There is something almost touching in the way that people continue their rituals and traditions despite everything.
Life in the West seems to exist on two completely separate levels. The personal life continues with all the characteristic ups and downs. Yet there is an underlying knowledge that complete happiness, or better described as overall happiness is completely impossible in this situation. We all walk beneath a long dark cloud whether we see it or not.
We in the West live in a world of lies. Insulting lies, childish lies, and until this changes all who live in the West are tainted by this fact. The shadow of evil overlooks us all. I have no idea what will happen this year, I am sure many wonderful and terrible things will happen as they do each and every year.
I may be short sighted in my outlook, but the way it looks to me it is all rather simple.
Either the cabal(s) that rule over us with their manipulation and lies will be exposed and they will all from power or their evil deeds will continue.
This is the only pertinent issue and supersedes all else. The fall of the cabal(s) is inevitable. The brazen crimes they have committed have been detected and exposed and will destroy them in time. That is guaranteed. The only question is how long it takes and how much they destroy with them as they fall.
Happy New Year.
Accidental detonation blamed on obscure Hindu Sub-sect Ananda Marga
At 12.40 am on February the thirteenth, 1978, a bomb detonated inside the tray of a Sydney Local Council Rubbish Collection truck. The explosion killed three people, Council workers Alec Carter and William Favell and a New South Wales Police Officer Paul Birmistriw. ten others were wounded . The explosion occurred in George. St, in the Sydney CBD outside the Hilton Hotel during a meeting of the regional branch of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (Grouping of former British colonies) abbreviated as C.H.O.G.M. that involved the Prime Minister’s of 12 nations.
The Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the “Special Branch” units of the State Police Forces (which operated as a proxy force for ASIO) were under an unprecedented level of scrutiny and criticism in 1978. An Inquiry into the South Australian Special Branch culminated in “The dismissal of the South Australian Commissioner of Police, Harold Hubert Salisbury, on 17 January 1978.” A similar enquiry was scheduled in New South Wales. . The Hope Royal Commission conveyed by a hostile Whitlam Labor Government had been scathing about ASIO, describing the Australian intelligence community as “ fragmented, poorly organised and co-ordinated, inadequately staffed and equipped and, in many cases, directed towards inappropriate goals.” The “inappropriate goals” remark alluded to the fact that Special Branch had been exposed as working on “dirt files” against individuals who would be better described as “politically liberal” rather than a genuine Security threat. Politicians Judges and Lawyers were amongst those targeted in these operations and the targeting of polite, bourgeois professionals resulted in much public outcry. The “Communist” bogey that sustained ASIO for the first decades of it’s existence was beginning to fade. Saigon fell to the Communists in 1975 and the Domino effect was proven to be the childish and self serving “War party” fantasy it had always been.
Key Facts that make it fairly clear what really happened.
Accidental Detonation-No Evidence of Detonator.
The detonation of the device, coming as or immediately after the contents were emptied into the tray indicates that the detonation was accidental. The bomb went off due to compression or some other physical force applied to it by the emptying process. The people who planted the device did not detonate it. No evidence of any detonator has ever been presented.
One bin in Sydney is prevented from being emptied.
According to Council Truck Driver Bill Ebb. The bin that contained the bomb was prevented from being emptied over he whole weekend by Police involved in the Security operation at the Hilton. This is literally the only bin in Sydney that has not been emptied during the weekend on specific instructions from the Security forces in the area.. As Mr Ebb relates “That bin was overflowing with garbage. I had been the first truck to get to that bin since the Friday morning I should imagine. I spoke to three drivers that would have been responsible for emptying that bin on the Saturday morning, the Saturday afternoon and the Sunday morning. On the three occasions they were told by the Police to “leave it and carry on.”
Bomb warning call scrubbed.
The New South Wales switchboard received a bomb threat/warning that a device had been planted outside the Hilton. When the message did not reach the NSW police outside the Hilton, leading to a death and serious wounds, the call was scrubbed, new incident sheets, were produced for the night. Former NSW Police Officer John Hawtin elaborates”The Occurrence pad entry said that a Miss or Mrs Jones, had received a phone call from someone, at 12.32 I think, am (eight minutes prior to the blast) to say that a bomb had been planted in a bin outside the George Street entrance to the Hilton Hotel. Mr. Hawtin saw the Occurrence pad entry in 1981, by the following year however, when an Inquest into the deaths began, the Occurrence pad he had viewed a year earlier had been replaced. He describes the new pads as “Fresh, as if they had come straight from the mill.”
Bomb Detection Squad Stand Down.
According to Keith Burley, a member of the Australian Army Bomb Detection Dog squad, “Approximately two weeks prior to the Hilton bombing, we (the Bomb Detection Squad) received information that we were put on standby specifically for CHOGM. We will have the operational team ready at all times and we were told to specifically train for letter bomb type devices. Late on the Thursday afternoon (February 10th- two days before the CHOGM meeting began).we got a phone call at the Kennels. stating that we were no longer required. Both the OC and myself tried to find out what was going on, because we knew that CHOGM was still going ahead,it hadn’t been stopped. All we could determine was that the order came from Vic (Victoria) Barracks from a Security organisation somewhere.” Burley adds that he has no doubt whatsoever that this group would have detected the device. Destruction of Evidence .
The Australian Security State has never identified any salient facts about the device that exploded outside the Hilton.
“A year later, Detective-Sergeant Gibson from the NSW Police told an audience of international forensic experts that police had not determined the type of explosive used in the “bomb” nor how it was detonated.”
They have no idea what type of explosives were used. No idea what type of detonator(if any) was involved. They are in a state of complete ignorance about every aspect of the device. It doesn’t make them look very clever when you think about it. Unless you take into account the fact that the remnants of the bomb were immediately dumped in landfill, like any other tray full of rubbish. Helpfully, no-one even thought to identify the area of the tip in which the rubbish along with all of the forensic evidence-had been dumped in the ground with all the other waste.
it’s rather hard to determine the details of an explosive device used in these circumstances. Whether this was done haphazardly or as the result of a deliberate cover-up (obviously the case) , this incident clearly involves the criminal destruction of evidence and in all likelihood also comprises “Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice” charges.
Farcical Investigation culminates in Dead End Inquest.
The investigation was the typical bizarre and inexplicable non-event that is so common with false flag attacks. One group emerged as the sole suspect within hours of the blast, According to former AFP Inspector Ian MacDonald the Ananda Marga group emerged as the sole suspect in the bombing an hour and several minutes after the event. The resources of the Australian state were directed towards amassing evidence against the three Ananda Marga members for more than a decade. When the desired evidence failed to emerge, it was manufactured by a succession of informants, the claims made by these informants are transparently false, are not corroborated by any known facts and should be treated with the contempt that a failed obvious frame up deserves.
The Inquest into the Hilton deaths marked a spectacular low point in this case. The Inquest was abandoned after the presiding Magistrate Justice Walsh deemed that the prima facie case against the three accused Ananda Marga members was so strong that to proceed with the inquest would jeopardise the Margis ability to receive a fair trial.
Justice Walsh’s legal judgement turned out to be rather flawed in this matter, as No prosecutions proceeded in the wake of the Inquest, and within three years the accused Margis would be cleared and compensated for their imprisonment as part of another sting/frame, conducted by Richard Seery, the witness upon whom Justice Walsh’s opinion rested.
Eleven years after the bombing, in 1989 two Ananda Marga members were prosecuted for the attack on the sole basis of evidence, including a self incriminating confession, provided by a transparent liar and fantasist named Evan Pederick. Although the prosecution was initially successful, the conviction of Tim Anderson was overturned by the Court of Appeals in 1991, which, rather than ordering a retrial,made a finding of Acquittal against Anderson, an unusually definitive finding.
The Ananda Marga were not involved in the Sydney Hilton Bombing nor any other terrorist attack. In the wake of the botched PR stunt, the Australian Security Services chose to frame the Ananda Marga group based on a conspiracy theory provided by the Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai who claimed to have been the target of an assassination attempt at the hands of the group. There is absolutely no possibility that the Ananda Marga had any involvement whatsoever, beyond being the utterly incongruous patsies chosen ipso facto by the desperate Security services. There was never any evidence of Ananda Marga involvement, beyond crudely manufactured nonsense fabricated by the transparent agents of the Australian Security services and repeated ad nauseum by the mindless and obedient Australian media
What the Evidence Indicates.
Elements of the Australian Security Services, chose the occasion of the 1978 CHOGM conference staged a multi-agency , security drill during the conference. At some point in the planning process, the security exercise morphed into a publicity stunt designed to promote the interests of the Security State. It was realised that in order for the PR stunt to be successful they would have to place real explosives at the scene and then “find” them and emerge as the heroic defenders of the realm. Vital in a world of multifarious threats and who should not face undue political scrutiny nor budgetary pressure. This was a prestige building and fund raising exercise. It seems the plan was to use the newly acquired bomb squad robot to detonate the device in the view of an adoring media and make the terror threat tangible to complacent Australians now that the “Revolutionary communist” threat had been exposed as a scam.
Australia’s major media sought to hype the terror nonsense and the Ananda Marga culpability line. In their typically shameless, lobotomised and venal manner. So committed to the Ananda Marga terror group trash that many still maintain this line today. The headlines speak for themselves.
The other unprecedented event was that the Australian Government called upon the Australian Army to step in and provide security for the remainder of the conference. This entailed an operation that involved 4000 troops, checking every inch of railway between Sydney and Bowral for bombs, three hundred travelling on the Leaders train in the, and in truly farcical scenes, actually patrolling the streets of Bowral.
The Sydney Hilton Hotel Bombing of February 13th, 1978 stands out as one of the most wretched bungles ever concocted by a Western Intelligence Agency. So crude and hapless was this operation that simply reading the Wikpedia article on the topic makes it perfectly clear what happened. The fact that three senseless deaths resulted from the incompetent shenanigans of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and their NSW Special Branch colleagues assisted by elements of the Australian military is the only thing that prevents this from being an out and out side splitter of slapstick comedy. Along with the fact that no attempt was ever made to prosecute the perpetrators of what remains the most deadly terror bombing in Australian history.
In fairness, it should be noted that this attack and the resulting casualties were not intended. No-one was supposed to be hurt by this operation which was clearly a pathetic publicity stunt from Australia’s beleaguered and discredited internal Intelligence services. The only problem was that these Organisations completely lacked the competence and professionalism required to successfully conduct this psychological operation and fund raising drive, it went wrong, people died and a cover up of the crudest and most transparent nature was conducted and continues to this day.
In 1991 and again in 1995 both houses of the New South Wales State Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a fresh investigation into the bombing. The Federal Government refused to participate in any enquiry and that was the end of the matter. The Parliament openly acting against the interests of justice and the rule of Law in favour of the public image of the Australian intelligence institutions.
This was a petty attack in the annals of modern terrorism. The fact that this remains the most deadly bombing in Australia is true testament to the fact that the entire “terrorist threat” in Australia has been completely concocted and hyped to fulfil the needs of the Security state whose response to their Hilton blunder has been nothing other than the most shameful institutional cowardice imaginable by agencies who never hesitated to put their own interests ahead of Justice and the Rule of Law.
The Salisbury Affair: Special Branches, Security and Subversion
Richard G. Fox
Monash University Law Review [VOL5. , JUNE ‘791
The loss of 298 lives when flight MH17 crashed in the Eastern Ukraine was an immense human tragedy. What followed without delay from the Western media and politicians has been an absolute farce and a complete disgrace. They have humiliated themselves and revealed themselves to be nothing more than zombie cheerleaders, drones without any pretensions of intelligent or critical thought, baying for blood, making absolutely ridiculous claims based on zero evidence and essentially engaging in a conversation of pure fantasy.
It is too early to state conclusively what caused the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 to crash on July 17th. The funny thing is that the entire Australian media knew the whole story on day one, which was the 18th of July here. (the incident actually happened at 1am Australian time on the 18th of July.)
On the 18th of July, the entire (and I mean entire) Australian media and most of the Western media along with Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, stated with supreme confidence that MH17 had been downed by a Buk1 ( SA 11) anti-Aircraft missile and that Eastern Separatists rebels, (helpfully known simply as Pro-Russian rebels by good old Controlled Media) were the culprits.
Part 1. Lie first. Lie hard. Lie in Unison.
Tony Abbott MH17 Press Conference (July 18, 2014)
It was the Australian Prime Minister who set the tone at his afternoon Press conference on the 18th. Here are some of the key quotes. “It is highly probable that MH17 was shot down by a Pro-Russian militia controlled surface to air missile.” and “So it was shot down, over Russian backed rebel controlled territory by what appears to be a Russian backed rebel missile.” This is by the 50 second mark he has claimed twice to know what happened and who did it. This is fewer than 24 hours after the event.
Given the opening, it is rather strange that he adds at the three minute mark that. “It is absolutely essential that there be a fair, thorough and impartial international investigation.”
Later he moves onto a discussion about the contacts between the Australian Government and Russian diplomats. :”I have to tell you that, uh, that the initial response of the Russian ambassador was to blame the Ukraine for this. And I have to say that this is deeply, deeply unsatisfactory. “ Classic Western spin here, the Russians are essentially doing exactly the same thing as he is doing, stating their belief in a scenario that sits with their interests. (Except the Russians are expressing their views privately Abbott is broadcasting his views to the world.). When others behave as we do and we describe their behaviour as “deeply unsatisfactory” rank hypocrisy is revealed. The hypocrisy of Western supremacism.
“I want to say to the Australian people that as far as I am concerned when you have a situation where Russian backed rebels appear to have killed Australians using, it may well turn out to be, Russian supplied heavy weaponry. Australia takes a very dim view indeed and we want the fullest possible investigation.”
One member of the media (Denis Shanahan of the Australian)) opines that the PM is using slightly harsher language than other world leaders in relation to the culpability of Russian backed troops and asks “Do you have any particular reason for doing so?
The Prime Minister’s response is to present an entirely circular argument that has absolutely no evidence to sustain it. All he is able to offer is the insulting and ridiculous assertion that the fact the plane crashed in a rebel held area meant that only the rebels could be involved. All wrapped in the blatant lie that they “knew” that the Plane was shot down by a SAM. How did they know? What evidence did they have beyond supporting the “goodies” and opposing the “baddies”? Zilch. Absolutely nothing. Zero. Everything Abbott said on July 18th was evidence only of his mendacity, dishonesty and despicable opportunism. The journalist was told to shut up and cheer-lead like the rest of the media zombies. Only more politely.
PM Abbott “ Well this aircraft didn’t come down through accident. It was shot down. It did not crash,it was downed” he reiterates helpfully. “and it was downed in territory controlled by Russian backed rebels.”
This has been the PM’s “heroic” claim that he has used to dodge the fact that he was actually speaking nonsense , and acting as a base propagandist on behalf of his Western handlers. and the deaths of so many Australians provided him with a wonderful chance to “earn his stripes” with the big men of the Empire without risk of consequence. The Russia-Australia relationship is not important to Australia, China, on the other hand is Australia’s largest trading partner. So the Australian PM is severely constrained when it comes to promoting anti-Chinese propaganda.
The claim about the Plane crashing in “Rebel held” areas in unbelievably pitiful. Given that these systems are capable of engaging targets at a distance of up to 40 kilometres (25 miles), the Eastern rebels only control tiny pockets of land and the Ukraine military have the same weapons systems. This claim is so pathetic a seven year old child could see through it. He’s implicitly asking us to believe that anti-Aircraft systems only engage objects directly overhead! Brilliant!
PM Abbott in Parliament “Malaysian Airlines MH17 has been shot down over the Eastern Ukraine.it seems by Russian backed rebels.” “We owe it as well to the families of the dead to find out exactly what has happened and exactly who was responsible. As things stand, this looks less like an accident than a crime. I want to repeat this, as things stand, this looks less like an accident than a crime.”
This is tremendous stuff. I love the way he repeats the “Not an accident but a crime ” line twice. It’s one of the stupidest statements a human has ever uttered on the surface of this planet because shooting down a plane and killing 298n people is a crime whether or not it was an accident. The distinction is totally nonsensical.
Synchronised and unanimous adoption of the Government claims by the Australian media indicate that there is no Australian media worthy of the name. These people cannot possibly be as unintelligent as they act. They are apparently conditioned not to use their critical faculties. This is a choice they make. Ignorance is regarded as a virtue in Australia and they want to fit in.
Channel 7. 4 pm bulletin.
“Good afternoon. Now the Foreign Minister has just finished a meeting with the Russian ambassador about the extent of Russia’s involvement in this plane being shot down. Now she asked the Ambassador directly did Russia have any role in this plane being shot down?. The ambassador denied it completely. Saying Russia had no involvement whatsoever.”
Channel 10 5pm
“Good evening. From the minute we woke this morning, and from every moment since the news has only got (sic) worse. Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down by a missile over Eastern Ukraine…We’ll also investigate who fired the shot, as International fury finds it’s focus on Russia… and somewhere amidst the wreckage lies microscopic evidence of a surface to air missile. Evidence (sic) that could prove irrefutable evidence of who exactly triggered this atrocity.”
Evidence might prove to be evidence. Thank you Channel Ten.
Channel 9. 6pm
“Good evening. It’s been a day of anger, mystery and sorrow. The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.over Ukraine…but who fired the missile?”
Channel 9. During Friday Night Football “A Boeing 777 was blown out of the sky. Over Ukraine. Shot down by a Surface to Air Missile.” Later. “Investigators from around the world are now working to determine who launched the missile that took MH17 down. Tonight the blame is resting on Russian backed rebels in Eastern Ukraine. But Moscow is also under fire. Questions are also being raised about why the aircraft was flying over dangerous Ukrainian airspace.”
We don’t know who did it so we have decided to blame the Russians for the time being. Thank you.
ABC News Special/Victoria – Malaysia Airlines MH17 Disaster: Opener [18.07.14]
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation changed it’s program schedule on the 18th of July 2014. Instead of each State and Territory receiving their own individual 30 minute 7PM news,a single National News was imposed across the entire nation. It was only six seconds after the hour, six seconds into their coverage that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation anchor, Scott Bevan announced with absolutely no ambiguity, that MH17 had been downed by a missile.
“Hello, I am Scott Bevan. Welcome to this special edition of ABC News on the day a missile brought down a passenger plane over Ukraine.“ He continues, “Australia, along with the rest of the world is in shock and mourning after a passenger plane carrying 298 people was shot down by a missile over the Ukraine.”
Kerry, the Russians and Matt Lee of AP. Everything Falls Apart.
Secretary of State Kerry Enters the Fray.
It became obvious in 2013 that the State department remains a stronghold for Neoconservatives within the US Government. Many other parts of the Executive Branch, from the President to the Defence Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff are no longer staffed by warmongers with any real verve for the information campaign required to start a war based on false premises.
These days, when it comes to starting the Empire’s wars, the State Department is required to do the “heavy lifting” in terms of delivering the right “big lie” at the right time. IN Libya, they succeeded, in Syria they failed.
Towards this end, US Secretary of State appeared on all of the five major US Sunday talkshows in order to make the case that the Plane was downed by the rebels. Speaking on CNN, Kerry was unequivocal.
“We have enormous input about this that points fingers,” Kerry told CNN’s State of the Union. “It is pretty clear that this was a system from Russia, transferred to separatists. We know with confidence that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point of time.” He follows with : “We know because we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shootdown we detected a launch from that area,” he said. “Our trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft. “
Here we have a number of powerful claims. Unfortunately, it must be concluded that the claims made in these quotes are not supported by the known facts. Kerry stated that “the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time.” The problem here is that the Russian military have presented credible data, satellite photo’s that show that Ukrainian military Buk1 missile systems were stationed close to Donetsk on July 17th.
Malaysian Airlines plane crash: Russian military unveil data on MH17 incident over Ukraine (FULL)
July 21st Russian Defence Ministry Briefing.
Obviously in a situation like this, information that comes from any and all interested parties should be treated with scepticism. The Russians are involved in this situation, therefore that applies to them. One very interesting thing about the Russian military presentation was that it displays a high level of discipline when compared with what has been on offer from the propagandists of the West. The Russians do not claim that the Ukrainian missile battery destroyed the plane, nor that the military jet in the area was responsible. They merely state that these items were present in the area at the time of the incident and imply that they may have attacked the jet without actually making any direct accusations.
It was Kerry’s second assertion that really gave the game away. Kerry made a very big mistake when he stated that, “We know because we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shootdown we detected a launch from that area,”
Pay close attention to the exact words. “We know because we observed it by imagery….we detected a launch from that area.” There can be no doubt that Kerry is stating that they have photographic evidence of the launch of the missile that hit MH17.
These comments were made on Sunday July the 20th. Nineteen days ago. There is no doubt that if these images exist, they would be valuable evidence in support of the narrative the US is trying to sell. Yet, nigh on three weeks after Kerry made these claims. We have not seen one frame. Not one photograph. Absolutely nothing. This fact alone makes it very obvious that the “imagery” Kerry described was always a work of fiction, presumably of his own invention. No other conclusion is possible. The reason we have not seen the “imagery’ is that it never existed, and the reason it never existed is that the Eastern rebels did not shoot the Plane down with a Buk1 missile system. One very telling and little remarked upon claim emerged in the Russian military briefing was that the US had a Satellite over the area of the incident at the time of the incident. The Russians can only have made this statement if they were absolutely confident that their allies did not destroy the plane with a missile. They are saying, the USA knows what happened, they have the evidence.
Matt Lee, AP journalist is impossible to miss when viewing State Department Press briefings. He’s a real obstacle to the State Department propaganda machine, and although always polite and respectful, Lee has developed a highly adversarial relationship with a series of State Department spokespeople. The role was occupied by the esteemed Victoria Nuland prior to Jen Psaki assuming the role. Of recent times this post has been filled by Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf T he State Department briefings are supposed to be a forum for the State Department to deliver a propaganda message to a group of committed lackeys who will accept everything at face value and transmit the desired message to the world without question. Matt Lee’s frequent questions and interjections ruin the whole thing. He always asks questions. Shows a very disappointing irreverence towards authority and refuses to be cowed when the Spokesperson attempts to brow beat him into submission.
State Department Briefing, July 21st, 2014.
‘Anything other than social media?’ State Dept’s MH17 evidence secret”
The strange thing is that the people at the State Department must have known that Matt Lee would attend this briefing and ask his usual thoughtful and sceptical questions, yet when Marie Harf stepped into that room. She had absolutely nothing to offer beyond, “believe us because we said so.”
The contrast between the the US press and their zombiefied and mindlessly obedient Australian counterparts is stark indeed. The Transcript of this briefing indicates that there are real journalists capable of independent thought active in the US mainstream. I have used the State Department transcript,it doesn’t identify the other journalists who also ask questions at the end. (Almost all of the questions in this transcript are from Matt Lee.)
Initially the State Department spokesperson confidently built on the claims Secretary of State John Kerry made the previous day.
Marie Harf: “There is a preponderance of evidence at this point both sort of out there in the public domain and also from our information that points to the fact that there was a SA-11 launched from separatist-controlled territory. We assess, of course, that the Russian-backed separatists have this system, and one of the main reasons we have called for a full investigation is so we can get all the facts out there.
So what I encourage the Russians to do at this point is to push the separatists that are backed by their government to allow access, to allow investigators who are in Ukraine waiting to go into that area right now, and that’s what I would call on Russia to do at this point.
Matt Lee: Right. But what they’re saying is that you should – they’ve put their – what they have out on the table, or at least they say they have done that.
Marie Harf: Well, I haven’t seen any of that. Again, we’ve made an assessment based on a broad range of information. We know this was fired from Russian-controlled territory. It is our assessment, very strong assessment this was an SA-11 that we know the Russian-backed separatists have. We, again, continue to gather more information and call —
Marie Harf: — on Russia to push the separatists to allow for a full investigation.
QUESTION: How is it exactly that you know that it was fired from Russian – I mean, from separatist-held territory?
Marie Harf: Well, we have a great deal of information that the Secretary laid out yesterday, and I can go back through some of it today. But we do know first that Russian-backed separatists were in possession of an SA-11 system as early as Monday, July 14th. This is from intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian Government.
QUESTION: Well, is there anything – okay, is there anything other – because there’s other —
Marie Harf: I can keep going if – or you want to jump in.
QUESTION: Well, is there stuff that’s other than social media that you’re talking —
Marie Harf: Yes, absolutely. There is.
QUESTION: Okay. So what is it that’s other than social media?
Marie Harf: At this point, Matt, we’ve said what our assessment is, very strong assessment publicly. If there’s more information that that’s based on that we can share, we’re happy to do so. We’ll continue looking at that. But look, this is what we know as of right now. Based on open information which is basically common sense, right – we know where it was fired from, we know who has this weapon – backed up —
QUESTION: Well, I don’t —
Marie Harf: — backed up —
QUESTION: — I mean, it’s disputed, though.
Marie Harf: — backed up by a host of information that we have gathered about who did this, where it came from, and what the weapon system was. So one of – we’re just telling you what we know now.
QUESTION: Right, right. But —
Marie Harf: One of the reasons we’ve called on Russia to push the separatists it backs into an investigation is so we can get all the facts. Instead of holding press briefings and making statements, maybe the Russian Government should call on the separatists they support to allow an actual investigation.
QUESTION: Right. But that’s what you’ve done. You’ve held press – well, Security Council meetings and going —
Marie Harf: Well, we don’t have leverage with the separatists. I would say the Russians do and they’re not using it. So let’s have them use it.
QUESTION: Well, okay. But I mean, I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I’m asking you —
Marie Harf: It wouldn’t be the first time.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) No, that’s true. What I’m asking – I mean, there are social – all you’re willing to present publicly that backs up your version of the story, which may well be the correct version of the story, but all you have —
Marie Harf (clearly aghast interjects sarcastically) “May well be.”
Matt Lee: (completely misses the sarcasm and soldiers on) Well, it may well be. But I don’t know because I haven’t seen your evidence that shows that the missile was launched from rebel-held territory. But you’re saying – so the only thing you’re willing to put out publicly is the social media accounts, I mean the social media stuff.
Marie Harf: That’s part of it.
QUESTION: Right. But there are social media accounts that says – that disputes that or that claims to present a different version. So are you saying —
Marie Harf: What would that version be, Matt?
QUESTION: Well, I don’t – there are many, many theories.
Marie Harf: Any —
QUESTION: But you’re saying that all of those accounts —
Marie Harf: Most of which are completely illogical, I would point out.
QUESTION: Well, but all of the accounts that do not support your version of events are wrong —
Marie Harf: No.
QUESTION: — and all of the ones that do support it are right? Is that what you’re saying?
Marie Harf: Look, we make assessments based on a variety of intelligence and a variety of information, some of which we can talk about publicly and some of which we can’t.
QUESTION: Well, is the – are you —
Marie Harf: And we also – and look, if you just take a step back, right, we need there to be an investigation so we can get all the facts, period. But on top of that, we have public information, which is, of course, the easiest for us to talk about —
Marie Harf: — of the separatists bragging about having the system, bragging about the attack that took place, and then walking back from it when it became known that it was a passenger jet. I would ask people who don’t believe our assessment to say, “Okay, what other possible explanation could be – could there be for that?” They defy logic, right?
QUESTION: Well, I don’t know if it defies logic or not, but —
Marie Harf: So when you start from a place of you have separatists out on – again, this is the easiest piece of information for us to talk about – online bragging about it, start there and then work from there and work from all of the evidence we have that we are confident we know where it was fired from, we’re confident we know what it was, and it points in a certain direction. Again, we would encourage Russia to support an investigation if they don’t believe the facts.
QUESTION: Right. It points in a certain direction, but I’m not sure it would stand up to an international —
Marie Harf I strongly disagree. I absolutely believe that it would.
QUESTION: — investigation. Well, are you willing, if not at this moment in time now but soon, to put forward the intel that you say backs the claims that were made on social media? And in particular, it seems to me that the Secretary was very definitive, as you were just now, at saying that you know for sure 100 percent —
Marie Harf: I didn’t say 100 percent. Nothing is 100 percent in any world, Matt. But go ahead. It is our assessment, very strong assessment.
QUESTION: Okay, very strong assessment that the rocket – that the missile was fired from the rebel-held territory.
Marie Harf: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And I mean, you can’t – there is no social media that I’m aware of that would lead to —
Marie Harf: Well, at the time that MH17 flight dropped out of contact, we detected a surface-to-air —
Marie Harf: — missile launch from a separatist-controlled area in south-eastern Ukraine.
Marie Harf: Which we believe was an SA-11. What you want is the intelligence that underlies that?
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I mean, they – the Russians have challenged – I’m not – I’m just saying the Russians have said —
Marie Harf: I’m just trying to clarify the question.
QUESTION: — have said we’ve shown – we’ve put out our radar images which show this Ukrainian plane near at least – well, they have. I mean —
Marie Harf: Right.
QUESTION: Why don’t you put out your –
Cornered, Marie Harf retreats behind the National Security veil in a really sad manner. It stands as a profound admission of defeat and this marks the point at which this psychological operation began to rapidly collapse. Things really go downhill from that point. Soon, some of the other journalsts begin to ask difficult and troubling questions to which the State Department have no good answer.
Marie Harf: Well, unfortunately, I don’t have original declassification authority, Matt. But —
QUESTION: Okay. Is —
Marie Harf: Wait, let me finish. But look, we have endeavoured to make public as much information as possible. Obviously, if you’re dealing with an intelligence assessment in part, we are sometimes limited in what information we can share. That’s why I think you saw the Secretary speak much more forward-leaning about why we believe this and how we believe it.
Marie Harf Sometimes you can’t get into all the specifics. We endeavour to put as many out as possible. We’re continuing to see if we can do more.
Marie Harf: I will say that.
QUESTION: So okay —
Marie Harf: Yes, we are —
QUESTION: So there is a possibility —
Marie Harf: I can’t promise you anything, but we’re continuing to see.
QUESTION: There is —
Marie Harf: And I would also say that the Russian Government has a long history during this conflict of misinformation and propaganda that they’ve put out, so I would take anything they say about this with a very large grain of salt.
QUESTION: Well, okay. But I mean, the problem – are you committing now to at least doing – that the intel community is doing its best to declassify stuff that they can put out and at least end the conflicting claims put forward by both the U.S. —
Marie Harf: Well, I would say that the Administration in general is attempting to put out as much information as we can about what underlies our assessment. I would also say that these aren’t competing narratives from two equally credible sources here. The Russian Government has repeatedly put out misinformation and propaganda throughout this conflict in Ukraine, so I would caution you from saying that this is just two equally credible sources.
QUESTION: Well, all right.
Marie Harf: Although you’re happy to report it that way.
QUESTION: No, I just —
Marie Harf: But I would take issue with it.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, again, you might be right, but I don’t see how you can say that everything we say is right and everything the Russians say is a lie.
Marie Harf: That’s not what I said.
QUESTION: That’s exactly what you just said right now.
Marie Harf: That’s not what I said. I said I would say that we are not two credible – equally credible parties when it comes to what we say publicly about the conflict in Ukraine.
(This is the point things really break down, this is the real highlight amusement wise)
QUESTION: And your argument would be that the U.S. is more credible than the Russians are, right? Is that what you’re —
Marie Harf: I’m not even dignifying that question with a response.
(I’ve never attended “spin school” but I am certain that spinmeisters are trained never ever to make comments such as “I’m not even dignifying that with a response.” The idea is to project calm, knowledgeable authority and never ever to lose your cool even slightly. That ruins everything, creates entirely the wrong impression. I’m not seeking to beat up on Ms.Harf she is in an impossible situation due to her boss the Secretary of State’s comments on the previous day. and things go so wrong because she lacks the ability to tell outrageous lies and back them up with the right style of intimidation to seal the deal. She is too nice a person for the role,too human) )
QUESTION: Well, I mean —
QUESTION: Marie, did you see the —
QUESTION: But you’re leaving that impression, Marie.
Marie Harf: That we’re more credible? Yes. We don’t put out mass amounts of propaganda. We don’t put out misinformation about what’s happening there repeatedly over the course of this conflict, which I’ve spoken about from this podium day after day. Absolutely.
QUESTION: But can you tell us —
QUESTION: The problem with that is is that all of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 was propaganda and misleading information that was put out by the United States.
Marie Harf: Okay, Matt. I’m sure that’s a tempting historical analogy to make, but it in no way impacts at all how we are doing this assessment or what we’re doing.
Marie Harf: And maybe someday you’ll finally stop using that as a straw man all the time.
QUESTION: It’s a —
FEMALE JOURNALIST: Well Marie, one of the big things is showing evidence.
(Evidence- a concept and word apparently entirely unknown to the Australian media)
Marie Harf: Yeah. I – agreed. Agreed.
QUESTION: I mean, in court or anywhere, and I think that’s what Matt’s saying, is show the evidence, independent evidence of what you got in intel. I mean, the Russians —
Marie Harf: So we —
QUESTION: — said today that they did not deliver any SA – you’ve seen it – bulk missile system. I mean, is there evidence that you have seen – not what the Ukrainians or anything online has shown, but it’s something that the U.S. has got evidence that they – that the Russians supplied this to them?
Marie Harf: This specific system.
Marie Harf: So a few points. And again, I agree that evidence is important and we are attempting to put out there as much as possible. I do think that’s why you saw the Secretary and me today going much further in why we say we believe – why we believe what we say. And I know it’s frustrating. Believe me, we try to get as much out there as possible. And for some reason, sometimes we can’t.
Look, I think it still remains to be seen, right, how the pro-Russian separatists got whatever – the SA-11, the specific one – I’m not assigning culpability there. But we know that there have been legions of young men crossing the Russian border with very sophisticated weaponry. This would not happen without at least the acquiescence or the support of the Russian Government.
These are complicated systems, right, that it takes training on. We know that the Russian Government’s been training the pro-Russian separatists. We know, period, that what’s happening in eastern Ukraine would not be happening without the support of the Russian Government. So we need a full investigation to determine exactly where the SA-11 came from, but we know that the pro-Russian separatists have many of the weapons they have, have the training they have, and have the support they have because of the Russian Government.
QUESTION: They could have stolen it from the Ukrainian —
QUESTION: Does the U.S. – does the – did the U.S. actually have – independently noticed that a Ukrainian war plane was the in the vicinity of the Malaysia —
Marie Harf: I don’t know if I can confirm those reports. I’m happy – I don’t even know if that’s true. I’m happy to check on it.
This exchange can be summarised thus: The claims that Secretary of State John Kerry made were not supported by evidence available to the State Department so when some of the journalists “crossed the Rubicon”, did their job and asked questions, it quickly became fairly clear that the evidence had never existed and would never exist. The US press were told, “believe it because we said so and we are the good guys.” When the Press failed to comply the naked emperor was exposed. It quickly became obvious that there was no evidence because there was no good reason for the US government not to release what they had. The presence of US satellites over Russia has been well known for many decades after all, the US had no plausible reason for not releasing the data they had if it was there and supported their accusations. The Russian Defence Ministry briefing specifically stated that a US space satellite was over Ukraine at the time of the incident.
Part 3. Evidence emerges.
Controlled media hounds are still working the case (MH17 breakthrough: owner of Volvo truck that transported missile fears his life | News.com.au), they are persistent. The only problem for them is that all of their efforts to frame Russia and the Separatists were predicated on the assumption that the Jet was shot down by a Buk 1 Missile system. All of their efforts are directed towards this magical goal, to track down the guilty rocket launcher. It’s been wonderful stuff, they are terribly admirable on each and every level, both as human beings and journalists.
There’s only one problem.
There are multiple pieces of evidence, including observations from an OSCE observer that was part of the first group to visit the site that the fuselage appeared to have machine gun holes in it.
This is a video made by the Canadian broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Their reporter Susan Ormitsen interviewed OSCE observer Michael Bociurkiw in Donetsk, East Ukraine.
Investigating MH17 – YouTube
Michael Bociurkiw is an individual with an interesting background. He has written a number of articles for the Huffington Post about the crisis in Ukraine that indicate that he is a “Liberal Neoconservative”. This is the beginning of his article of March 18th of this year. Entitled after Crimea, the Only Question is “What’s Next?” The mood on Maidan Square in central Kyiv remains decidedly grim after a referendum widely branded as illegal and illegitimate took place in Crimea on Sunday.” Later he adds, “Will the insatiable appetite of the hungry Russian bear be satisfied with the Crimean peninsula.” He is quite simply not a person positively disposed towards the Russian Federation. He is the last man in the world likely to “lie for Russia.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bociurkiw/
Michael Bociurkiw describes himself as being “intimately familiar with that site.” and .”intimately familiar with the aircraft.”
Susan Ormitsen “What do you think we know about what happened to that aircraft today compared with the first day you came?”
“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage, that have been really pock-marked. It almost looks like machine gun fire, very very strong. machine gun fire that has left these unique marks. that we haven’t seen anywhere else.” He continues. “We’ve also been asked for example,did we see any examples of a missile, well, no we haven’t, that’s the answer. “
One important thing to remember about this quote is the context, this is Michael Bociurkiw’s direct and initial response when asked what they now knew. Machine gun holes. What we are probably going to be told is that this was a crude attempt by the rebels to frame the Ukraine Air Force , they fired their guns into the plane and made the holes. But we know from the context and content of the quote that Mr. Bociurkiw does not believe that or even consider it. It is the first evidence he mentions when asked. He thinks it’s evidence.
Former Lufthansa pilot Peter Haienko was the person who noticed and highlighted the devastating photo of large calibre bullet holes travelling through both sides of the MH17 jet. He stated unequivocally that the damage pattern in the cockpit area was consistent with cannon fire from a heavy machine gun .
Here is a brief excerpt from Peter Haisenko’s article.
“The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: 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.”
Su25 vs SU 27.
One thing that puzzled people, myself included, was the fact that the Russian Defence Ministry claimed that a Ukraine Air Force Sukhoi SU 25 was in the vicinity of the Malaysian airlines jet at the time it began to fall from the sky. When people looked at the specifications of the Su25, the claim made no sense, as the SU25 is listed as being capable of operating at a ceiling of 22,965 feet according to Wikipedia, meaning that this war plane would be incapable of travelling to an altitude to bee capable of firing it’s cannon on MH17. We all missed the fact that the Russian Defence Ministry claimed in their July 21st briefing, that “.Su-25 can gain an altitude of 10000 meters (32 808.399 feet) for a short time. “ I have no idea if this is true, but the Russians have been using these aircraft for 40 years, they developed them. More importantly, if the Russians wanted to lie, they would simply claim it was an SU27, with a much higher “official ceiling” and remove the altitude issue altogether.
I have no idea whose aircraft was responsible for the destruction of MH17, but I believe that the evidence indicates that the Boeing 777 was destroyed by fire from another aircraft. Add to that the lack of observations of a missile contrail . Add to that the multiple eyewitness accounts of Fighter aircraft in close proximity to MH17,along with Russian radar data indicating the presence of a military jet close to the flight corroborating the eyewitness claims.
We have therefore a coherent explanation of what destroyed MH17 that fits all the known facts and is not contradicted by any known facts.
The controlled media have nothing. It’s absolutely hilarious. They are apparently hoping that no-one will notice that there is not any evidence that substantiates their claim that the Flight was struck by any ground to air missile operated by anyone.
They are running around with their pre-event manufactured highly edited audio frame up and their useless photos of Ukrainian military Buk missiles driving around Ukraine, pretending they are “escaping to Russia”. The efforts at lying and brainwashing have certainly been dedicated. You almost feel sorry for them that all their pitiful efforts could not possibly have been more futile Because the entire con job hinged on the “fact” that MH17 was destroyed by a ground to air missile, and the witnesses and physical evidence and the observations of Michael Bociurkiw and German Pilot Peter Haisenko along with photographic evidence that corroborates the hypothesis that the aircraft was attacked by another aircraft. The identity of that aircraft and who operated it are not known. The Russians claim that the Aircraft was operated by the Government of the Ukraine. These claims may well be correct, but must be treated with scepticism because the Russians are a party to the East Ukraine conflict . The fact that the Russians sought to present evidence without laying blame, whereas the West did the exact opposite, means that on this matter at least, the claims of Russia deserve more credence. This is not to suggest that the Russians are an inherently more trustworthy party. That would be completely naive, but on this matter they have presented evidence whereas the West has only made wild and opportunistic claims.
I have true pity for people who are yet to understand that false flag attacks are both the traditional and contemporary way that the people who really run the world get things done.
Provocation may be a concept that people may find easier to accept. You want to start a war, but you don’t want to be seen as the aggressor. So you create a scenario that will provide you with a pretext for a war of aggression. This is really the oldest trick in the book, and until recently it had always worked brilliantly. Neoconservative Patrick Clawson actually lays out much of America’s false flag history in this short video.
Israel Lobbyist – We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!
The point of which is to recommend another false flag provocation in order to achieve war with Iran. He forgot to mention September 11th, of course. The most public,brutal and well documented false flag terror attack in history. The controlled media owned the public mind, owned almost all of us, and there was nowhere to go seemingly. Those days areover. The means of media production are in the hands of everyone, for better or worse.
We Don’t Like to Talk About That Anymore.
August the 7th was our designated national day of mourning in Australia for the victims of this tragedy. . It was tremendously sad to see all the bereaved at the Ecumenical Melbourne service. Strangely, the story did not feature prominently in the news. The coverage generally began about ten minutes into the news on all of the stations.Only one of the stations made any reference to either the culprits. Nor the weapons system involved. Only the State broadcaster ABC was still prepared to read the script. The claim was revised to the genuinely meaningless. :”It is believed that Pro-Russian rebels were responsible.” Think about that. It is believed. Think about some of the other things people believe. There are people who believe that if they commit suicide they will be reunited with the “space brothers” on the
Comet Halle-bop. There are people who believe Michelle Obama is a male despite the fact that she has given birth to two children. There are people who believe any number of things, and it means absolutely nothing. Anyone can believe anything! It is only when we test these beliefs against objective reality that we can measure their veracity. It’s called testing an hypotheses, and we know that the consequences of not testing the veracity of our beliefs is that we have little or no idea whether they are grounded in, or consistent with, history and objective reality. Only their blind tribal faith in the West can sustain this belief. So they revert to that.
August 7th was also the day that the Dutch and Australian recovery teams abandoned their tenure due to the Ukraine government’s military offensive in the area. The same operation they had previously promised not to launch. Also the military operation that the Ukraine government guaranteed would be over by July 31st. Again all of their rhetoric rebounds upon them. Who is hindering and all but cancelling the investigation? Who is obstructing and destroying the investigation? It’s the Ukraine government.
August 7th was also the day that the Russian federation, imposed limited Economic sanctions on Australia, along with a host of EU nations, the USA and Norway. The sanctions will disrupt 400 million dollars of Economic activity. New buyers will have to be found. The economic consequences are unlikely to be severe, or even noticeable. However, this is the second time in the space of months that this government has put Australia economy, and especially our farming sector under threat because of reckless and inexplicable Foreign policy that seems to rake no account of the interests of the Australian people and economy. First it was the immoral support for the Israeli Apartheid state that put our farmers extremely lucrative, live export trade under threat from rightfully enraged Arab governments. Now, we have this madness of jumping the gun, speaking nonsense, being eclipsed and humiliated by reality and hurting our farmers. Who are these decisions seeking to serve? What possible ;loyalty could the Australian government have for a Kiev government with suspect legitimacy, racist thugs in it’s Ministerial ranks, and who are currently destroying Donetsk and Luhansk in every bit as evil and futile a manner as Israel destroyed Gaza.
Other than some fans in the State Department and NATO, the Kiev government really has almost nothing going for them. All Ukrainian governments since independence at the fall of the Soviet Union have been hopelessly, even legendarily corrupt. This is true whether the President is pro Western or pro Russian. This is why on several occasions in the Ukraine sitting Presidents receive only 5% of the vote in Presidential elections. This Ukraine government appears to be more of the same, only with the IMF and War as a bonus vices. All the people who look positively upon the Government of the Ukraine presumably didn’t notice, or approved of the mass murder of civilians in the city of Odessa on May 2nd this year. Forty eight civilians murdered by Right wing paramilitaries aligned with the Ukraine government and no prosecutions. No justice for those victims. And given the criminal decision of the Kiev Government to launch a major offensive in the crash area that made further investigation and retrieval impossible who are these people and why do they continue to enjoy uncritical Western support?