sjn wrote:tita, the problem is, any investigation is going to have political bias. People are biased. Any reasonable investigation, for that reason needs to be transparent, and it needs to address all available evidence. Including supposedly contradictory evidence such as eye-witness reports that don't fit the narrative. You can't just choose to dismiss data that doesn't support the pre-established story, and pre-identified culprits.
There are two pre-identified culprits (UA and pro-rebel russians), and different pre-established stories.
Again, what is needed is transparency. For example, the black box recordings, you state there's nothing to suggest any shooting before the explosion, I wonder what you would accept as positive evidence? Would it have taken the pilot saying: "we're taking fire from an Su-25?". Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. What most people critical of the secrecy wanted to hear, wasn't a transcript of the last few moments, but the dialogue between the aircraft and flight control during the transit of Kiev airspace.
What you suggest is that the investigation is biased, and we can't rely on them. I think shooting would have been recorded (specific noise). And I also assume the investigators are doing their job.
With respect to the exact missile type and warhead, don't you see that it is extremely important to identify where the missile came from? If it was indeed an active Russian Army BUK system, as has been claimed, then it would have had to have been operated by either Russian crew or authorised separatists, with full operational target identification. If it was a Ukraine Army system then it would have had to either be operated by Keiv, again with full target identification, or was the captured partial system operated by separatists and was just an (un-)lucky hit.
Yes, it is important... But from where came the narrative that the conclusion from the investigation was biased?
I have no idea what happened that day. I followed events as they happened at the time, and have read quite a lot about it. I have my suspicions, which are evidently different to yours, but I would stop far short of claiming to know the truth, or claiming any particular line of evidence is bullshit. Appeals to authority, are just that. It isn't proof.
What happend that day started a big machine of disinformation, proof destruction. Plenty narratives were made to accuse one or the other side. This is what interest me. How it is made, how public opinion is manipulated. I would not be surprised if UA is the culprit, unlike what I was thinking one year ago. But maybe it is because the disinformation from the russian side is working? I find this fascinating. But I'm sad, because it is made with no regards of the death of innocent people...