Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia

Morty

New Member
Australian 60 Minutes recently ran a story claiming to locate the very spot from which a Russian made missile was launched to down flight MH17.

60 minutes story here (12 minutes): http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2015/may/mh17/

Robert Parry has written an article claiming that the final "slam dunk" photographic evidence offered by 60 Minutes doesn't match the scene as claimed by 60 Minutes.

Robert Parry article: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/18/fake-evidence-blaming-russia-for-mh-17/

Verdict: I don't know enough to say, either way, but seeing as things are so slow here at the Metabunk MH17 forum, I'm willing to endure a scolding for this lazy, non-complying OP to see if any sharper minds out there have an opinion on this, one way or the other.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
This seems to be the main claim -

But the scenes look nothing at all alike if you put them side by side. While Usher is standing in an open field, the earlier video shows an overgrown area. Indeed, almost nothing looks the same, which might explain why the film crew didn’t try to do an overlay this time.
Content from External Source


A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery passes after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)
Content from External Source

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)
Content from External Source
This discrepancy is important because the Russian government placed the scene of the “getaway” BUK launcher in the town of Krasnoarmiis’k, northwest of Donetsk and then under Ukrainian government control. Usher dismissed that Russian claim as a lie before asserting that his team had located the scene with the billboard in Luhansk.
Content from External Source
He didn't really prove much.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I haven't looked into these claims in detail but I can easily believe that those screenshots show exactly the same place. A lot of people get confused by the massive effect that changes in camera position and, especially, focal length, can have in the appearance of a scene.

For example, these three pictures all show the same house:







upload_2015-5-22_10-39-46.png


From telephoto to wide angle (and obviously a big change in viewpoint from the first one).
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The mountains don't even look real similar and they look to be very different distances from the house.
 

Morty

New Member
Thanks for the replies. I'm surprised Parry is willing to be so sloppy. I guess he's just saying what his audience wants to hear.

I'd be interested to know if anybody sees any contradictions between the scenario outlined by bellingcat/60 Minutes and the accepted wisdom here at Metabunk regarding the facts of flight MH17.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I wouldn't call 60 minutes good journalism by any standards (it's generally that awful modern style where the reporter and their experience is considered the star of the story), but I doubt they fabricated any evidence to make the segment.
Didn't they pretty much just gather and repeat all the evidence that was being discussed on the internet when it happened, or did they have something new to add?
 

Mi3

New Member
I'm going with Parry at this stage. I watched the 60 mins program on Sunday and immediately didn't buy their story due to weak evidence and jumping to conclusions. I had a quick look at the photos and am not going to waste a lot of time but it hasn't convinced me.

So you really think those poles from original BUK video and from 60min are not the same ?

 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
There seems to be quite a few logic flaws in the Parry piece. Lets start with this one.


Another problem with the Australian TV account is that the video and photographic images show the truck heading eastward toward Russia, but there are no earlier images of the truck moving westward from Russia into eastern Ukraine. If the mysterious truck was supposedly so obvious on the day of the shoot-down, why wasn’t it obvious earlier?

For the Australian TV account to be true – blaming the Russians – the launcher would have to have crossed from Russia into Ukraine, traveled somewhere west of Donetsk, before turning around and heading eastward back toward Russia, yet the trail seems to begin only with photos on July 17 showing the truck headed east.
Content from External Source
It seems to me that people would be more likely to be looking for and photographing equipment on the move after MH17 was shot down than before. They may not of even known what a BUK looked like the day before the incident - why bother taking pictures of military equipment on trucks?

The argument seems to be appealing to hindsight.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
This seems to be the main claim -

But the scenes look nothing at all alike if you put them side by side. While Usher is standing in an open field, the earlier video shows an overgrown area. Indeed, almost nothing looks the same, which might explain why the film crew didn’t try to do an overlay this time.
Content from External Source


A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery passes after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)
Content from External Source

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)
Content from External Source
This discrepancy is important because the Russian government placed the scene of the “getaway” BUK launcher in the town of Krasnoarmiis’k, northwest of Donetsk and then under Ukrainian government control. Usher dismissed that Russian claim as a lie before asserting that his team had located the scene with the billboard in Luhansk.
Content from External Source
He didn't really prove much.


I had concerns about the open nature of the field when the imagery first came out. But if you look at post #2 you can see that the photo was taken with a long lens from some distance away and the "forest of trees" is actually a foreshortened view of the scattered trees. Given the tension at the time it makes sense that a photographer would not be standing right next to the road, especially if they were trying to get candid/clandestine shots of military equipment.

As for Parry making an issue about the video of the correspondent in the open field, it is a red herring. It would not make sense to set up a correspondent shot from several hundred yards away so that the viewpoint matched the BUK photography - the audio would be problematic.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
Here is my theory:

Russians provide some basic training on BUKs to some Cossacks.
Russians provide a few BUKs to shoot down Ukranian transport and supply planes.
Poory trained Cossack turns on his BUK in independent operation mode before the full array is in place with IFF capability.
Cossack shoots down MH17 thinking it is a Ukrainian supply plane and he will be the hero of the day.
Russians take the guns away from the children within 24 hours.

The last part is geopolitical...
The West does not want to start WWIII over it.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
It is interesting that the Luhansk billboard car advert was later photographed with part of it torn off.

upload_2015-5-26_19-16-29.png

From

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...buk-missing-1-missile-driving-towards-russia/



The torn area just happened to be the area where the Russian Ministry of Defence claimed that the car advert carried an address in Krasnoarmeisk.



The Russians have never retracted their claim of Krasnoarmeisk.

They still have the transcription of the press conference on the Russian UK Embassy website.

The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Content from External Source
http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865



 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
It is interesting that the Luhansk billboard car advert was later photographed with part of it torn off.

upload_2015-5-26_19-16-29.png

From

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...buk-missing-1-missile-driving-towards-russia/



The torn area just happened to be the area where the Russian Ministry of Defence claimed that the car advert carried an address in Krasnoarmeisk.



The Russians have never retracted their claim of Krasnoarmeisk.

They still have the transcription of the press conference on the Russian UK Embassy website.

The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Content from External Source
http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865

The banner which was torn does not match the graphic: note that the phone numbers are different. Bogdan Auto has numerous locations across Ukraine.






The phone number on the billboard is (0642) 31-10-16. Googling that phone number brings up this address on the Bogdan Autocentres website: http://bogdanauto.autocentre.ua/bogdan-autocentres.html

upload_2015-5-26_20-51-32.png


The address is г. Луганск, кв-л Ленинского комсомола, 1В.

Transliterated: Leninskogo Komsomola 1B, Luhansk.

Luhansk, not Krasnoarmeysk.

It's impossible to read the text above the phone number on that photo, but it appears from the length of the words that it could well say "Ленинского комсомола 1В":

upload_2015-5-26_20-58-43.png


Edit: the full image confirms that that is the address:



https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/4ece2b117da2d8226c0f04f08c649643.jpg

Translated Russian text in above graphic:

(left) What "nanotechnology" allowed this address to be read as Krasnoarmeysk? :)

(right) This billboard has the address on it in plain view. (literally "the light of day and the address on it")

I am still unable to get the 60 Minutes video to play, so this may be addressed already in the video?
 
Last edited:

David Coulter

Senior Member.
I get suspicious when someone like Parry slightly modifies the meaning of quotes.

He says:
Last October, Der Spiegel reported that the German intelligence service, the BND, had concluded that Russia was not the source of the missile battery – that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base – but the BND still blamed the rebels for firing it.
Content from External Source
But the story says:
The BND has intelligence indicating that pro-Russian separatists captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base and fired a missile on July 17 that exploded in direct proximity to the Malaysian aircraft, which had been carrying 298 people.
Content from External Source
That is a subtle misrepresentation of what Der Spiegel reported but there is a very big difference between an indication of something and conclusive evidence.

....my emphasis....
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
Translated Russian text in above graphic:

(left) What "nanotechnology" allowed this address to be read as Krasnoarmeysk? :)

(right) This billboard has the address on it in plain view. (literally "the light of day and the address on it")

Nice work. I agree. Looks like the Russians just ran with the social media claim of Krasnoarmeysk. Translation of that
original post on Facebook. You would have thought that the Russians would have double-checked and at least attempted to geo-locate the Krasnoarmeysk claim from the video? All very strange and leads me to believe that it was a deliberate attempt by the Russian military/intelligence to muddy the waters.

upload_2015-5-26_22-51-56.png

https://www.facebook.com/KNNUK/posts/735639363159197
 

Rob

Member
Bellingcat presented a compelling argument that not just 60 Minutes Australia DID record their images in the right place in Luhansk, but also that the video of the BUK with the missing missile was indeed recorded at that very same location :

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...n-in-depth-analysis-of-the-luhansk-buk-video/

So Robert Parry's argument that 60 Minutes Australia "faked" evidence (and later accusations by Robert Parry of "fraud") are entirely without merit and entirely unfounded.
Meanwhile, Robert Parry has not presented ANY evidence himself, other than a mis-interpretation of perspective, as nicely explained in 'Trailblazer's post above.

Mick, What kind of evidence do we need to present so that this thread can be flagged as "DEBUNKED" ?
Or is there a category like "UNFOUNDED" or "SLANDER" or so ?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
You'd have to summarise the points/counter-points in a post. Then they could be edited in to the opening post.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You'd have to summarise the points/counter-points in a post. Then they could be edited in to the opening post.
i did have alot of trouble following the thread because the pics were spaced out, the names were all funny and i dont know where any of those places are on the map or the story behind the russia billboard story.
 
Top