|
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. |
On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different.
It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone.
E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs.
I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation.
|
On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation.
That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude (not to mention that even then they're still easily(!) in range for named BUK system, ceiling for F-16 f.e. is 50k feet, to the roughly 80k feet combatrange of the BUK), in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are.
Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70).
edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time.
|
On July 19 2014 05:57 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude, in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are. Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70). edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time. AN-12 Service ceiling is 33k feet.
Russian terrorists are blaming Ukraine, claiming the 'bodies were already dead' when the jet was shot down. http://gawker.com/pro-russian-rebel-commander-says-passengers-on-mh17-wer-1607339854/all
|
On July 19 2014 06:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:57 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude, in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are. Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70). edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time. AN-12 Service ceiling is 33k feet. Russian terrorists are blaming Ukraine, claiming the 'bodies were already dead' when the jet was shot down. http://gawker.com/pro-russian-rebel-commander-says-passengers-on-mh17-wer-1607339854/all
Just proves my point. About the bodies.. I remember reading something about bodies being bloated and stuff, i have zero knowledge on that matter, how long does it take for a body to start decomposing/bloating? It was 27-29 degrees celsius (according to googleweather). I know that would play a role?
|
On July 19 2014 05:57 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude (not to mention that even then they're still easily(!) in range for named BUK system, ceiling for F-16 f.e. is 50k feet, to the roughly 80k feet combatrange of the BUK), in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are. Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70). edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time.
You said it yourself. BuKs can shoot high enough to attain even fighters at 50k. Which puts any airliner under 82k ft at risk if they're flying in a warzone with BuKs in the mix. That was my point. 33k is mediumish altitude for military aircraft when you consider that most air superiority fighters (that's what I was thinking of when I posted that) can go over 50k easily. Su-27 can go to 60k I believe. I guess they won't be cruising at such altitudes if they know that BuKs are in the area but it's not as if BuKs have immense horizontal range either.
Perhaps the operator thought he was shooting at an Il-76? An Su-24 doing reconnaissance? Or even an Su-27? Perhaps the operator doesn't even know that tactical transports aren't capable of flying that high? Point being, Ukraine has aircraft capable of flying high enough to warrant the need for BuKs. A BuK operator might confuse an airliner for a military aircraft and shoot. It's uncommon, but not unheard of, civilian aircraft being shot down by the military. I like to consider the airspace in the range of a BuK as a warzone, you see.
|
On July 19 2014 06:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 06:00 Sub40APM wrote:On July 19 2014 05:57 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude, in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are. Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70). edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time. AN-12 Service ceiling is 33k feet. Russian terrorists are blaming Ukraine, claiming the 'bodies were already dead' when the jet was shot down. http://gawker.com/pro-russian-rebel-commander-says-passengers-on-mh17-wer-1607339854/all Just proves my point. About the bodies.. I remember reading something about bodies being bloated and stuff, i have zero knowledge on that matter, how long does it take for a body to start decomposing/bloating? It was 27-29 degrees celsius (according to googleweather). I know that would play a role?
In that sort of heat, decomposition begins at around 8 hours after death if not a bit sooner. Source: my dad is a forensic pathologist and I asked him 
|
On July 19 2014 06:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 06:00 Sub40APM wrote:On July 19 2014 05:57 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude, in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are. Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70). edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time. AN-12 Service ceiling is 33k feet. Russian terrorists are blaming Ukraine, claiming the 'bodies were already dead' when the jet was shot down. http://gawker.com/pro-russian-rebel-commander-says-passengers-on-mh17-wer-1607339854/all Just proves my point. About the bodies.. I remember reading something about bodies being bloated and stuff, i have zero knowledge on that matter, how long does it take for a body to start decomposing/bloating? It was 27-29 degrees celsius (according to googleweather). I know that would play a role?
he also claimed that they found 8/12 black boxes whereas the plane normally only carries two (he said that in the same source)
so im calling BS on that, besides, those bodies have been there for ~30hours now, pretty sure its quite hot in ukraine so bodies would start decomposing faster than normally (note: i have no idea how long normally is). regarding the corpses being "bloodless", if i remember correctly a dead body doesnt really suffer from bleeding because the hart's not fucking beating anymore - if people die from the shot/impact with ground im quite sure they're not really shattered into pieces so they wouldnt really bleed, would they?
|
On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation.
I saw somewhere that the no fly zone for aircraft was sub 32k ft(could be wrong). at 33000ft, there is zero chance of being shot down by MANPADS, and I think the assumption was that anybody that could track them that high up could also identify them as being civilians.
|
|
|
On July 19 2014 06:30 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. I saw somewhere that the no fly zone for aircraft was sub 32k ft(could be wrong). at 33000ft, there is zero chance of being shot down by MANPADS, and I think the assumption was that anybody that could track them that high up could also identify them as being civilians.
This makes pretty good sense. Avoid getting hit by fire-and-forget shoulder launchers, and anything that can hit above that ceiling is technically supposed to be able to check the transponder signals.
So is Igor Girkin confirming that they shot down the plane, if he is stating that the bodies were already dead inside and blaming Ukraine forces for that? Because if he's sticking with the story that Ukraine shot down the plane, then having the bodies inside being dead already would be super redundant... unless he's going for the full conspiracy setup story instead.
|
Russia also insisted it would not demand to lead the crash investigation. Vitaly Churkin, its ambassador to the UN, called for a an international commission to be set up under the UN International Civil Aviation Organization. It resisted calls from the rebels for the plane’s black box recorders to be brought to Moscow. One senior Russian foreign ministry official said that, if handled well, joint efforts to investigate the crash fairly could present a new opportunity for a political solution to the Ukrainian conflict. But, he added, this depended on a “more flexible attitude” from Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko “which we’re not seeing so far”. A source with knowledge of Russian government discussions said the attack had narrowed Moscow’s room for manoeuvre over Ukraine. Source.
|
So Russia is saying if everyone else behaves they might have a change in attitude?
|
On July 19 2014 06:24 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 05:57 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 05:49 Incognoto wrote:On July 19 2014 05:42 Enzymatic wrote:On July 19 2014 05:36 Moka wrote:
It seems baffling to me that these airliners were permitted to fly in a warzone. I hate all of these posts, because you people speak as if they're just casually hovering slowly at a couple thousand feet in the air taking a helicopter to their destination. 33k feet up is a lot different. It's not. That's mediumish altitude for military aircraft and 33k feet up is easily attained by modern SAM system. So 33k feet is well within the warzone. E: yes the IOCA said the route was fine and MA also were sure that the route was fine. Everything thinks everything is fine until a tragedy occurs. Didn't the IOCA notice that tensions were escalating? Anyone half lucid knows that the separatists are probably being backed by Russia. Separatists are also shooting down aircraft. It's still interesting to me that neither IOCA nor MA thought it wouldn't be a problem to cruise near a warzone well within the range of SAMs. I'm not calling a conspiracy, that would be stupid. It's just that they weren't well aware of the situation. That's btw bs, sorry. It's not "mediumish altitude for military aircrafts". In a warzone you wont see jets going at max-altitude (not to mention that even then they're still easily(!) in range for named BUK system, ceiling for F-16 f.e. is 50k feet, to the roughly 80k feet combatrange of the BUK), in fact you can shoot down jets with handhold manpads, that's how low they are. Military transporters top out(!) at roughly 25-28k feet loaded. That's not cruising altitude, that's ceiling. (reference: A400M, C130, C130 Super Hercules, AN-70). edit: bs referring to the first part of the post, didn't see the edit at the time. You said it yourself. BuKs can shoot high enough to attain even fighters at 50k. Which puts any airliner under 82k ft at risk if they're flying in a warzone with BuKs in the mix. That was my point. 33k is mediumish altitude for military aircraft when you consider that most air superiority fighters (that's what I was thinking of when I posted that) can go over 50k easily. Su-27 can go to 60k I believe. I guess they won't be cruising at such altitudes if they know that BuKs are in the area but it's not as if BuKs have immense horizontal range either. Perhaps the operator thought he was shooting at an Il-76? An Su-24 doing reconnaissance? Or even an Su-27? Perhaps the operator doesn't even know that tactical transports aren't capable of flying that high? Point being, Ukraine has aircraft capable of flying high enough to warrant the need for BuKs. A BuK operator might confuse an airliner for a military aircraft and shoot. It's uncommon, but not unheard of, civilian aircraft being shot down by the military. I like to consider the airspace in the range of a BuK as a warzone, you see.
That's actually the story, afaik. At least as far as i understand it. They (whoever that might be) thought they were shooting at a military transport, i guess an AN-12. On the other hand, we're not talking "war" here. There's one important piece, the ukraine had no reason to shoot at a plane there, whatsoever. Because one of the "combatants" in this "war" doesn't have planes. Would i get in a plane flying over ukraine? No. Do i think it was the fault of whoever deemed the route save? Hard to say. I wouldn't say so. As a civilian aircraft, they were safe from regular militaries. Otherwise we would've had this incedent way earlier, safe to say. I don't know if they reassessed the situation after it was "clear" that the rebels had proper anti-air rockets (in whatever condition), it was only known that they somehow aquired manpads. And these don't reach 33k feet.
Well, i run into speculations now, so i'd rather stop that - point being, i do agree that there was an accident somewhere. I disagree if you say, by any standards, it would've been unsafe. But you said it yourself: the ukraine has aircrafts that (in your opinion i might add) it justifies criminals and scum to have high-tech military equipment.. Well.
|
|
|
Separatist fighters from the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" (DPR) have reportedly stolen 36 bodies of people killed in the downing of the Malaysian airliner, rbc.ua reported. The press service of the Donetsk Region State Administration made the announcement, citing eye-witnesses. The Interpreter has translated the statement: "After the end of of the active stage of work at the site of the tragedy, representatives of the DPR arrived at the village of Rassypnoye and stole 36 bodies of victims of the air crash. Armed fighters drove away rescue workers and took communication devices from most of them. They loaded the bodies into a truck like sacks. According to the fighters, they intend to take the bodies to Donetsk." We have no verification of the report, but the fact that the statement was made by a local state administrator adds a certain credibility to it. Source.
|
That's another thing how will Indonesia, Australia, and European countries be able to retrieve their respective bodies of their citizens?
|
Why on earth would they want to do that?
|
On July 19 2014 06:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +Separatist fighters from the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" (DPR) have reportedly stolen 36 bodies of people killed in the downing of the Malaysian airliner, rbc.ua reported. The press service of the Donetsk Region State Administration made the announcement, citing eye-witnesses. The Interpreter has translated the statement: "After the end of of the active stage of work at the site of the tragedy, representatives of the DPR arrived at the village of Rassypnoye and stole 36 bodies of victims of the air crash. Armed fighters drove away rescue workers and took communication devices from most of them. They loaded the bodies into a truck like sacks. According to the fighters, they intend to take the bodies to Donetsk." We have no verification of the report, but the fact that the statement was made by a local state administrator adds a certain credibility to it. Source.
Don't really understand that move. Why would they "steal" decomposing bodies?
And further, the US and other highly militarized countries have satellites capable of reading my newspaper in the morning, why aren't all eyes on the crashsite?
|
On July 19 2014 06:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That's another thing how will Indonesia, Australia, and European countries be able to retrieve their respective bodies of their citizens?
As far as I know, this is the only thing said on the matter:
A video-conference took place on Thursday evening between the separatists and the Ukrainian president's representative, the former president Leonid Kuchma, which included mediation from the OSCE and the Russian ambassador to Ukraine, agreed that the separatists would grant access to the crash site for international investigators. However, Friday's stand-off with the OSCE shows that unfettered access could be tricky to achieve, and the logistics of issues such as retrieving and properly storing bodies, as well as sifting through the evidence, remain unclear. Source.
I.e., No retrieval of bodies any time soon, if ever.
***
Answering above, I have no bloody clue why anyone would want to steal bodies. Seems entirely nonsensical without further information.
|
On July 19 2014 06:49 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 06:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Separatist fighters from the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" (DPR) have reportedly stolen 36 bodies of people killed in the downing of the Malaysian airliner, rbc.ua reported. The press service of the Donetsk Region State Administration made the announcement, citing eye-witnesses. The Interpreter has translated the statement: "After the end of of the active stage of work at the site of the tragedy, representatives of the DPR arrived at the village of Rassypnoye and stole 36 bodies of victims of the air crash. Armed fighters drove away rescue workers and took communication devices from most of them. They loaded the bodies into a truck like sacks. According to the fighters, they intend to take the bodies to Donetsk." We have no verification of the report, but the fact that the statement was made by a local state administrator adds a certain credibility to it. Source. Don't really understand that move. Why would they "steal" decomposing bodies? And further, the US and other highly militarized countries have satellites capable of reading my newspaper in the morning, why aren't all eyes on the crashsite?
Likely they have eyes on the crash site, but the military intelligence wouldn't want to give away their capabilities by telling people what they see and how much they see...
And if the body snatching is real, I would hazard a guess that either a) they stupidly did stuff to the bodies that they don't want the investigators to see, or b) the bodies have evidence of something that they also don't want the investigators to see...
or c) they are just fucking weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
