Thank you Gerrit.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:25:19PM +0000, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. wrote: > Zenaan, > > I was born in The Netherlands and served in the Dutch Royal Army, also at the > then IRON CURTAIN in Germany within NATO forces. As such I understand the > Dutch language. I presented (from Australia) my submission and various > concerns about the break up of the plane where it appeared to me that the > rivet holes showed that the rivits were pulled through the skin, as such the > skin too weak where the rivets were, and showed with images this to be so. My > document can be downloaded from https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati. > I also referred to that the investigators in my view "assumed' that there was > a BUK of the Russians, which I held was not for it to do so, etc..I further > provided another detailed submission as to the documentation that were > showing that not the resistance but the Ukraine army actually had been in the > place but that the Ukraine Army had later claimed otherwise. > I also indicated that its images used by the Dutch investigation to explain > the events was troublesome as to how the plane (MH17) was downed. > The Dutch Government acknowledged my contributions to the investigation > albeit did not correct its set out (Dutch / English). > In my view from the material I read and watched on videos I have little doubt > that MH17 was downed in mid air by another plane. > I also held that the initial report of the investigators without shed of > evidence alleged a BUK from a certain area and claiming by this no other such > weapon existed. in the area. The original investigation was conducted as not > to lay blame against anyone as that was beyond the legal authority of the > investigation team. It was to investigate for safety standards. As such, to > claim no other BUK was in the area was beyond its legal authority to do so. > Neither did it provide any evidence why no other BUK was in the area. > Regardless if a BUK was or was not involved the issue was that I made clear > that in my view the investigators had made a claim which was not > substantiated with any evidence, and neither was it for it to make such a > claim. > Gerrit
