A VERY CURIOUS COINCIDENCE

In addition to the De Volksrant article, there is this from NOS.

Interesting, local farmers NOS spoke to said the suspected launch site was on fire on July 17th, and they plowed it http://t.co/YmlDs1yZjZ

— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) May 16, 2015

As you can see Higgins has only cited the statements of anonymous farmers who say on 17th July they were told to put out a fire in a field and then plough it over. That field is where Belling Cat and others believe a BUK missile that allegedly shot down MH17 was launched.

You should note by now that everyone quoted in NATO media reports as saying they saw or heard a missile is anonymous.

On the other hand, 8 eyewitnesses have gone on camera to state they saw fighter jets. And another even described with his hands as well as verbally on camera how something attacked MH17 from behind.

This NOS report also cites witnesses who say, anonymously, they saw fighter jets:

In the village there are also enough to find witnesses who assert with great certainty that Flight MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian fighters. Several people say that day to have seen two fighters. Almost all the witnesses can tell stories about the noise from the jets. The city Snizjnoje was attacked a few days earlier by the military. On July 16 were shot down two fighters in this area.

[source : Google translation of: In het spoor van de Buk]

But what is curious (and suspicious) about this NOS article is that they appear to have interviewed the same people as the De Volksrant article: an alleged volunteer from Russia who reportedly says the people of Donbass are just miners who can't fight and who are always drunk (thus giving the impression that the people of Donbass are not worth fighting for and can be destroyed by a bunch of NATO Nazis); a drunk man who says he saw a missile launched from Ukrainian held territory (giving the impression that anyone who says that Ukraine shot down MH17 with a BUK is a drunk).

But who do you believe more: someone prepared to go on camera and state something; or someone to allegedly say something anonymously?

A criminal investigation cannot rely on such poor standards of evidence. Would you like to be tried by a prosecutor who is allowed to use evidence from anonymous sources?

The only solution is to have an open and transparent investigation by a truly independent international team, as requested by Dutch families, a request that was denied by the Dutch PM. What we get instead is an 'investigation' run by a founding member of NATO which relies on evidence provided by Ukraine, both of whom want Ukraine to become a member and thus have a motive for extreme bias.

And who or what is NOS? It is the equivalent of the BBC and is obviously controlled by Dutch intelligence: in an emergency NOS can takeover all other broadcasters in the Netherlands.

Can you remember who is accused of interfering with, obstructing and guiding the MH17 investigation? Yep. The Dutch Intelligence Services. The Netherlands and Belgium are run by Bilderberg and NATO.

And innit funny how Higgins jumped on the field-on-fire bit but not the fighter-jets bit? Both were allegedly stated anonymously. It's just that some have gone on camera to state they saw fighter jets, and the BBC pulled a report because of their statements!!