They tend to show up at the most fortuitou$ times.

Seriously though, have you ever noticed the media will bring up every unverifiable eyewitness account or allegation under the sun, if it incriminates Putin - but will never show photos of the airplane cockpit that clearly show machine gun fire that could only have come from a military aircraft at close proximity.

In the words of the late, great Andy Rooney: Why is that?

At least Reuters talked to real people who, by the by, would very likely BE the only witnesses.

And since none of us on DU were there when it happened, or have inside knowledge thereof, it's safe to say photo evidence trumps "eyewitne$$ accounts" (especially these day$, you know).

Here are some: http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

There are a lot more just like those. Try not to prejudge them because some of the sources may not be "mainstream" (for what that's worth), or at least give them the same benefit of the doubt you gave these 8 month-old hearsay assertions.

That critical distinction must have escaped your notice.

People that can be, shall we say, per$uaded to give testimony one way or another - this being biggest potential pitfall of all witness testimony, alas.

That's what makes photo evidence hard evidence, as opposed to hearsay or "eyewitness accounts."

Hope that helps.

A completely unauthenticated photograph, something ridiculously easy to photoshop, is 'hard' evidence, yet eye witness accounts are always false.

Riiiigggghhhttt!

You blame the Ukrainian controllers, when they were not at fault at all. You see, I understand about designated air corridors and the right of airlines to use them, and of individual pilots to choose a different route in he event of bad weather, etc. .

By the way, congratulations on your thirteenth post and welcome to DU. I'm flattered that it was my OP that drew you here, apparently.

You'll be better off stopping while the hole is still shallow enough for you to climb out.

the eyewitness accounts from these "villagers" are being treated as credible. But, the villagers (okay, Long Islanders) who reported seeing missile(s) hit TWA 800 were mistaken and really just fuel for "conspiracy theorists".

Just like it's acceptable to believe that the leader of Putin's opposition was killed to get him out of the way but, if it happened in the U.S., we know it would have been done by a crazed lone gunman.

As I mentioned to Coles County Dem earlier: since none of us on DU were there when the MH-17 tragedy happened or have inside knowledge, photo evidence must trump eyewitness accounts when available (especially, as you pointed out, when such a double standard exists as to when to consider said accounts "credible&quot .

And as it happens, the photos are widely available. Here's a link to the photos and an analysis from a German aviation expert: http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

There are a lot more just like those. And you might have noticed that the "mainstream" media never mentions these photos, even if only to debunk them - because they can't debunk what are obviously machine gun strikes that, of course, could only have come from a military aircraft flying at close proximity to MH-17.

Evidence talks; BS walks. This is the kind of hard evidence that these hearsay assertions (8 months after the fact) can't negate. But as the JFK case reminds us, a big lie can be with us for a very long, long time indeed.

It is some interesting photos at Anderweltonline.com, but the analysis lacks a lot of credibility. The author Peter Haisenko is a pilot, but that does not make him a "German aviation expert". I am educated as a pilot too, which also in no way makes me what so ever an expert on aviation or foreign arms systems. And I have been living on and off in Russia since Gorbachev was in power, which neither makes me an expert on Russia's foreign affairs.

I would not be surprised, if a runaway missile from Russia did this. But I would not rule out Ukrainian forces or rebel ones. All I can see, is a giant f*ck up. Nobody wanted this to happen, and nobody is running to take the responsibility for the killing of all those passengers. It is just another example of the fog of war, and how little we actually can control and verify, even at the centre of Europe, while all the radars and satellites are pointed right there.

So we keep all guessing. And for sure none of the groups involved are telling the truth, neither USA, Russia, Ukraine - or the rebels. Even if USA knew and had some real proof, they might not go public with this, but secretly use the information for a shady deal. Haisenko's guesses are not much better than mine, and maybe we will never get the real answer...

You know SAMs explode with shrapnel, right? Those who,make little holes. And unless the fighter was doing a head on pass (very unlikely), the holes from a "machine gun" wouldn't be in the cockpit.

But it's certainly possible, given the presence of so many round, clean exit holes that clearly suggest 30-mm rounds in quick succession - not shrapnel from a surface-to-air missile. Then you have the very visible graze marks on the wing, as well as testimony from the pilot of a Spanish airliner who radioed seeing two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017 as it happened (as opposed to "eyewitnesses" who suddenly recall seeing something 8 months later - how fortuitou$, no?).

There are the larger, more irregular exit holes of the kind you mentioned, yes; but they coincide with anti-tank incendiary shells and dum-dums, rather than a SAM - and Ukrainian SU-25 aircraft are in fact equipped with these (the presence of at least one of which has in fact been confirmed). In any case, these larger "shrapnel" holes do not account for the large number of perfectly round, rapid-fire bullet holes.

So, again, we may never know what really happened. But it seems to me that the media is bending over backwards to justify what is by far the least likely possibility here (if not an impossibility). And that leaves with this: cui bono? Who benefits?

Why, Ukraine, of course - the neo-Nazi regime Bush holdover Vicky Nuland blew $5 billion taxpayer dollars on, to be precise.

An Su-25 didn't do that. I can guarantee that.

And if it did, the kind of gun an Su-25 uses doesn't make small perfectly round holes. OTOH, shrapnel balls would.

The influx is truly extraordinary.

Do tell....

I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. There may be a VERY few posts to that effect, but they are vastly, VASTLY outnumbered by the scads of posts from naive Putin apologists.

As I posted above, there are a few posts to that effect, but they are simply dwarfed by the flood of post from Putin apologists.

They took a ground missile launcher up into the sky to make it look like the Rebels did it and shot down the airplane. But they were stupid because everybody knows the Rebels are not supported by Russia and so they could not possibly have Russian sourced weapons.

(Dislaimer: I'm practicing to get a job with Fox News.)

... is just now coming to light? It's worth a bucket of warm spit IMHO.