Mods, please delete or move as you see fit as I am not that sure whether I am doing right in starting this thread.
It's meant in good faith as a venue for our resident super intelcom operative since all the threads he had posted in were "obliterated" (with apologies to the fan of this word in a certain discussion on single aisle airliner) to expound his beliefs, misguided or otherwise (I leave that to each individual to judge).
His "fans", be it legion or in singular figure, would surely welcome it.
Spyhunter is a member of Anet whether one like it or not. So unless he is banned (he could still reappear under another nick though, much like our friend NAVwhatevernumeralsuffix), he will grace any thread concerning the two unfortunate MH birds. Rather than have them eventually suffer the "locked" fate, it's better that he has his own dedicated place that his detractors can ignore and his "fans" can rejoice.

Might I suggest putting the Spyhunter thread in Non-Av? I know we're discussing MH370/MH17 which is a civil aviation incident but since Spyhunter's threads would definitely wander off into the realm of Non-Av, the chances of his thread being locked is far lower there.

Whilst I seldom agreed with his theories, I thought the threads were enjoyable reading, kind of like a bad book, but entertaining. So I for one think the mods were overkeen in closing the threads, heck we have so many garbage threads nowadays since the changes to the platform and the many new users (which I welcome, dont get me wrong, but the thread quality in CivAV has definetly taken a huge nosedive), one more would not have hurt! So I agree, those of us who may not agree with Spyhunter, but at least enjoy the read... yeah, why not start a thread in non-av? on that note, this thread should of course be in ´site related´or non av, I hope the mods leave it here long enough for people to voice their opinions
and whilst ad it, bring back premium membership PLEASE!!!

It would be churlish of me indeed not to thank neutrino for his kind gesture and cougar 15 for his kind words! I am in fact posting on the MH17 thread, at least pro tem. I like neutrino's Latin tag, wise words from long ago! The dark side not only do not like me, they fear me, as they fear the truth generally. If the MH17 thread is block I have had two articles published online in the last 24 hours in response to the flawed JIT and OVV reports, on UKIP Daily and http://www.VeteransToday.com.

TheFlyingDisk is correct, this thread belongs in non-av, not least of which because it will be far less limited by our standards for the civ av forum.

Typically a thread concerning a user would be deleted, but if its intention is to discuss the theories of a published individual who also happens to be an a.net member, then I find it acceptable provided the thread isn't used for any form of personal attacks. If it's to examine and discuss theories that are loosely aviation related but intertwined with politics, then the non av forum is the perfect place. We would prefer threads in civ av to be more factually based and as politically neutral as possible, although in many cases, that's far easier said than done.

Provided SpyHunter has no objections and this thread remains respectful, I see no reason that this cannot be a worthwhile thread.

atcsundevil ✈️

cougar15 wrote:

bring back premium membership PLEASE!!!

Not to take the thread off topic, but I figured I would address this quickly. This is something the site will likely move to in the future, but at the moment, all memberships are free since migrating to the new site. The developers are working on a number of other issues (believe me, the list is LONG), so once things are stabilized, it will be on their agenda. As moderators, this is outside of our control, as it is up to the site developers. The main concern is with bringing back many of the useful tools from the old platform, with the aim of making an overall improvement.

If you would like to discuss this further, you may do so in the site related forum. Like I said, as moderators we are only so much in the loop on some things, and many of these decisions are not within our sphere of influence. Premium memberships are on the list, and they should be brought back at some point, but I can't comment on any kind of specific timeline.

Hope this helps.
atcsundevil ✈️

I have no objections at all, atcsundevil! I took the new thread as a compliment! With respect, I quite see the sense of locking the MH17 discussion on Civil Aviation, since it is essentially an intelligence and geo-political topic, albeit involving the shooting down of a civilian airliner proceeding peacably upon her lawful occasions on a designated airway.

The world of intelligence will be new to many a.net members, although by no means all, particularly to pilots who have served in the military. My first 'spy' case as such involved a brilliant U-2 and SR-71 pilot, code-named 'Bill' in my book. I was glad to get him out of the hoosegow and met him again several years later, after he had been exfiltrated out of the UK by the CIA, I believe via RAF Mildenhall. Pilots will always find a friend in me. I have flown myself, my father was an RAF fighter pilot and then an Air Traffic Controller and my mother an RAF nursing sister, who inter alia nursed pilots badly burnt in the Battle of Britain and in Bomber Command, after the war (many required continuing care). I remain an Honorary Life Member of Bomber Command Association, despite the bogus prosecutions of me, majestically ignored by the BCA, and have in the past been a member of the Air League. I have marched past the Cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday at the invitation of RAF veterans, astonishing the Cabinet Secretary, no less, in the process. I counted fellow Air League member Raymond Baxter as a friend, late in his life. When analysing civil aviation hull losses, where sabotage or foul play is suspected, I will do what I always told my intelligence students to do, which is to give my true opinion. My aim first and foremost will always be the safety of air navigation and the prevention of future attacks, followed by trying to obtain justice for the murdered crew and passengers. Nobody brings down an airliner on my watch without my expressing an opinion about it.

Spyhunter wrote:

It would be churlish of me indeed not to thank neutrino for his kind gesture and cougar 15 for his kind words! I am in fact posting on the MH17 thread, at least pro tem. I like neutrino's Latin tag, wise words from long ago! The dark side not only do not like me, they fear me, as they fear the truth generally. If the MH17 thread is block I have had two articles published online in the last 24 hours in response to the flawed JIT and OVV reports, on UKIP Daily and http://www.VeteransToday.com.

Is this your handy work? http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/02 ... t-on-mh17/

Well, were to start then? I was much amused by the comment, "with respect", since you show exactly no respect what so ever, not for the process, not for the people involved, not for the hard evidence, not for the victimsfamily, none.

Fact checker:
"JIT effectively accused the Russian Armed Forces of shooting down MH17." false, it didn't do that.
"The ridiculous theory that “the rebels did it” has now been abandoned by Western officialdom" false, it never have been the official point of view of any government body here in the Netherlands. None and rightly so. The official position is, let the independent prosecutors figure it out, trias politica might ring a bell.
"sinister Bellingcat website (no offense intended)" false, you did intended to offend.
"which was fronting for Ukraine," false, do you really think, Dutch, Belgium and Australian prosecutors are fronting for another country?
"effectively accused the Russian Federation of committing an Act of War against inter alia the Kingdom of the Netherlands, many of whose nationals were on the flight and Malaysia." False, no such thing and it is quite ridiculous statement to make. In the future they might accuse the RF of a warcrime, but that is something completely different.
" which ignored Russian data and was entirely one-sided." false and half-false. The JIT even went to Russia to listen to all their 'evidence' and it only list what can be proven, if you call that one-sided, then yes it is.
"no more independent or reliable than the CPS in the UK" don't know the system in the UK, but I do know it in the Netherlands. In the Anglo saxon system, the prosecutor is there to get a verdict. In the Netherlands, they are actually committed to finding the truth, so in the Netherlands it is not barraster against prosecutor, but more independent role. Totally different.
"The pro-EU Dutch Foreign Minister" Of course all ministers are pro-EU, the Netherlands is in the EU, so why drag this comment in there, no reason to.
"then summoned the sheer gall and impertinence to call in HE the Russian Ambassador to the Netherlands. A complete diplomatic breach between Russia and the Netherlands is now in prospect." Why? Let me tell you about some incidents the Russian - Dutch relationship of the last few years:
1. Russian diplomate's wife rammed some cars in a dronken state, the Russian diplomate in question was also dronk and his 2y/o and 4 y/o were screaming, frightened of their own parents. The Dutch police came and took the diplomate to the police station, like they would do with this kind of behavior to protect the children. Just protocol. Well the policed couldnot do this, because of diplomatic immunity, they later apologized, for this. No such apology from the Russian side and a thank you for protecting Russian children against their parents. Instead a Dutch diplomate was attack in his home in Russia, quite a coincidence.
2. Greenpeace ship was attacked in international waters and brought to St. Petersburg and all its sailors were held there, against their will, illegally. The ship is Dutch registered, so another incident between the two.
3. Russia has been taken to international court and lost, was ordered to pay for the damage to the ship.
4. Dutch national gay student activist arrested
5. When Russia is crossed with Holland, they find all kinds of thinks in flowers or meat, resulting in a ban.
6. EU sanctioned Russia for Crimea and intervene in Ukraine
7. Russia sanctioned EU/America fruit, vegetables etc.
And now this:
8. relentless discrediting the JIT investigation with all kind of rubbish. So rightly so the Dutch foreign minister summit the Russian ambassador to tell Russia to stop it and comply with the UN resolution. The Dutch ambassador was also summited. So what is your point exactly?

"The JIT report is in fact junk" false, it isn't junk
"and Moscow were right to slam it." false, they had no right.
"In a shrewd move the Russians pre-empted the JIT press release by releasing primary radar data which had been stored and overlooked, which pretty much blew the OVV report out of the water." really, two years of searching and 1 day before the release of the interim conclusions of the JIT, tada there it is. The data hasn't been released to the OVV so they could not act on it, the JIT, if they ever were to receive it, they will examen it and let's first wait for their conclusions before saying what blew what out of the water. So that statement is also false.
"The JIT is not a UN body" true
"It’s just a group of policemen and public prosecutors assembled by Kiev." false, it is a multinational team made up of Ukrainian, Belgium, Dutch, Malaysian and Australian prosecutors and investigators. The group is headed by the Dutch prosecutors. You made it sounds like Kiev just went to the street and looked for some random people in Kiev. Misleading at best, false
"None of its members seems to have any aviation expertise, indeed it would be fair to say that none of its members possesses any relevant qualification to conduct such a sensitive investigation." they rely on experts, like they do in any investigation, misleading at best, false
"Absurdly, it has relied upon social media reports and information, or disinformation, as the case may be, supplied by the anti-Russian Bellingcat propaganda website." Misleading again, social media reports is one part of the evidence, in it self not hard evidence, so it was combined with hard evidence, BUK fragment, radartracks, interviews by Dutch prosecutors and investigators, cell phone calls, phonemast etc.
This is what they did in over two years of research:
- 100 - 200 investigators
- 1.000-ends of pieces of the plane investigated
- 60 request of legal assistance world wide
- 5bn webpages looked at
- 500.000 video's and photos analyzed.
- 200plus witnesses interviewed.
- 150.000 cell phone calls analyzed
- 6.000 official reports analyzed.
I would say that is pretty impressive and though. So the claim is false, thy relied upon it, they didn't. They researched it them self, Bellingcat did provided their research, but then it was all checked and checked again.
"Those two stolen Russian warheads smuggled into London by the DVD and GO2 in 2012. (I am glad to report that the police chief under whose nose those nukes were smuggled into London resigned this week, apparently not of his own volition)." until solid evidence is provided from a reliable in depended source, I rank this as false. Two Russian nukes in London? Well the Russia has a real problem and can't be trusted to have nukes.
"Sadly for the police, we have yet to invent a prosthetic brain." Ridiculous statement again.
"he OVV report is one of the three legs of the triad upon which the JIT rely, the others being heavily-edited COMINT supplied by the dodgy SBU and social media/Bellingcat." False, it's not.
"The trouble is that the OVV report suffers from fatal defects, to the point where many of its conclusions simply cannot be supported." False, it's not.
"The OVV itself is a deeply-troubled institution. It’s run by a Dutch bureaucrat, Tjibbe Joustra, who was given the job as part of a deal after he was caught up in a scandal involving misuse of public money. I express no view, of course, on whether he was actually involved in impropriety. All I say is that there was a scandal, his name was mentioned and he resigned."
- Okey, the OVV isn't troubled even if, and he isn't, it's director is. The OVV is highly respected organization, in the Netherlands as well as abroad. False.
- Now Tjibbe Joustra was head of the UWV, he let his office be rebuild, far too luxuriously for a bureaucrat, not something you must do here. That's why he had to resign, nothing as spectacular as you seem to imply. The funny think is, that the writer missed the fact that Tjibbe Joustra was head of the Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding (NCTb), anti terrorism, so he was involved in the intelligence services.
"Joustra is also suspected in some quarters of supporting Dutch membership of the EU, an organization which we now know was set up by German Intelligence." Why is that important? The EU has no part into the MH17 tragedy what so ever and false, EU wasn't set up by German Intelligence.
"Joustra’s specialism seems to be food. I doubt he’s ever flown a plane. At any rate, his aviation credentials are obscure. So far as the loss of MH17 is concerned his expertise would appear to be limited to criticising the menu, which, knowing Malaysian, was probably fine anyway." now this is an Ad Hominem, and bullshit. Like I said before, the director isn't that much involved, the OVV are experts in their field, the director isn't one of them and doesn't need to be.
"(1) It lacks objectivity. It proceeds from a pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian perspective, to the point where Russian data is rejected automatically and Ukrainian data accepted without critical analysis." Russia was involved in the OVV investigation, so bullshit. Russian data was checked and found to be false:
- Su25 could not have done it
- CIA could not have done it
- Bomb could not have done it
etc.
"(2) It lacks intellectual rigor. It rejects data without giving sufficient reasons and glosses over major problems with the evidence. Without citing my reporting, e.g., it rejects the theory I first put forward in 2014 on VT, that the plane was brought down by a combination of cannon fire from a Ukrainian Su-25 and a Chinese Buk, partly on the ground that the first officer’s body had been penetrated by shrapnel consistent with a GN314M warhead, but fails to explain why the captain, sitting on the side of the plane I suggest the cannon attack came from, had no trace in his body of the distinctive fragmentation shrapnel associated with that warhead." The writer has a theory and it was rejected, boehoe, whom is the writer to come up with a theory, how credible is he, what is his expertise and why should he be taken seriously. Well let me put it this way, I can debunk this theory. The Su25 can't fly this high, fully armed, the Su25 can't fly as fast as a 777 in cruise, so there is no way that a Su25 did this, impossible, end of theory. But wait there is more, the shrapnel is from a specific BUK missile only in use with the Russian army. Hard evidence, so no Chinese buk.
"(3)" don't understand the point even, can't know if false or not.
"(4) It notes, correctly, that one of the cabin pressure relief valves was found in the open position, without assessing the implications, one of which was depressurisation in lower fuselage, creating a pressure differential with the cabin, which the valve was designed to prevent (these valves came in to correct one of the flaws in the design of the DC-10, shared with other first-generation wide-bodies, where the cabin floor could collapse following a loss of pressure in a cargo hold). The open valve suggests that the hull aft of the cockpit was penetrated from below, not above." More theories then that can be heard.
"(5) It concludes that the warhead detonated just feet away from the aircraft without a technical analysis of the proximity fuze, i.e. it wholly fails to explain why the warhead did not detonate as it approached the aircraft." false
"(6) It rejects the cannon-fire theory partly on metallurgical analysis, without considering the metallurgy of the various types of cannon round the Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 could have used." false, the SU25 couldnot have done it.
"(7) Its timeline is out by about 7.5 minutes. It assumes that hull break-up commenced shortly after MH17 went off air and the CVR and FDR kicked out, at 1320, gives a credible time to ground impact from commencement of hull break-up as 60-90 seconds but then gives the impact time as about 1330. Not fixing the precise time of impact of the major wreckage was sloppy, with respect. 300 tons of airplane falling out of the sky, even in pieces, is the sort of thing that gets noticed, even in the Eastern Ukraine, and ground impact will usually stop several hundred watches and digital timers in mobile phones, laptops and other equipment. If you don’t believe me, try dropping your laptop 31,000 feet and see if it still works." unimportant detail at best, can't asses if true or not.
"(8) The crime scene was seriously contaminated and investigators took weeks to get there. At no time was it ever properly secured." true, there was a war fought and what did you expect the Dutch to do? Go in with marines and secure the site? Even the victim families were quoted to say that they didn't want any more lives lost over the dead.
"(9) It resort to wild speculation instead of sticking to the facts, or at least acknowledging the gaps in the evidence. The wildest piece of speculation in the report is the suggestion that the oxygen mask found fitted to a passenger was put there by one of the people trampling over the crash site before the OVV eventually got there – why on earth would anybody want to do that? The suggestion is bizarre. It is far more likely that the cabin oxygen masks dropped, and at least one of the poor, terrified passengers had time to put it on, and tie it securely, so that it was not dislodged when their seat hit the ground. The oxygen mask evidence supports the cannon-fire strafing theory and suggests non-explosive decompression, at least initially. Other oxygen masks appear to have dropped, but as their plane came under armed attack without warning most passengers would have frozen." it doesn't support anything. If all the passengers and crew were on oxygen masks, then yeah, but one, no, does not mean anything. False suggestion by mr Timmermans in the UN.
"(10) The supposed SAM launch area is not supported by the missile manufacturer, who may safely be presumed to know more about the missile they designed than the Dutch investigators. No variant of the Buk has ever been used, or so far as I know even fired, by the Dutch Armed Forces, and" The BUK manufacturer is Russian, so not too reliable in this case, since all evidence provided by the Russians proved to be falls. The Dutch led JIT team did blow up a BUK, a Finnish one and there is a lot known about the missile in the defense intelligence community. So quite a ridiculous statement to make.
"(11) The report obsesses on Russian-made versions of the Buk. It doesn’t even mention the three Chinese versions, the HQ-16, HQ-16A and HQ-16B, although we can probably rule out the latter, as there is no reliable reporting of it having entered service with the PLA by July 2014." Again pieces of a specific type of missile were found, they ruled out very other variant, because they had a positive match.
"I respectfully maintain the analysis I first put forward on VT in 2014: MH-17 was shot down by a Chinese PLA HQ-16 truck-mounted launcher, after Ukrainian ATC directed MH-17 into the kill zone and a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25, on combat power, lightened by having its titanium armor bath removed, disabled the crew, making MH370-style evasive maneuvers impossible, with 30 mil cannon fire, attacking from the port side" I respectfully call this a flawed theory with no evidence what so ever to back this up. Why on earth would Ukraine do something like this and why on earth would they do it in such a crappy manner. They have Su27 and Mig29 if they really want to shoot down a plane. False theory.
"I entirely acquit the Russian Government and Armed Forces of responsibility in the matter and condemn the reckless speculation in the MSM about Russian military involvement in this outrageous armed attack upon a civilian airliner, with 298 souls aboard, proceeding along her allotted flight path upon her lawful occasions." So what the writer basically says, no matter what the evidence is, the Russian Government is innocent. Well my friend, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

This is one of the worst pieces of propaganda I have ever read. What a piece of crab. Almost every sentence is false of biased or a frame.

Spyhunter wrote:

It would be churlish of me indeed not to thank neutrino for his kind gesture and cougar 15 for his kind words! I am in fact posting on the MH17 thread, at least pro tem. I like neutrino's Latin tag, wise words from long ago! The dark side not only do not like me, they fear me, as they fear the truth generally. If the MH17 thread is block I have had two articles published online in the last 24 hours in response to the flawed JIT and OVV reports, on UKIP Daily and http://www.VeteransToday.com.

I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your effort. Having said that, I really disagree with your MH370 SCS scenario. The lack of any debris in the SCS (nothing, not a single item), despite an extensive air and sea search from day 1 lasting for two weeks until the SIO became the focus, and despite the SCS being surrounded by land that is much closer than the land around the Indian Ocean is to the SIO crash zone, dismisses the SCS scenario. MH370 did not go down into the SCS. The SIO is where flight MH370 ended.

777Jet wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

It would be churlish of me indeed not to thank neutrino for his kind gesture and cougar 15 for his kind words! I am in fact posting on the MH17 thread, at least pro tem. I like neutrino's Latin tag, wise words from long ago! The dark side not only do not like me, they fear me, as they fear the truth generally. If the MH17 thread is block I have had two articles published online in the last 24 hours in response to the flawed JIT and OVV reports, on UKIP Daily and http://www.VeteransToday.com.

I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your effort. Having said that, I really disagree with your MH370 SCS scenario. The lack of any debris in the SCS (nothing, not a single item), despite an extensive air and sea search from day 1 lasting for two weeks until the SIO became the focus, and despite the SCS being surrounded by land that is much closer than the land around the Indian Ocean is to the SIO crash zone, dismisses the SCS scenario. MH370 did not go down into the SCS. The SIO is where flight MH370 ended.

Is the SCS, south China Sea? If so, that is rubbish indeed. It went down "near" Australia. Evidences is overwhelming for this, including hard evidence ending up in Africa, which is what you expect with the sea currents.

Spyhunter is full of nonsenses indeed.

Dutchy wrote:

Is the SCS, south China Sea? If so, that is rubbish indeed. It went down "near" Australia. Evidences is overwhelming for this, including hard evidence ending up in Africa, which is what you expect with the sea currents.

Spyhunter is full of nonsenses indeed.

A little background for you. This nonsensical debate about whether MH-370 rests in the SCS has been going on between 777jet and Spyhunte, and before that with 777jet and another poster (NAV30) (who was very possibly Spyhunter IRL) for over two years and has generated literally hundreds of posts on this non-issue.

It has become the near constant background chaff that apparently is doomed to be a part of any MH-370 thread at this site ad infinitum; so it is purposeless to join in the "debunking" of this theory, the people who continue this discussion really aren't serious, they just seem to like to hear themselves talk.

salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Is the SCS, south China Sea? If so, that is rubbish indeed. It went down "near" Australia. Evidences is overwhelming for this, including hard evidence ending up in Africa, which is what you expect with the sea currents.

Spyhunter is full of nonsenses indeed.

A little background for you. This nonsensical debate about whether MH-370 rests in the SCS has been going on between 777jet and Spyhunte, and before that with 777jet and another poster (NAV30) (who was very possibly Spyhunter IRL) for over two years and has generated literally hundreds of posts on this non-issue.

It has become the near constant background chaff that apparently is doomed to be a part of any MH-370 thread at this site ad infinitum; so it is purposeless to join in the "debunking" of this theory, the people who continue this discussion really aren't serious, they just seem to like to hear themselves talk.

The shootdown over the SCS scenario by Spyhunter still ticks more boxes than any accident scenario proposed yet, but is nowhere close to ticking as many boxes as the most likely scenario; the captain did it scenaro. The problem with you is that you don't like anybody who disagrees with your belief, that the Captain did it. Based on your responses both in MH370 and MH17 threads, it seems that not only do you love to hear yourself talk, you only want to hear yourself or those who only agree with you. I, on the other hand, am happy to discuss alternative scenarios about MH370 without childishly calling those who disagree with me names by default. You would have loved another name caller, Tailskid, who was foolishly 100% certain that the Captain did it. But he was not the worst. Sipadan, who changed his username to Oxymorph, and who may be here again at current under a different username (as a former English / ESL teacher it is very easy to see this in their writing style), actually said that they are so certain that the Captain did it that they would put their life on it! Salttee, is that pronounced like Salty? So, Salttee, what odds do you give to the captain doing it? I remain at 96% and that could change significantly with any credible information that points towards a different scenario being more likely. Therefore, I remain open to having a discussion those who put different scenarios forward.

salttee wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Is the SCS, south China Sea? If so, that is rubbish indeed. It went down "near" Australia. Evidences is overwhelming for this, including hard evidence ending up in Africa, which is what you expect with the sea currents.

Spyhunter is full of nonsenses indeed.

A little background for you. This nonsensical debate about whether MH-370 rests in the SCS has been going on between 777jet and Spyhunte, and before that with 777jet and another poster (NAV30) (who was very possibly Spyhunter IRL) for over two years and has generated literally hundreds of posts on this non-issue.

It has become the near constant background chaff that apparently is doomed to be a part of any MH-370 thread at this site ad infinitum; so it is purposeless to join in the "debunking" of this theory, the people who continue this discussion really aren't serious, they just seem to like to hear themselves talk.

It is obvious that Spyhunter is legit and is who he claims to be, and, that Nav20 and Nav30 are the same person because they admitted to getting a new username because of tech issues with their original account. Still, their SCS scenario is deeply flawed and needs to be shot down (no pun intended). But what is clearer, is that you are Sipadan aka Oxymorph. So, why are you on your third username in as many years?

777Jet wrote:

It is obvious that Spyhunter is legit and is who he claims to be

When has he claimed to be a failed journalist?

This link has been posted here several times already so I'm not outing him to anyone but you.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/

salttee wrote:

777Jet wrote:

It is obvious that Spyhunter is legit and is who he claims to be

When has he claimed to be a failed journalist?

This link has been posted here several times already so I'm not outing him to anyone but you.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/

Spyhunter admitted he was Michael Shrimpton as soon as you know who made the link.

I was the one who first identified him as Michael Shrimpton after he made the comment "in my book Spyhunter" - it was pretty obvious to work out (just like how I worked out Oxymorph after he made a slip of the tongue). Sorry if you just now realized it but anybody following the last MH370 thread knew who he was months ago.

salttee wrote:

another poster (NAV30) (who was very possibly Spyhunter IRL)

You can't be serious? Thinking Nav30 is Michael Shrimpton? Come on?

salttee wrote:

777Jet wrote:

It is obvious that Spyhunter is legit and is who he claims to be

When has he claimed to be a failed journalist?

This link has been posted here several times already so I'm not outing him to anyone but you.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/

So mister Spyhunter a.k.a. mr. Shrimpton is a former barrister whom has a conviction for a bombplot. And has a good number of stories to tell and a good number of claims which can't be verified. Well it was a good read nonetheless. Now I can understand his train of thought and why he is so anti-authorities. And I believe now, he really thinks he knows better then all the professionals dealing with this issue. Quite said actually. I feel for mr. Shrimpton.

777 Jet is right, with respect. I am Michael Shrimpton, and have only posted in this site using the pseudonym Spyhunter. I would have used my name but the practice seems to be to select a username different from your own, so I did.

Since there is a thread on MH17 I will try and confine my MH17 comments there. Dutchy is right - the column on VT is mine. Note however that I have revised myanalysis on the first attack, from cannon to an AA-11. That is based on the autopsy evidence and the pattern of damage to the port side of the cockpit, which rules out cannon rounds with impact fusing. An AAM with a small warhead is indicated.

On MH370 I respectfully maintain that it was shot down over the SCS by a Fakour-2, the Iranian-made upgraded version of the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix AAM modified for surface launch, fired from a Kilo-class SSK. The wreckage seen in the SCS in my opinion is from the plane, and in my analysis the shoot-down was caught both on satellite and by the SPY-1A radar on the USS Pinckney. The missile's exhaust trail would have been visible at night and was seen by eye-witnesses. Met conditions were good and the exhaust trail was probably seen by the co-pilot. Cockpit visibility from the 777 is reasonably good and the missile was not fired straight up at the target, but was coming in from starboard. The manoeuvres seen on Vietnamese radar are consistent with evasive manoeuvres by a pilot thinking he was under mistaken attack from a rogue missile.

The diesel slick in the SCS is important evidence of a subsmash,given that there was no reported damage to a surface vessel in the area.

The radar evidence is instructive: no paint by the Laverton Jindalee OTH radar, nor by Indian Air Force and Navy radars although MH370 needed to transit Indian airspace to reach the SIO. Finally, we have the fuel problem. Look at the fuel figures for MH17 - loaded fuel barely 10% above trip fuel, making my point that in 2014, before the price of Jet A came down, Malaysian were very tight on fuel use. After being directed by ATC to climb to FL350, MH17 declined and maintained FL330, according to the OVV probably because fuel consumption was less at 330.

My calculations, admittedly rough, show MH370 fuel dry about 500 miles from the southernmost ping point. An allowance has to be made for the fuel-consuming manoeuvres observed over the SCS.

Last point on MH17, responding to Duchy: the Su-25M can reach FL330,on combat power, if lightened by the removal of its titanium armour, indeed even a standard -25 can reach 330 on combat power and maintain that altitude for about 8 mins, allowing 2 mins for the climb from normal ceiling. That is ample time to carry out a helmet-sight aimed AAM shoot at a large target cruising in level flight at a constant speed.

A reminder to users.. The other mods and I have been monitoring this thread, and even though it's in the non-av forum, it does not mean that basic a.net rules of respect towards other users do not apply.

I recognize this is a controversial subject. My own personal opinions will remain irrelevant here for obvious reasons, but for those users who are seemingly not interested in participating in the discussion, there is nothing forcing you to do so. Please debate on merit and on topic, not against specific users. While the topic at hand involving an actively posting user is irregular, to say the least, it does not mean that he should be subject to any fewer rights to respectful commentary as any other user. Please be mindful of this, because it's entirely possible to have this discussion without personal attacks or harsh language.

atcsundevil ✈️

Spyhunter wrote:

777 Jet is right, with respect. I am Michael Shrimpton, and have only posted in this site using the pseudonym Spyhunter. I would have used my name but the practice seems to be to select a username different from your own, so I did.

Since there is a thread on MH17 I will try and confine my MH17 comments there. Dutchy is right - the column on VT is mine. Note however that I have revised myanalysis on the first attack, from cannon to an AA-11. That is based on the autopsy evidence and the pattern of damage to the port side of the cockpit, which rules out cannon rounds with impact fusing. An AAM with a small warhead is indicated.

On MH370 I respectfully maintain that it was shot down over the SCS by a Fakour-2, the Iranian-made upgraded version of the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix AAM modified for surface launch, fired from a Kilo-class SSK. The wreckage seen in the SCS in my opinion is from the plane, and in my analysis the shoot-down was caught both on satellite and by the SPY-1A radar on the USS Pinckney. The missile's exhaust trail would have been visible at night and was seen by eye-witnesses. Met conditions were good and the exhaust trail was probably seen by the co-pilot. Cockpit visibility from the 777 is reasonably good and the missile was not fired straight up at the target, but was coming in from starboard. The manoeuvres seen on Vietnamese radar are consistent with evasive manoeuvres by a pilot thinking he was under mistaken attack from a rogue missile.

The diesel slick in the SCS is important evidence of a subsmash,given that there was no reported damage to a surface vessel in the area.

The radar evidence is instructive: no paint by the Laverton Jindalee OTH radar, nor by Indian Air Force and Navy radars although MH370 needed to transit Indian airspace to reach the SIO. Finally, we have the fuel problem. Look at the fuel figures for MH17 - loaded fuel barely 10% above trip fuel, making my point that in 2014, before the price of Jet A came down, Malaysian were very tight on fuel use. After being directed by ATC to climb to FL350, MH17 declined and maintained FL330, according to the OVV probably because fuel consumption was less at 330.

My calculations, admittedly rough, show MH370 fuel dry about 500 miles from the southernmost ping point. An allowance has to be made for the fuel-consuming manoeuvres observed over the SCS.

Last point on MH17, responding to Duchy: the Su-25M can reach FL330,on combat power, if lightened by the removal of its titanium armour, indeed even a standard -25 can reach 330 on combat power and maintain that altitude for about 8 mins, allowing 2 mins for the climb from normal ceiling. That is ample time to carry out a helmet-sight aimed AAM shoot at a large target cruising in level flight at a constant speed.

The fighter jet theory has so many holes in it (no pun intended) that it's hard to take it seriously.

There is little to no evidence of the fighter, certainly not from a credible source. No radar data has ever conclusively shown evidence of it.

Then there's the question of why they're using an Su-25 that's not a proper fighter instead of an Su-27 or the like that is. It's not because it's harder to detect because it's not a stealth fighter.

I can believe that there are versions of the Su-25 that can reach MH17's altitude, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can intercept. Can it reach the speed necessary? If it could, then it would have to be right next to the 777, and as above, there's no evidence of it.

Looking at the holes in the cockpit area of the 777 tells us that the shrapnel is from a SAM, it's impossible to be bullets as even a proper fighter can't get that many bullets into such a small area as seen. it would require an approach from the side, giving less than a second of accurate fire, and the even spread and number of bullet holes indicate that theory is invalid. But since we know for a fact that the damage resembles SAM strike, then why does a fighter jet become involved anyway? We also know for a fact that the cockpit voice recorder cut off suddenly. The only way an airliner's CVR cuts off suddenly if if the plane breaks apart instantly. Planes do not however break apart instantly when hit by a fighter jet's missiles, they simply don't do enough damage. KE007 was hit by radar guided missiles with much larger warheads than the heatseekers that the Su-25 would use. KE007 didn't break up instantly, it was semi-controllable for a few minutes. Furthermore, there's also a record of the same type of heat-seeking missile (the R-60) being fired at a small jet in Africa and the jet surviving (one missile knocked the engine off, the other hit it as it fell). So if the R-60 was fired at MH17 it may not even have damaged the fuselage, only the engines. This would register on the CVR and the pilots would react. But as we know, there was no such reaction.

Would the fighter jet have fired missiles at the falling airliner if the SAM hit first? Not a chance, on top of being very tricky as the airliner breaks up, you have to ask why it would do such a thing if the job was already done. It's completely pointless. Any theory that involves a fighter jet can very easily be disproven. And thus should really be dismissed.

To be really honest mate, you seem like someone who's interested in the conspiracy side of things because it's interesting rather than because you're particularly interested in finding out what really happened. I appreciate that you put a lot of effort in, but a lot of what you say about MH17 makes little sense.

Spyhunter wrote:

777 Jet is right, with respect. I am Michael Shrimpton, and have only posted in this site using the pseudonym Spyhunter. I would have used my name but the practice seems to be to select a username different from your own, so I did.

Since there is a thread on MH17 I will try and confine my MH17 comments there. Dutchy is right - the column on VT is mine. Note however that I have revised myanalysis on the first attack, from cannon to an AA-11. That is based on the autopsy evidence and the pattern of damage to the port side of the cockpit, which rules out cannon rounds with impact fusing. An AAM with a small warhead is indicated.

On MH370 I respectfully maintain that it was shot down over the SCS by a Fakour-2, the Iranian-made upgraded version of the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix AAM modified for surface launch, fired from a Kilo-class SSK. The wreckage seen in the SCS in my opinion is from the plane, and in my analysis the shoot-down was caught both on satellite and by the SPY-1A radar on the USS Pinckney. The missile's exhaust trail would have been visible at night and was seen by eye-witnesses. Met conditions were good and the exhaust trail was probably seen by the co-pilot. Cockpit visibility from the 777 is reasonably good and the missile was not fired straight up at the target, but was coming in from starboard. The manoeuvres seen on Vietnamese radar are consistent with evasive manoeuvres by a pilot thinking he was under mistaken attack from a rogue missile.

The diesel slick in the SCS is important evidence of a subsmash,given that there was no reported damage to a surface vessel in the area.

The radar evidence is instructive: no paint by the Laverton Jindalee OTH radar, nor by Indian Air Force and Navy radars although MH370 needed to transit Indian airspace to reach the SIO. Finally, we have the fuel problem. Look at the fuel figures for MH17 - loaded fuel barely 10% above trip fuel, making my point that in 2014, before the price of Jet A came down, Malaysian were very tight on fuel use. After being directed by ATC to climb to FL350, MH17 declined and maintained FL330, according to the OVV probably because fuel consumption was less at 330.

My calculations, admittedly rough, show MH370 fuel dry about 500 miles from the southernmost ping point. An allowance has to be made for the fuel-consuming manoeuvres observed over the SCS.

Last point on MH17, responding to Duchy: the Su-25M can reach FL330,on combat power, if lightened by the removal of its titanium armour, indeed even a standard -25 can reach 330 on combat power and maintain that altitude for about 8 mins, allowing 2 mins for the climb from normal ceiling. That is ample time to carry out a helmet-sight aimed AAM shoot at a large target cruising in level flight at a constant speed.

So you switched from canonfire to AA-11. As you know the AA-11 is an IR-guided missile. Well an IR-guided missile will impact an engine not the cockpit, so that's why your whole theory fails. You don't have acces to the autopsy evidence and you have no acces to the pattern of damage to the port side of the cockpit. And still you believe that you know it better then a team of 100-200 professionals with direct access to the evidence.
Also, for the Su25, a Su25 might and I would like to emphasize might, be able to reach that altitude if lightened as you say, but why would you do that? It make no sense what so ever. Like I said before, if they wanted to do that, why not use a real interceptor? And you still fail to explain how a Su-25, even if it was lightened and the pilot flew with oxygen, not standard in a Su-25, could intercept a B777, because a B777 flies faster then a Su-25 can reach at top speed. Furthermore it makes no sense to first shoot an AA-11 Atol at a plane, which won't bring it down anyway and then shoot a BUK after it. And if true, I would not like to be the Su-25 driver, which was near the plane, as you say, when it got shot down by the Su-25. Then the question why would Ukraine do this and do this in a way anyone could easily figure out how they did it, like you did. Your theory is full of holes and makes no sense what so ever. I have a very hard time taking you seriously. I have raised all kinds of questions with your "article", perhaps you could really show some respect by answering just a few.

and for the MH370, I understand that you say the Iranians did it? Then the first question is, why?! And look at the wreckage of MH17, the pieces of the MH370 should have been found all over the place, they weren't, they should have washed up in countries around the SCS, they weren't, they were found in a place which is consistent with the place they have been searching, near Australia. You don't explain any of that. It's just a random theory, with no backing of anything.

Dutchy wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

777 Jet is right, with respect. I am Michael Shrimpton, and have only posted in this site using the pseudonym Spyhunter. I would have used my name but the practice seems to be to select a username different from your own, so I did.

Since there is a thread on MH17 I will try and confine my MH17 comments there. Dutchy is right - the column on VT is mine. Note however that I have revised myanalysis on the first attack, from cannon to an AA-11. That is based on the autopsy evidence and the pattern of damage to the port side of the cockpit, which rules out cannon rounds with impact fusing. An AAM with a small warhead is indicated.

On MH370 I respectfully maintain that it was shot down over the SCS by a Fakour-2, the Iranian-made upgraded version of the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix AAM modified for surface launch, fired from a Kilo-class SSK. The wreckage seen in the SCS in my opinion is from the plane, and in my analysis the shoot-down was caught both on satellite and by the SPY-1A radar on the USS Pinckney. The missile's exhaust trail would have been visible at night and was seen by eye-witnesses. Met conditions were good and the exhaust trail was probably seen by the co-pilot. Cockpit visibility from the 777 is reasonably good and the missile was not fired straight up at the target, but was coming in from starboard. The manoeuvres seen on Vietnamese radar are consistent with evasive manoeuvres by a pilot thinking he was under mistaken attack from a rogue missile.

The diesel slick in the SCS is important evidence of a subsmash,given that there was no reported damage to a surface vessel in the area.

The radar evidence is instructive: no paint by the Laverton Jindalee OTH radar, nor by Indian Air Force and Navy radars although MH370 needed to transit Indian airspace to reach the SIO. Finally, we have the fuel problem. Look at the fuel figures for MH17 - loaded fuel barely 10% above trip fuel, making my point that in 2014, before the price of Jet A came down, Malaysian were very tight on fuel use. After being directed by ATC to climb to FL350, MH17 declined and maintained FL330, according to the OVV probably because fuel consumption was less at 330.

My calculations, admittedly rough, show MH370 fuel dry about 500 miles from the southernmost ping point. An allowance has to be made for the fuel-consuming manoeuvres observed over the SCS.

Last point on MH17, responding to Duchy: the Su-25M can reach FL330,on combat power, if lightened by the removal of its titanium armour, indeed even a standard -25 can reach 330 on combat power and maintain that altitude for about 8 mins, allowing 2 mins for the climb from normal ceiling. That is ample time to carry out a helmet-sight aimed AAM shoot at a large target cruising in level flight at a constant speed.

and for the MH370, I understand that you say the Iranians did it?

Are you aware what the Spyhunter version of AF447 is???

777Jet wrote:

Are you aware what the Spyhunter version of AF447 is???

Nope, let's hear it.

Dutchy wrote:

and for the MH370, I understand that you say the Iranians did it?

No he didn't say the Iranians did it. He said it was shot down by a Kilo-class Chinese submarine using the Iranian-made Fakour-2 SAM.

Notwithstanding the fact that there's no record of a Fakour-2 SAM anywhere. There's a Fakour-90, which is the Iranian version of the AIM-54 Phoenix A2A missile, but no Fakour-2 SAM

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Are you aware what the Spyhunter version of AF447 is???

Nope, let's hear it.

To save time:

Spyhunter wrote:

The facts are that AF447 was shot down, by a Iranian Fakour-2 missile fitted with a proximity fuze, detonating, I believe, about 50ft below the starboard engine. The missile exhaust and explosion gave good infra-red images. The radios were jammed, but not the ACARS reporting system, which was disabled on MH370, to prevent the crew from acting on my published recommendation after 447 to use ACARS as a standby emergency reporting system.

I suspect what Flighty refers to as facts are the CVR and FDR printouts, but these were not retrieved from the aircraft, they were retrieved from the ocean, long after their pinger batteries had been exhausted, very conveniently. I don't accept the audit trail for these black boxes. It's not a question of rejecting facts, but of rejecting evidence for which an audit trail has not been established. It is important not to get into what I call 'Air Crash Investigation-style black box syndrome', i.e. according a near-sacred status to black boxes. These devices are easily fabricated, not least by the manufacturers. Before we take black box data into account we first have to be sure that (1) the black box in question was actually fitted to the crashed aircraft and (2) that the data has not been corrupted in any way. So far from being a sign of mental illness this is simply a rational approach to the evidence.

The official BEA explanation for the loss of 447 is that three pitot tube heaters failed nearly simultaneously leading to icing, leading to a loss of situational awareness on the part of a highly experienced and well-trained crew, who then flew a modern airliner fitted with GPS into the ocean. Please forgive my use of old-fashioned language for pitot tubes, by the way - they were called pitot tubes on the dear old Bulldog I learnt to fly on and I am afraid that still call a pitot tube a pitot tube, something Flighty will doubtless interpret as another sign of mental illness.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339291&hilit=AF447&start=50#p19018337

Well that is again a ridiculous theory. So in order for this theory to work, the investigators of AF447 had to conspire and come up with a completely different account. That is just hilarious. And then he wonders why his "recommendations" aren't followed?

But for the MH317, he says that the Chinese shot down a Malaysian airliner in order to accomplish what? Someone is paying him for this? Remarkable. He must be laughing his head of by all the remarks he is getting.

Dutchy wrote:

Someone is paying him for this?

Yes, whoever buys his book!

And thank you to TheFlyingDisk for posting Spyhunter's AF447 scenario.

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Are you aware what the Spyhunter version of AF447 is???

Nope, let's hear it.

And regarding the Germanwings-crash in France he said "the jury is still out"...

There is actually only one mistery I am interested in: does he really believe his own theories or is he just trying to sell his book by posting more and more theories?

NAV20 / 30 must be older than Spyhunter. He fought in WW2.

Does Spyhunter have a theory on TWA 800?

N14AZ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Are you aware what the Spyhunter version of AF447 is???

Nope, let's hear it.

And regarding the Germanwings-crash in France he said "the jury is still out"...

There is actually only one mistery I am interested in: does he really believe his own theories or is he just trying to sell his book by posting more and more theories?

That is indeed interesting to know......

.... he might be decline to answer though.

Kiwirob wrote:

Does Spyhunter have a theory on TWA 800?

Please don't ask.

scbriml wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Does Spyhunter have a theory on TWA 800?

Please don't ask.

Colorfull caracter, mr Spyhunter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Does Spyhunter have a theory on TWA 800?

Please don't ask.

Colorfull caracter, mr Spyhunter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

Very. Interesting that a registered sex offender was working with the McCanns, I wonder if he helped them dispose of Madeline's body.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Please don't ask.

Colorfull caracter, mr Spyhunter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

Very. Interesting that a registered sex offender was working with the McCanns, I wonder if he helped them dispose of Madeline's body.

Let's not go there, without any proof.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Colorfull caracter, mr Spyhunter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

Very. Interesting that a registered sex offender was working with the McCanns, I wonder if he helped them dispose of Madeline's body.

Let's not go there, without any proof.

He is on the register, anyone can look that up.

Too late! TWA800 was also shot down by the Iranians, using an earlier version of the Fakour, again from a Kilo class, hence the centre-section fuel tank being blown inwards, not outwards. What I call the Fakour-2 is the Fakour-90 - the Iranians changed the designation, and I still use the old designation. Remember I've been working this problem for some time. I won the battle over the Fakour - CIA denied it existed, Spyhunter was circulated in draft form in 2012 and the Iranians paraded the missile in Teheran in 2013. To avoid confusion I'll use the amended Iranian designation from now on.

Responding to Dutchy, of course the French investigators lied - they came up with new black boxes, easy enough to do. The official BEA theory makes no sense at all - the tubes were heated, and all three heaters would hardly fail at once. Even if they had the crew had sufficient information on GPs to know their TAS, heading and altitude. They also had radar altimeters. An experienced crew would not lose control with that information, even in bad weather.

Of course I have not read the autopsy reports and other raw data, but they are summarised in the OVV report, which I have read with care.

Yes I have revised my opinion, in the light of the OVV report, from cannon to missile. We know it wasn't a Buk, as the damage was not sufficiently severe and the shrapnel in the captain's body rules out a Buk, due to the absence of the distinctive bow-tie shaped fragments.

There is a second contact, which looks to be a fighter, and we have eyewitness evidence of an Su-25 returning to base minus two R-73 (AA-11) missiles. The R-73 is not just IR aimed, although the early ones were. The latest can be optically aimed via a helmet sight. A flank attack with the upgraded nav/attack suite on the Su-25M is possible.

Published performance data for the -25 suggest a maximum speed in level flight of around Mach 0.83 at sea level, just over 600 mph. 777's TAS was about 490 mph when intercepted. However performance of the -25 is better, for a limited period, on combat power, the -25 used had been lightened, improving top speed as well as ceiling, and there is some reason for supposing that the R-195 turbojets have been upgraded for the M version, not too difficult. Moreover it looks like the -25 was making a diving attack - the AAM missile is coming in on a downwards trajectory, consistent with a diving attack. Since the 777 was at 330, and a lightened -25M on combat power could climb beyond 330 that would make sense. The 24 mil armour in a -25 is heavy - removing it saves quite a bit of weight. If the AO-17A cannon was not used then removing it would save even more weight. Don't forget that published performance data of the -25 includes not just the weight of the armour and the gun, but also 250 rounds of heavy 30 mil ammo. A 30 mil round might weigh 0.85 pounds each.

Returning to the Fakour, officially it is an AAM for Iran's F-14AMs, but they probably don't have more than a dozen operational, and the IRIAF's last air to air combat was probably around 1989. The Fakour is principally a SAM, for launching from Iran's Kilo class subs, and China's.

The Kilo which shot down 800 was picked up on radar by the P-3, as an intermittent surface contact. The P-3 crew thought it was a small boat, or a false image. When I explained to one of them about the modified Kilos the penny dropped. The launch tube is faired in to the aft conning tower - published overheads of the Iranian Kilos are of the existing boats before modification, or the old boats. A USN SSN sank two of them, in a very classified op, south of Sumatra. That was highly classified because the Iranian boats had a nuke each on board, probably two of the four 550KT nominal yield SS-19 warheads Viktor Bout brokered to Iran out of the Ukraine in 2002. The Iranians were doing racetracks waiting for orders, as there was a conflict in Teheran on whether or not to cancel the op. A Los Angeles class SSN ended the discussion. I know because the ex ranking CIA illegal in Teheran found out about them from his extensive Iranian network and he was a friend of mine. The yield by the way on the nukes had degraded by over 90% due to decay of the tritium-boosting mechanism, but we didn't know that at the time, indeed it wasn't until NNSA arranged for the examination the of the two similar SS-N-19 warheads recovered in 2012 after the Olympics black-op that we found out about the problem with the tritium boost.

Now do you see why word of missing Russian nukes might be directed across my desk? Back in 2012 I had a pretty good picture of what was out there, which is why I called it in when the intelligence from Tokyo matched two of the missing nukes.

It is sometimes said the public isn't told half the truth. I doubt the public is told a third of the truth.

Responding briefly to the above ad hominem attacks, which were posted whilst I was working on post #34: my work, with Gerard Group out of Boston, on the McCann case is linked to my temporary appearance on the register. In 2007 I was on Gerard's Advisory Board. Gerard had good links with both Rabat and Tel Aviv. We located Madeleine McCann with high confidence on board a surface vessel moored in Moroccan territorial waters. We knew she had been taken out by sea, on which vessel, and from which port (a marina, in fact) she had sailed. We knew who in the European Commission in Brussels had selected her for abuse, from three photos of young blond girls sent as Jpeg files from a DVD asset in the Algarve. We knew where that email was intercepted and by whom. We had access to the plans of the vessel and were liaising with Gib Special Branch where the vessel, an ex-fishing boat, had been refitted.

My intelligence assessment for the Joint Intelligence Committee, in redacted form, is Appendix 8 of Spyhunter, the first draft of which went to USNI in Annapolis MD in March 2012. There was a desperate official need to discredit me and I was arrested in April 2012.

Plan A was to go after me for the bomb hoax. It started to blow up in the CPS's face in November, when the security minister at the Foreign Office briefed the media that there had been a nuclear threat to the Olympics. Only after that briefing did the police claim to have discovered some underage male teenagers on a SanDisk memory stick they claimed was mine. I attended a voluntary interview (they were nervous about arresting me, which would have risked a lawsuit) and I immediately realised I was being set up. I asked for the memory stick and my laptop to be fingerprinted. They were not claiming that any images were on the laptop, but that the memory stick had been hooked up to the laptop the year before, in New Zealand, where I was writing Spyhunter. Thames Valley Police fingerprinted both laptop and memory stick, both tests were negative, as were the DNA tests. In a panic they decided to suppress the fingerprint and DNA reports, a serious abuse of process.

They did however tell MI5 that the laptop and memory stick didn't have my prints on them. I was back-channelling to MI5 rather higher up the payroll and found out. In cross-examination I forced the police to admit that they had suppressed the negative fingerprint reports, which in an ordinary case would have killed the prosecution there and then.

The conviction was a crock, with respect. After my release from prison it emerged that the hard drive used in evidence by the prosecution was an aftermarket item, supplied by Western Digital Corporation. Dell Inc's website was tampered with to remove the model type of the drive, but it scarcely matters now, as the warranty period expired more than 18 months after mine. We got the warranty date from Western Digital, who are good people. The CPS were desperate to keep the Dell and SanDisk witnesses away from me, getting their statements in as hearsay. I can now see why! The memory stick didn't go to New Zealand. It went to a regional packaging centre in Europe and then the UK.

All this is with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the images conviction, if I were you. It isn't going to last for much longer. You may then see police corruption trials, as we have caught Thames Valley Police red-handed, with both a substitute hard drive and a swapped memory stick. No wonder neither had my prints nor DNA on them! I never possessed nor handled either.

The Wiki article is a disgrace, with respect. It's an attack piece, mostly drafted by an anonymous editor called 'Psychonaut.' I threatened to sue Wiki, they relied on 230 and offered mediation and I have accepted their offer. I can't sue Pychonaut as I don't know who he or she is.

Spyhunter wrote:

It is sometimes said the public isn't told half the truth. I doubt the public is told a third of the truth.

Words cannot express my gratitude for being so fortunate to have people like Shrimpton and others from the National Enq... errr I mean Veterans Today, to enlighten me about the Truth.

Quite a fantasy world spyhunter has made up for himself.

scbriml wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Does Spyhunter have a theory on TWA 800?

Please don't ask.

Colonel Mustard did it with a pipe wrench in the conservatory?

Since Spyhunter brought up the wikipedia dispute, I went for a look at the history and talk-pages. Some of it is actually quite hilarious to read:

BTW, it was Spyhunter, and not that other person (Psychonaut) who got banned from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... _Shrimpton

L410Turbolet wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

It is sometimes said the public isn't told half the truth. I doubt the public is told a third of the truth.

Words cannot express my gratitude for being so fortunate to have people like Shrimpton and others from the National Enq... errr I mean Veterans Today, to enlighten me about the Truth.

haha, nice one.

I dunno, I prefer Clive Cussler for over-the-top fictional historical accidents / events. My favorite is: Atlantis Found. Who doesn't love a good Dirk Pitt adventure?

PacificBeach88 wrote:

I dunno, I prefer Clive Cussler for over-the-top fictional historical accidents / events. My favorite is: Atlantis Found. Who doesn't love a good Dirk Pitt adventure?

That was my favorite too!

Don't forget Tom Clancy and Red Storm Rising for the ultimate over-the-top techno-thriller!

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Colonel Mustard did it with a pipe wrench in the conservatory?

There you go again.
You're so smart.
I bet the other kids in your high school are very impressed.

Spyhunter,

Have you ever worked with / met James Kallstrom?

I'm wondering what your opinion is of the guy.

Kiwirob wrote:

Does Spyhunter have a theory on TWA 800?

Now you know

N14AZ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Are you aware what the Spyhunter version of AF447 is???

Nope, let's hear it.

And regarding the Germanwings-crash in France he said "the jury is still out"...

You're correct, he did say that.

I also assume by him saying that ""the jury is still out" regarding Germanwings, he does not have a detailed scenario for that one yet

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Colorfull caracter, mr Spyhunter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

Very. Interesting that a registered sex offender was working with the McCanns, I wonder if he helped them dispose of Madeline's body.

Let's not go there, without any proof.

If it existed, it would have been "planted"

I have a question for Spyhunter. Concorde summer 2000, your thoughts?

777Jet wrote:

I also assume by him saying that ""the jury is still out" regarding Germanwings, he does not have a detailed scenario for that one yet

Let me guess, a Kilo class submarine navigated down the Rhone and shot it down........

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Let me guess, a Kilo class submarine navigated down the Rhone and shot it down........

Close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt_Kn4DggPg

I did a detailed response on the McCanns and the malicious images prosecution but I'm afraid it's been deleted. You can read my analysis of the McCann kidnap in Appendix 8 of Spyhunter, which is a redacted version of the report I did for the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee. The prosecution was a crock, based on an aftermarket hard drive swapped for my original, and the case is now the subject of an inquiry by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Not met Kallstrom, I'm afraid. I've not studied Germanwings closely, but the official, suicide, theory has been questioned. The fight profile is sightly odd for a suicide flight, but I express no concluded view. After AF447 I am wary of black box evidence until a clear audit trail has been established. It's too easily faked, particularly where the boxes are manufactured in the EU.

The Paris Concorde disaster had a number of unusual features, several of which point to a set-up. The French undoubtedly lied about the titanium wear-strip on the Continental DC-10 engine cowling, which was still present on the plane when examined at Houston. I believe the insurers had to pay out for the hull and a deal was done with Continental, who had a good defence and were cleared on appeal of the criminal charges, As their lawyer pointed out the strip was allegedly positioned AFTER the fuel tanks had ruptured.

We know the Concorde tracked left because a port undercarriage bogie wheel-spacer had been left off, accidentally or deliberately, and she collided with the left-side runway lights. We also know she was ordered to take off downwind, overweight, with a CG aft of limit for take-off. We also know that Air France had not fitted the strengthened debris guard, which BA to their credit had.

I respectfully agree with Captain Brian Hutchison that even with these factors the fire, which was mostly fuel burning downstream, was survivable. One engine was shut down unnecessarily however, a state of affairs partly contributed to by a failure of ATC to alert the crew to the possibility of a false engine fire warning, since the fire was mostly behind the aircraft.

The Paris crash should not have happened and Concorde should have remained in service. Pressure was brought to bear on BA to lie about the aircraft's profitability - Concorde had a break-even factor of about 30 and a load factor of about 50 in the year prior to premature withdrawal. The fact that BA were forced to lie about the aircraft's economics via the Cabinet Office supports the sabotage theory, since the Cabinet Office has been penetrated by Germany's GO2.

She was a wonderful aircraft. I will always remember my first take-off as a Concorde passenger, in 1999, from JFK. The acceleration and rate of climb were superb. I also carry another wonderful Concorde memory - I was sitting as an immigration judge near Heathrow, at Hatton Cross, and was driving across the airport in my Bentley, as was my wont. A Concorde had just taken off from 09R and thundered almost directly overhead, with afterburners still lit. A glorious sight and sound!

Sadly, I only flew in her twice. On the second occasion, returning home from DC (I could beat the direct Dulles flight by catching the AA red-eye from Reagan to JFK and catching Concorde) the CIA rang me at the Willard the afternoon before with my seat allocation, 6A. The DVD had not picked up my reservation for some time and they had a major player in the aft cabin. Just for devilment I was asked to wander into the aft cabin once we'd reached cruising altitude. The Bad Guy would probably have fallen out of his seat if he hadn't still been strapped in. I made him, alright. The CIA loved me in those days, as some one usually had to ride shotgun and CIA normally will only pay for economy tickets. Even the Director only gets paid to fly economy, as Jim Woolsey once complained to me.

Spyhunter wrote:

After AF447 I am wary of black box evidence until a clear audit trail has been established. It's too easily faked, particularly where the boxes are manufactured in the EU.

For someone who places importance on establishing clear audit trails with regards to evidence on air crashes, you sure are cavalier about providing a clear audit trail to your evidence.

Case in point - you keep pointing to the Fakour-2 SAM as the weapon used to shoot down MH370 but for some reason is neither listed in any weapons database that I know of nor is spoken about by anyone other than you online. There's the Fakour-90 air-to-air missile, which is nothing more than a re-engineered AIM-54 Phoenix of the F-14 Tomcat, but no Fakour-2 SAM.

I believe I've repeatedly asked for a clear audit trail of your evidence, but after 3 closed threads I've yet to get any acknowledgement of this from you.

Spyhunter wrote:

I respectfully agree with Captain Brian Hutchison that even with these factors the fire, which was mostly fuel burning downstream, was survivable.

I think you mean either Capt. John Hutchinson or Capt. Brian Walpole. I have no record of a Concorde captain named Brian Hutchinson flying for either BA or AF.

Spyhunter wrote:

The CIA loved me in those days, as some one usually had to ride shotgun and CIA normally will only pay for economy tickets. Even the Director only gets paid to fly economy, as Jim Woolsey once complained to me.

Funny, you'd think that given the connections you had you'd be the Prime Minister of GB by now...

...or at the very least, owner of Jaguar Land Rover.