What the U.S. Government found, then covered up, in #Antarctica will blow your mind!


Intellihub

Antarctica

Evidence yields ‘warm waters and life’ — a ‘hollow Earth’

By Shepard Ambellas

Editor’s note: The following story is amazing and should be shared with everyone you know! The U.S. Government has been complicit in many cover ups, but this is by far one of the most compelling accounts.


ANTARCTICA (INTELLIHUB) — Operation Highjump (OpHjp) put nearly 5000 U.S. military personnel along with every resource available to the Navy’s disposal in the hands of Admiral Richard Byrd, the Operations Leader of the U.S. Naval mission into the Antarctic. Think about that for a moment and let it sink in. Every resource in the entire U.S. Navy was made readily available for Admiral Byrd’s team’s use.

Although Byrd was chosen to lead the mission for a rather specific reason, which I will later explain, he was quite qualified and a favorite amongst the American public–the perfect candidate of choice by U.S. Navy and Top Brass. Additionally to Byrd’s recruitment another man, Rear Admiral Richard Cruzen, was selected to head-up the task force. And make no mistake, this was an unusually bold move for the American military at the time as people, nations, and even world economies were still volatile from war’s aftermath.

So we have to ask the following questions:

Why would the U.S. military be seeking to expend so many resources at the risk of great collateral loss to explore such a harsh region of the Planet Earth as Antarctica?

What was the rush?

What did they know?

What we find is that a lot of the details regarding Operation Highjump have been carefully tucked away over the years. Wikipedia explains little about the mission officially titled The United States Navy Antarctic Developments Program, 1946-1947:

A United States Naval operation organized by Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd Jr., USN (Ret), Officer in Charge, Task Force 68, and led by Rear Admiral Richard H. Cruzen, USN, Commanding Officer, Task Force 68. Operation Highjump commenced 26 August 1946 and ended in late February 1947. Task Force 68 included 4,700 men, 13 ships, and multiple aircraft. The primary mission of Operation Highjump was to establish the Antarctic research base Little America IV.

Highjump’s objectives, according to the U.S. Navy’s report on the operation were as follows:

  1. training personnel and testing equipment in frigid conditions;

  2. consolidating and extending United States sovereignty over the largest practicable area of the Antarctic continent (This was publicly denied as a goal even before the expedition ended);

  3. determining the feasibility of establishing, maintaining and utilizing bases in the Antarctic and investigating possible base sites;

  4. developing techniques for establishing, maintaining and utilizing air bases on ice, with particular attention to later applicability of such techniques to operations in interior Greenland, where conditions are comparable to those in the Antarctic;

  5. amplifying existing stores of knowledge of hydrographic, geographic, geological, meteorological and electro-magnetic propagation conditions in the area;

  6. supplementary objectives of the Nanook expedition. (The Nanook operation was a smaller equivalent conducted off eastern Greenland.)

Interestingly enough many of the actual mission details were shrouded by secrecy, hidden from the American public, which leads us to where we are now.

An excerpt from a report entitled The Antarctica Enigma reads:

Little other information was released to the media about the mission, although most journalists were suspicious of its true purpose given the huge amount of military hardware involved.

The US Navy also strongly emphasized that Operation Highjump was going to be a navy show; Admiral Ramsey’s preliminary orders of 26th August 1946 stated that,“The Chief of Naval Operations only will deal with other governmental agencies” and that “no diplomatic negotiations are required. No foreign observers will be accepted.”

Not exactly an invitation to scrutiny, even from other arms of the government.

Admiral Byrd, was a strategic choice as he was a national hero to the Americans. He had pioneered the technology that would be a foundation for modern polar exploration and investigation, had been repeatedly decorated and had undertaken many expeditions to Antarctica and was also the first man to fly over both poles.

However, the task force itself, remained strictly under the military command of Rear Admiral Richard Cruzen

Unfortunately, the ships central group entered the ice pack off the Ross Sea on 31st December 1946 and found conditions as bad as had been noted for over a century.

Cebreakers such as the USCGC Burton Island, a ship that had only recently been commissioned and was still undergoing sea trials off the Californian coast when Operation Highjump was launched, fought to cut a way through the ice to help the men land.

Richard Cruzen was one of a few men to have located at several ‘oases’ which were actually the real reason the expedition team was sent there in the first place, although at the time only those with a top-secret clearance would truly know the mission’s true objective.

An excerpt from the Daviess County Historical Society reads:

According to a Navy report, 1,000 miles of new coastline was discovered on exploratory trips by the Bear and Byrd’s sea plane. Commended by Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox for his “superior seamanship, ability, courage, determination, efficiency and good judgment in dangerous emergencies,” Cruzen was one of the 16 members of the 1939-41 expedition who received the Antarctic Expedition Medal, presented in November 1946.

On Dec. 2, 1946, Cruzen once more set sail for the Antarctic continent. This time, as Task Force Commander under Admiral Byrd of the Navy’s Antarctic Developments Project also known as “Operation Highjump” Cruzen led a force of 13 ships carrying some 4,000 men, including meteorologists, zoologists, physicists and experts from oceanography institutes into the adventure of a lifetime.

Besides looking for new scientific data, another purpose of the expedition was to train Navy personnel and to test standard Navy ships and other equipment in cold weather operations.

Cruzen navigated through an ice pack of several hundred miles before reaching Little America. Icebergs and unpredictable weather were formidable foes during the course of the expedition.

Among the discoveries made during the 1946-47 expedition was the sighting of two “oases,” one a region of ice-free lakes and land. More than 300,000 square miles of unpathed territory were charted on aerial mapping operations. Their observations proved that radical changes would have to be made on existing maps of the Antarctic.

Why would warm spots, with warm water exist in the Antarctic?

What does this mean?

The Hollow Earth Theory

Researchers such as Dr. Brooks Agnew and others have deeply considered the possibility that the earth itself could be hollow or egg-like.

Although this theory seems hard to comprehend because you have been told exactly opposite your entire life, in school, and so on.

Entertain this idea for a moment.

What if the earth was hollow?

Would that be possible?

Is there evidence to back this up?

The answer is yes!

Evidence shows that the earth rings like a bell after an earthquake for a period of up to about 60 minutes and that’s why some scientists and researchers say that this is due to the fact that the earth is hollow.

If the earth had a solid core, when and earthquake happened it would likely absorb all of vibration and not resonate it. This is just one detail that should open your mind to the possibility that a hollow planet is a possibility.

Famous author and lecture, David Icke, explains in his book, Moon Matrix, exactly how the moon is likely hollow as well. While Icke has been received lately harshly with criticisms, an ActivistPost.com article points out how “Icke believes that the moon is an inter-dimensional, intensity portal for entities and energies from other dimensions. He believes that aliens use the moon as a home base for hijacking signals from the universe so that our bodily forms that are experiencing this virtual reality on Earth, can’t fully experience what our creator meant for it to be. These aliens are the same reptilian shape-shifters that Icke claims are responsible for much of suffering on our planet. Reptilians want to filter anything beyond our five senses so that it manipulates what kind of world we can experience.”

I myself have had the privilege of interviewing David Icke and other hollow earth experts, such as Rodney Cluff and Dr. Brooks Agnew, personally–pushing me further into accepting that this theory may be more than just a theory.

Virtually every culture and civilization across the planet, throughout time, has documented what appears to be the existence of a ‘hollow Earth.’

According to Dr. Brooks Agnew, who I have personally interviewed many times, ‘a hollow earth is a very real possibility’.

Agnew has focused his studies to the North Pole region, as him and his team plan to one day locate a documented “polar depression” thus launching test overflights from a “nuclear powered icebreaker.”

Brooks and his team plan a scientific expedition to the brim of the hollow earth, which proves to been unsuccessful at this time due to a lack of funding.

Brooks plans to use a “sun compass” and a “gyroscope” above the 60th parallel to get accurate measurements of the oceanic depression. If the rate of change begins to increase than likely the team would be entering the longed elusive “polar depression” which has been reported by ancient Viking explorers and modern-day seamen alike.

Moreover during an interview on Red Ice Radio, Agnew talked about the formation of planets, Sir Isaac Newton, and the difference between “thick” and “thin” crust physics, zero gravity and more. The episode is very interesting to say the least. Essentially what Agnew was talking about is what’s known as a rather large “Graviton”. You know, those rides at the county fair that spin real fast? They stick you to the wall then the floor lowers. Oh boy – I can smell the funnel cake and the cotton candy now!

..

American Online Retailer Holds 3 Months Of Food, $10 Million In Gold For Employees In Preparation For The Next Collapse


Zero Hedge

overstock

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne’s crusade against naked short sellers in particular, and Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in general, has long been known and thoroughly documented (most recently with his push to use blockchain technology to revolutionize the multi-trillion repo market).

But little did we know that Overstock’s Chairman Jonathan Johnson is as vocal an opponent of the fiat system, and Wall Street’s tendency to create bubble after bubble, if not more than Byrne himself.  That, and that his company actually puts its money where its gold-backed money is and in preparation for the next upcoming crash, has taken unprecedented steps to prepare for what comes next.

One week ago Johnson, who is also candidate for Utah governor, spoke at the United Precious Metals Association, or UPMA, which we first profiled a month ago, and which takes advantage of Utah’s special status allowing the it to use gold as legal tender, offering gold and silver-backed accounts. As a reminder, the UPMA takes Federal Reserve Notes (or paper dollars) which it then translates into golden dollars (or silver). The golden dollars are based off the $50 one ounce gold coins produced by the Treasury of The United States. They are legal tender under the law and are protected as such.

What did Johnson tell the UPMA? Here are some choice quotes:

We are not big fans of Wall Street and we don’t trust them. We foresaw the financial crisis, we fought against the financial crisis that happened in 2008; we don’t trust the banks still and we foresee that with QE3, and QE4 and QE n that at some point there is going to be another significant financial crisis.

So what do we do as a business so that we would be prepared when that happens. One thing that we do that is fairly unique: we have about $10 million in gold, mostly the small button-sized coins, that we keep outside of the banking system. We expect that when there is a financial crisis there will be a banking holiday. I don’t know if it will be 2 days, or 2 weeks, or 2 months. We have $10 million in gold and silver in denominations small enough that we can use for payroll. We want to be able to keep our employees paid, safe and our site up and running during a financial crisis.

We also happen to have three months of food supply for every employee that we can live on.

The contents of the rest of his speech are largely familiar to advocates of sound money: fiat paper has no value, solid gold – as both a currency and an asset – has tremendous value but is difficult to transport (and since a systemic collapse would certainly involve gold confiscation, portability would be an issue); gold-backed money may be the best option, and so on.

We are confident the echo-chamber of worthless econohacks and macrotourists, the same ones who were absolutely certain the great financial crisis will never happen, will be quick to mock “prepper” Johnson and Wall Street pariah Overstock. And they have every right to do so. We only hope that after the next crash, with central banks all in and when calls for another global bailout hit a fever pitch, that all those pundits who made fun of the Johnsons of the world, will keep their damn mouth shut.

..

‘Real f***ing news’ on RT: Raging reporter Jonathan Pie delivers it raw on UK economy


RT

Jonathan Pie

It’s really hard to report on the profits of the banks, which destroyed the global economy a couple of years ago, when you yourself can’t afford to buy or even rent a house in London – and spoof correspondent, Jonathan Pie knows all about this.

This is a usual report on the markets seen on every news channel:“…Which in turn left the Shanghai Composite down by 0.7 percent and Japan’s NIKKEI tumbling 0.6 percent. The upturn of it all? Well, a bit of a scare on the London markets and, it’s safe to say, a bit of a headache for George Osborne,” Jonathan Pie says as his video kicks off.

What? Makes little sense for somebody without an MBA degree? The reporter confesses that he himself only understands “one word in three” of what he was saying – and since his editors didn’t seem to be any brighter on the topic, he has to deliver it raw.

“Interest rates are up. GDP is down. Your mom’s playing footsie with Dow Jones. And my a**hole is full of jam,” that’s what economy looks like according to Pie.

Jonathan Pie became a fresh internet sensation after posting a series of videos online, in which he unmasked the true agenda behind the news, acting as an angry correspondent, who is fed up with fooling his audience.

Don’t miss Jonathan Pie’s “Real f***ing news” reports every Friday on RT UK.

..

What you gonna do when the bombs start to fall?


Zero Hedge

by

nuclear submarine

It’s a near miracle that nuclear war has so far been avoided. – Noam Chomsky

Let’s imagine for a few minutes that the ongoing-global-currency war and proxy wars somehow, unexpectedly, blow up into a world war directly involving you, wherever it is that you live.  Specifically, imagine that one side is able to achieve surprise, and as you sit at your desk, today, the power and all telecommunications go out without warning.  Within 15 minutes, everyone notices a large amount of what is obviously military aircraft activity, evidenced by sonic booms, and soon there are several very bright flashes on the horizon in the direction of the closest military base.

The odds of this actually happening are not zero.

You may very well survive a nuclear war.  Did you know that there have been over 500 above-ground detonations of nuclear weapons. 

As an exercise, please consider the following questions:

How do you think most others around you would react?

Do you already have a plan that you would implement for this type of scenario?

What immediate action(s) would you take?

What are the three most likely perils you might face?

What is the thing you could do, now, to most improve your chance of surviving each of these three perils?

Here are my responses.

How do you think most others around you would react?  I believe the amount of panic in any major American city, like mine, would be absolutely hellacious, literally, and streets would become impassable to cars almost immediately.  Many people would either become catatonic with disbelief, die of a heart attack, or quickly progress from fear to the emotion that most know best, anger.  People would resort to any and all measures to try to get out of the cities.

Do you already have a plan that you would implement for this type of scenario?  Yes.

What immediate action(s) would you take?  I would ride a motorcycle (very quickly) on train tracks, or other previously reconnoitered route, to one of several pre-planned rally points that have a bomb and fallout shelter.

What are the three most likely perils you might face?  1) Nuclear weapon blast or fallout 2) Lack of drinking water 3) Starvation

What is the thing you could do, now, to most improve your chance of surviving each of these three perils?  1) Remember the excellent information in this goofy dude’s videos. 2) Have water stored at shelter 3) Have food stored at shelter.

Do you even know where to find a fallout shelter?  How quickly can you get to one?  Will you be able to get in?

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

..

Finally, Proof That Russia Was Not Involved In #MH17 Crash


YourNewsWire.Com

MH17

Manufacturers of the Russian BUK missile have confirmed that Russia was not responsible for shooting down Malaysian airlines flight MH17, as has been suggested recently by western governments and media. 

The manufacturers of the weapon, Almaz-Antey, have said that recent tests involving BUK anti-aircraft missiles prove that any explosion caused by such missiles would lave a distinctive “butterfly-shaped’ hole in the shrapnel – something missing from the shrapnel found on flight MH17.

Rt.com reports:

“The Boeing 777, which carried out the flight, did not have a single hole like this and as a consequence, this absolutely excludes the possibility of a missile with double T-shaped shrapnel being used to strike this aircraft,” Almaz-Antey stressed in a statement on Wednesday, following the final report of the Dutch Safety Board that looked into the causes of the crash.

The Dutch Safety Board concluded the plane, which was carrying almost 300 people, was hit with a 9N314M-model warhead mounted on the 9M38-series missile. The weapon was fired from a BUK surface-to-air missile system from an area in eastern Ukraine.

Almaz-Antey maintains that in fact a 9N314 warhead was responsible. On Wednesday, they commented on the differences between the two warheads and whose defense forces may have been using the missiles mentioned by the Dutch investigators.

The manufacturer said the Russian army has not been using BUK missiles with 9N314 warheads filled with shrapnel different from a double T-shape, as these are “outdated,” while the production of such warheads was halted in 1982, Almaz-Antey stressed. Almaz-Antey also noted that as of 2005, there were 991 missiles armed with 9M38M1 warheads in arms depots in Ukraine.

“We obtained this information through official channels. Back in 2005, the company conducted a pre-contractual engineering study of how long these types of missiles could be used for in Ukraine,” Almaz-Antey said, adding that they had a shelf-life of around 25 years.

“We also have data that 502 missiles of the outdated 9M38 modification were used by Ukraine’s armed forces during the same year,” the company added.

On October 13 the Almaz-Antey defense company presented the results of two full-scale experiments aimed at recreating the MH17 crash. The company concluded the missile that downed the flight was an old BUK model fired from a Ukrainian government controlled area, contesting the preliminary theory by Dutch investigators.

Sean Adl-Tabatabai

Editor-in-chief at Your News Wire

..

Support #MH17 Truth


Global Research

“Support MH17 Truth”: OSCE Monitors Identify “Shrapnel and Machine Gun-Like Holes” indicating Shelling. No Evidence of a Missile Attack. Shot Down by a Military Aircraft

The evidence presented in this article first published by GR on July 31, 2014 (updated in September 2014) contradicts the recently released report of the Dutch Safety Board.

The evidence confirms that MH17 was not brought down by a surface to air missile.

The West accuses Russia and the Donbass separatists of having brought down the plane with a surface to air missile. IT’S A LIE. 

The evidence available in September 2014 –including a BBC report which the BBC decided to suppress– refutes the official story.

As we recall, the alleged role of Russia in bringing down the plane was used as a justification to implement the economic sanctions regime against Moscow. 

Michel Chossudovsky, July 29, 2015, minor update October 18,  2015


According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit: 

 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. (Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile”Global Research, July 30, 2014)

mh17 shrapnels

Based on detailed analysis Peter Haisenko reached  the conclusion that the MH17 was not downed by a missile attack:

This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material

The OSCE Mission

It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July 31) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:

Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014)

The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall, the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”:

The team of international investigators with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the missile used was fired from the ground as US military experts have previously suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. (Malay Mail online, emphasis added)

The initial OSCE findings tend to dispel the claim that a BUK missile system brought down the plane.

Evidently, inasmuch as the perforations are attributable to shelling, a shelling operation conducted from the ground could not have brought down an aircraft traveling above 30,000 feet.

Ukraine Su-25 military aircraft within proximity of MH17

SU25

Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of the MH17, within proximity of the plane.

Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft is also confirmed by a BBC  report conducted at the crash site on July 23.

All the eyewitnesses  interviewed by the BBC confirmed the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft flying within proximity of Malaysian Airlines MH17 at the time that it was shot down: 

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

The original BBC Video Report published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014 has since been removed from the BBC archive.

In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.

This is the BBC Report, still available on Youtube

Media Spin

The media has reported that a surface to air missile was indeed fired and exploded before reaching its target.  It was not the missile that brought down the plane, it was the shrapnel resulting from the missile explosion (prior to reaching the plane) which punctured the plane and then led to a loss of pressure.

According to Ukraine’s National security spokesman Andriy Lysenko in a contradictory statement, the MH17 aircraft “suffered massive explosive decompression after being hit by a shrapnel missile.”  (See IBT, Australia)

In an utterly absurd report, the BBC quoting the official Ukraine statement  says that:

The downed Malaysia Airlines jet in eastern Ukraine suffered an explosive loss of pressure after it was punctured by shrapnel from a missile.

They say the information came from the plane’s flight data recorders, which are being analysed by British experts.

However, it remains unclear who fired a missile, with pro-Russia rebels and Ukraine blaming each other.

Many of the 298 people killed on board flight MH17 were from the Netherlands.

Dutch investigators leading the inquiry into the crash have refused to comment on the Ukrainian claims.

“Machine Gun Like Holes”

machine gun holes

The shrapnel marks should be distinguished from the small entry and exit holes “most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile” fired from a military aircraft. These holes could not have been caused by a missile explosion as hinted by the MSM.

While the MSN is saying that the “shrapnel like holes” can be caused by a missile (see BBC report above), the OSCE has confirmed the existence of what it describes as “machine gun like holes”, without however acknowledging that these cannot be caused by a missile.

In this regard, the GSh-302 firing gun operated by an Su-25 is able to fire 3000 rpm which explains the numerous entry and exit holes.

According to the findings of Peter Haisenko:

If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment (op cit)

The accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime imposed by Washington are based on a lie.

The evidence does not support the official US narrative to the effect that the MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system operated by the DPR militia.

What next? More media disinformation, more lies?

See:

Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” By Peter Haisenko, July 30, 2014

..

NYT Plays Games with #MH17 Tragedy


Consortium News

Exclusive: There was a time when The New York Times showed some skepticism toward the words of the U.S. government but those days are long gone, as the Times sinks even deeper into the propaganda swamp with an editorial playing games with the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 tragedy, writes Robert Parry.


By Robert Parry

In its single-minded propaganda campaign against Russia, The New York Times has no interest in irony, but if it had, it might note that some of the most important advances made by the Dutch Safety Board’s report on the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 came because the Russian government declassified sensitive details about its anti-aircraft weaponry.

The irony is that the Obama administration has steadfastly refused to declassify its intelligence information on the tragedy, which presumably could answer some of the key remaining mysteries, such as where the missile was fired and who might have fired it. While merrily bashing the Russians, the Times has failed to join in demands for the U.S. government to make public what it knows about the tragedy that killed 298 people on July 17, 2014.

A Malaysia Airways' Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

In other words, through its hypocritical approach to this atrocity, the Times has been aiding and abetting a cover-up of crucial evidence, all the better to score some propaganda points against the Russ-kies, the antithesis of what an honest news organization would do.

In its editorial on Thursday, The Times also continues to play on the assumed ignorance of its readers by hyping the fact that the likely weapon, a Buk surface-to-air missile, was “Russian-made,” which while true, is not probative of which side fired it. Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, is armed with Russian-made weapons, too.

But that obvious fact is skirted by the Times highlighting in its lead paragraph that the plane was shot down “by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile,” adding: “Even Russia, which has spent much of those [past] 15 months generating all kinds of implausible theories that put the blame … on Ukraine, and doing its best to thwart investigations, has had to acknowledge that this is what happened.”

Though some misinformed Times’ readers might be duped into finding that sentence persuasive, the reality is that Russia has long considered it likely that a Buk or other anti-aircraft missile was involved in downing MH-17. That’s why Russia declassified so many details about its Buk systems for the Dutch investigation – something governments are loath to do – and the Russian manufacturer issued a report on the likely Buk role last June.

But the Times pretends that the Russians have now been cornered with the truth, writing that Russia “now argues that the fatal missile was an older model that the Russian armed forces no longer use, and that it was fired from territory controlled by the Ukrainian government.” Yet, much of that information was provided by the Russian missile manufacturer a long time ago and was the subject of a June press conference.

Blinded by Bias

If the Times editors weren’t blinded by their anti-Russian bias, they also might have noted that the Dutch Safety Board and the Russian manufacturer of the Buk anti-missile system are in substantial agreement over the older Buk model type that apparently brought down MH-17.

Almaz-Antey, the Russian Buk manufacturer, said last June that its analysis of the plane’s wreckage revealed that MH-17 had been attacked by a “9M38M1 of the Buk M1 system.” The company’s Chief Executive Officer Yan Novikov said the missile was last produced in 1999.

The Dutch report, released Tuesday, said: “The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

Also on Tuesday, the manufacturer expanded on its findings saying that the warhead at issue had not been produced since 1982 and was long out of Russia’s military arsenal, but adding that as of 2005 there were 991 9M38M1 Buk missiles and 502 9M38 missiles in Ukraine’s inventory. Company executives said they knew this because of discussions regarding the possible life-extension of the missiles.

Based on other information regarding how the warhead apparently struck near the cockpit of MH-17, the manufacturer calculated the missile’s likely flight path and firing location, placing it in the eastern Ukrainian village of Zakharchenko, a few miles south of route H21 and about four miles southwest of the town of Shakhtars’k, a lightly populated rural part of Donetsk province that the Russians claim was then under Ukrainian government control.

Calculation by the Buk manufacturer showing the likely area of the launch that took down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

The area is about three miles west of the 320-square-kilometer zone that the Dutch report established as the likely area from which the missile was fired. In July 2014, control of that area was being contested although most of the fighting was occurring about 100 kilometers to the north, meaning that the southern sector was more poorly defined and open to the possibility of a mobile system crossing from one side to the other.

Almaz-Antay CEO Novikov said the company’s calculations placed the missile site in Zakharchenko with “great accuracy,” a possible firing zone that “does not exceed three to four kilometers in length and four kilometers in width.” However, Ukrainian authorities said their calculations placed the firing location farther to the east, deeper into rebel-controlled territory.

Thus, the importance of the U.S. intelligence data that Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to possess just three days after the plane was shot down. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on July 20, 2014, Kerry declared, “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

But the U.S. government has released none of its evidence on the shoot-down. A U.S. intelligence source told me that CIA analysts briefed the Dutch investigators but under conditions of tight secrecy. None of the U.S. information was included in the report and Dutch officials have refused to discuss any U.S. intelligence information on the grounds of national security.

In the weeks after the shoot-down, I was told by another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the attack, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine whether this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

Last October, Der Spiegel reported that German intelligence, the BND, concluded that the Russian government was not the source of the missile battery – that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base – but the BND blamed the ethnic Russian rebels for firing it. However, a European source told me that the BND’s analysis was not as conclusive as Der Spiegel had described.

Prior to the MH-17 crash, ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were reported to have captured a Buk system after overrunning a government air base, but Ukrainian authorities said the system was not operational, as recounted in the Dutch report. The rebels also denied possessing a functioning Buk system.

Who Has These Buks?

As for whether the 9M38 Buk system is still in the Ukrainian military arsenal, government officials in Kiev claimed to have sold their stockpile of older Buks to Georgia, but Ukraine appears to still possess the 9M38 Buk system, based on photographs of Ukrainian weapons displays. In other words, Ukrainian authorities appear to be lying about this crucial point.

It should be noted, too, that just because Russia no longer deploys the outmoded Buks doesn’t mean that it might not have some mothballed in warehouses that could be pulled out and distributed in a sub rosa fashion, although both the Ukrainian rebels and Russian officials deny this possibility. According to the Ukrainian government, the rebels were only known to have shoulder-fired “manpads” in July 2014 – and that weapon lacked the range to destroy a civilian airliner flying at 33,000 feet.

Yet, rather than delve into this important mystery, The New York Times’ editorial simply repeats the Western “group think” that took shape in the days after the MH-17 tragedy, that somehow the rebels shot down the plane with a Buk missile supplied by Russia. The other possibility that the missile was fired by some element of the Ukrainian security forces was given short-shrift despite the fact that Ukraine had moved some of its Buk batteries into eastern Ukraine presumably to shoot down possible Russian aircraft incursions.

As described in the Dutch report, this Ukrainian concern was quite real in the days before the MH-17 shoot-down. On July 16 – just one day before the tragedy – a Ukrainian SU-25 jetfighter was shot down by what Ukrainian authorities concluded was an air-to-air missile presumably fired by a Russian warplane patrolling the Russia-Ukraine border.

Thus, it would make sense that the Ukrainian air-defense forces would have moved their Buk batteries close to the border and would have been on the lookout for possible Russian intruders entering or leaving Ukrainian air space. So, one possibility is that a poorly organized Ukrainian air-defense force mistook MH-17 for a hostile Russian aircraft high-tailing it back to Russia and fired.

Another theory that I’m told U.S. intelligence analysts examined was the possibility that a rogue Ukrainian element – linked to a fiercely anti-Russian oligarch – may have hoped that President Vladimir Putin’s official plane was in Ukrainian air space en route home from a state visit to South America. Putin’s jet and MH-17 had very similar markings. But Putin used a different route and had already landed in Moscow.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

A third possibility, which I’m told at least some U.S. analysts think makes the most sense, was that the attack on MH-17 was a premeditated provocation by a team working for a hard-line oligarch with the goal of getting Russia blamed and heightening Western animosity toward Putin.

Obama’s Secrets

But whatever your preferred scenario – whether you think the Russians or the Ukrainians did it – the solution to the mystery could clearly benefit from President Barack Obama doing what Putin has done: declassify relevant intelligence and defense information.

One might think that the Times’ editors would be at the forefront of demanding transparency from the U.S. government, especially since senior U.S. officials rushed out of the gate in the days after the tragedy to put the blame on the Russians. Yet, since five days after the shoot-down, the Obama administration has refused to update or refine its claims.

Earlier this year, a spokesperson for Director for National Intelligence James Clapper told me that the DNI would not provide additional information out of concern that it might influence the Dutch investigation, a claim that lacked credibility because the Dutch investigation began within a day of the MH-17 crash and the DNI issued a sketchy white paper on the case four days later.

In other words, the initial U.S. rush to judgment already had prejudiced the investigation by indicating which way the United States, a NATO ally of the Netherlands, wanted the inquiry to go: blame the Russians. Later, withholding more refined intelligence data also concealed whatever contrary analyses had evolved within the U.S. intelligence community after Kerry and the DNI had jumped to their hasty conclusions.

Yet, The New York Times took note of none of that, simply piling on the Russians again and hailing a dubious online publication called Bellingcat, which has consistently taken whatever the U.S. propaganda line is on international incidents and has systematically screwed up key facts.

In 2013, Bellingcat’s founder Eliot Higgins got the firing location wrong for the sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria. He foisted the blame on Bashar al-Assad’s forces in line with U.S. propaganda but it turned out that the missile’s range was way too short for his analysis to be correct. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.”]

Then, earlier this year, Higgins fed Australia’s “60 Minutes” program wrong coordinates for the location of the so-called “Buk-getaway video” in eastern Ukraine. Though the program treated Higgins’s analysis as gospel, the images from the video and from the supposed location clearly didn’t match, leading the program to engage in a journalistic fraud to pretend otherwise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Reckless Stand-upper on MH-17.”]

But the Times’ editorial board simply gushed all over Bellingcat, promoting the Web site as if it’s a credible source, writing that the Dutch report “is consistent with theories advanced by the United States and Ukraine as well as evidence collected by the independent investigative website Bellingcat.com, which hold that the fatal missile was fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine.”

The Times then distorted the findings of the Buk manufacturer to present them as somehow contradicted by the Dutch report, which substantially relied on the declassified information from the manufacturer to reach roughly the same conclusion, that the missile was an older-model Buk.

However, without irony, the Times writes, “This fact is not something Russians are likely to learn; Russian television has presented only the Kremlin’s disinformation of what is going on in Ukraine and, for that matter, Syria. … Creating an alternative reality has been a big reason for President Vladimir Putin’s boundless popularity among Russians. He sees no reason to come clean for the shooting down of the Boeing 777.”

Yet, the actual reality is that Russia has provided much more information and shown much greater transparency than President Obama and the U.S. government have. The Dutch report also ignored one of the key questions asked by Russian authorities in the days after the MH-17 shoot-down: why did Ukraine’s air defense turn on the radar used to guide Buk missiles?

But the Times remains wedded to its propaganda narrative and doesn’t want inconvenient facts to get in the way. Rather than demand that Obama “come clean” about what the U.S. intelligence agencies know about the MH-17 case, the newspaper of record chooses to mislead its readers about the facts.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

..