All he knows is footprints...:rofl:
As I am being attacked in these latest posts by Soheil_Esy and my expertise is being questioned, I hope the moderators will allow me a reply.
Soheil_Esy: what is your actual point, because that is not clear to me. Nowhere do you provide any arguments to back up the position you take.
"
All he knows is footprints" is the only thing you write. Well yes, and these footprints can be very informative. We know these footprints, because we know where these satellites were at that moment. That is my primary expertise: I am part of the tracking team that follows these satellites and catalogue their orbits and positions. And this expertise is to the point and useful for the case in question.
The reason I was invited to brief this Dutch Parliament committee (which really doesn't invite just anyone) during the hearing last Friday, was that the Parliament Members who invited me wanted to get informed about which military satellites and satellite systems might have obtained useful data on the MH17 tragedy. This information is useful to the criminal investigation into the case ordered by Dutch Government (remember, 198 Dutch lost their lives in the tragedy).
It serves as a pointer to the Government and the criminal investigators about what data might exist (note the "might": in my position paper written for Dutch Parliament I use the word "potential" a lot, and in my recent related blogposts I also explicitly point out that being inside a footprint does not necessarily mean the satellite has data, if you care to read them) and hence what to ask for from the relevant countries operating these satellite systems. The Dutch members of Parliament have the explicit task to keep an eye on whether this really happens, as controlling the actions of the Government (and asking questions if they perceive the Govermment fails in its actions) is a primary task of Dutch Parliament and indeed a primary task of any parliament in a Democracy.
So inviting someone who can provide them the necessary background information, is not silly, but a wise and pertinent move of Dutch Parliament.
You seem to think it is somehow silly that they invited me, but I do not see how it is. Parliament wanted this information, because it is useful to them. So they asked someone who could provide them. In this case, me. The information in question being: which classified satellites from what country could potentially have observed the shootdown, based on their positions and what we know of their roles and specifications (on which we know much more than you seem to think: there is a lot of information public domain on these systems. In my position paper I point to a number of them, released via FOIA requests).
So what is your point, exactly, Soheil_Esy? Can you give me any pertinent arguments as to why it is strange that Dutch Parliament, from the function they have, invites a knowledgeable person to inform them on matters that really matter in this case. Or conversely: can you coherently argue why it would not matter, or why the information I provided would not matter to the question at hand?
With Langbroek as an expert, it is getting too unfair. By reading his report about the Chelyabinsk Meteor Event back in February 2013, it is obvious that Holland wants to frame Russia.
This is an extreme non-sequitur. First, I do not see at all how what I told in my video on Chelyabinsk, a meteorite fall from 2013, frames Russia for MH17. Please, care to explain if you can.
Also, explain to me how the things I write in my position paper for Dutch Parliament are framing Russia? Where do I express that agenda you ascribe to me?
NOWHERE in my position paper for Dutch Parliament do I point fingers to any involved party. I merely point out what satellites were where and might have observed the tragedy. That is factual information and it frames nobody. Again, you do not seem to have read the paper (which is easily translated through Google Translate).
From what you write, I do note that
you on the other hand do seem to have a clear partisan agenda concerning this case. It is clear from your insistence that it is all meant "
to frame Russia", even though I nowhere in my paper and the related Parliament hearing pointed a finger at Russia, or any other involved party for that matter.
So please explain your standpoint to me, with coherent arguments.
By reading his report about the Chelyabinsk Meteor Event back in February 2013, it is obvious that Holland wants to frame Russia.
Edit: S☫heil_Esy already debunked this fallacy on another BBS (9ifly) back in 2013 with maps an not an orange, as witnessed by Galactic Penguin
Prithee, show me where my argument about the Chelyabinsk meteorite not being related to the fly-by of asteroid 2012 DA14 that same day, is wrong?
For again, you do not provide arguments, apart from vague references to a person who appears to have said it, somewhere, once.
Mind you, the whole professional asteroid dynamics community agrees that the Cheyabinsk bolide and 2012 DA14 were unrelated. So you'll have to come with strong arguments here.
So again: give me clearcut arguments as to why the things I point out in the video concerning the Chelyabinsk meteorite fall and 2012 DA14, are incorrect? I am looking forward to hearing your reasoning.
- Marco Langbroek
