CIA, through which such ridiculous gutters are poured out, cause it simply couldn’t be gathered through any other more formal channels – it’s simply embarrassing.
I am sorry to say this but the “investigation” based not on the facts, but on “someone wrote so in social networks”, is difficult to take seriously. As they call it “Open source investigation”. I wonder if the inscriptions on the fences are also taken into account in their investigations? You can learn a lot about Poroshenko from them.
For example, I’ve repeatedly read in social networks that Eliot Higgins (the founder of “Bellingcat”) is an unprincipled fool and, to put it mildly, adheres to nonstandard sexual orientation. Although this sounds like the truth.
But still, okay, let’s do a little analysis of the next stovepiping from this drain tank, which came out the other day.
1. “Bellingcat” continues to make much of the fact that the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade has a BUK with this number. But this has repeatedly been sorted out that the numbering of such a technique is not consecutive (as in ships in the fleet), but regimental. Figures mean, for example, the first – the battalion number, the second – the division number, the third – the number of the unit in the division. There is no single regulation that would determine the principle of such a numbering. And there could be dozens of equipment with such an onboard number – even in every regiment.
At the same time, “Bellingcat” ignores the fact that the BUKs with such a number were also part of the Ukrainian army, and not somewhere in Kursk, but directly in the war zone.
By the way, it is unclear why Bellingcat hooked to BUK with number 332. Because most investigators believe that its onboard number was 312 (and the figure in the photo was deliberately partially blurred). Apparently, because curators from the CIA told this.
2. It is confirmed that “Khmuryy” was in charge of the BUK transportation. Again, it is unclear why. Because “Khmuryy” fought in actually surrounded Kramatorsk, and
a) His freedom of movement was, to put it mildly, significantly limited;
b) He needed to deal with the defense of an actively stormed city, but not to transfer any air defense installations (too little work for the colonel).
3. Next there is an artistic story about how allegedly “BUK came from Snezhnoe, shot down Boeing and went back to Russia.” The whole story is not confirmed at all by any facts. Including the fact that it does not explain why militias or the Russian military needed that.
Apparently, Russophobe Higgins believes that “the Russians are so evil and like nothing better than shot down something”. But this “motivation” is clearly not enough for the sane people.
The Ukrainian side had a motivation for such a terrorist attack – to let militias down. Moreover, it also had the opportunity – the Dnepropetrovsk dispatcher intentionally changed the route of the Boeing flight and made it significantly lower the altitude.
But “Bellingcat” does not investigate why this was done, because the CIA will not pay for it.
No one in the West even took a try to find a Dnipropetrovsk dispatcher and interrogate him, although he is certainly an important witness. From this we reasonably conclude that these Western “investigators” have no goal of knowing the truth, the only task assigned to them by their curators is to blame Russia.