by Michael Kobs
In November 2014 the journalist
crash site of flight MH17. Among these missile parts he presented a bowtie (submunition) of a BUK
He obviously found that piece of evidence at the crash site close to the chicken farm (see right image
below in the background) at 48.131829° 38.631337°.
The allegedly original position of that bowtie is shown in the image below:
In an article J. Akkerman wrote that his cameraman is also his witness and the bowtie and other
missile parts were presented in a way that a reader must arrive at the impression that several
experts seemingly confirmed the authenticity. Among those experts are HIS Jane's London and
Schmucker Technologies Munich (image below).
However, Marcel van den Berg pointed out that the piece of debris on which Akkerman allegedly
found the bowtie was previously turned upside down. Earlier photographs of that piece of debris
show the outside of the airplane pointing upwards.
Google Earth images show that it was turned between August the 1
between November the 1
. So Akkerman probably was the last one who had the chance to
examine that piece at the crash site.
Furthermore, that piece of debris is part of the left side of the tail and includes the last windows far
behind the wings. It neither shows any damage due to submunition impacts nor would the bowtie
be able to enter the airplane at that distance and angle.
Akkerman considers, "The 'bow tie' may have shifted during the turn around, who knows?" The
chance for a "shifted" bowtie sticking upside down at the left side of the tail waiting to be released
by a turn of the debris is close to zero. The interior trim of that piece of airplane skin was completely
ripped away. The bowtie would have to bounce several times inside of the passenger deck from the
cockpit through the 1
class to the last 5 rows to penetrate through the interior trim and end up
sticking at the naked metal tight enough to survive the fall and the impact to the ground. There it
must sticking head over heels for 2 more weeks until someone turned that piece of airplane skin.
Finally, the bowtie would have to wait 3 more month on top of the turned debris to be found by J.
Akkerman. Keep in mind that this bowtie is not one of dozens or hundreds but one out of two
allegedly found in the debris.
Obviously RTL Nieus knew the small probability and simply stated that Akkermans bowtie entered
the plane close to the cockpit.
Nevertheless, Akkerman had more suspicious to show. He also found not only a piece of the missile
but a piece of the serial number allegedly of the BUK missile:
The 2cm piece is bent in a radius much too small for the outer shell of a BUK missile but the main
interest of the presentation was the number itself because it includes the Cyrillic letter "ц". Once
again RTL Nieus arrived at the same conclusion:
RTL Nieus shows that piece of "evidence" from a slightly different perspective. Look at the Cyrillic
letter "ц" again.
The Cyrillic letter ц is always written on the baseline. Hence,
share the same baseline.
Therefore, the piece of the serial number most likely says 24 using a font like Elite 12pt used by the
Since JIT obtained a BUK missile it would be an easy task to show the part and typography of a real
BUK serial number, wouldn’t it?
Still we don't believe in a deliberate fraud or planted evidence in a major war crime case but in a
series of highly improbable coincidences and misunderstandings and even omissions. We just must
admit that the presentation of these highly suspicious pieces of metal shaped the public opinion as if
indeed hard evidence confirmed by international respected experts were presented.
In the context of the above it seems plausible that the JIT doesn't mention a single piece of
Akkermans metal. Nevertheless, even the JIT presented missile pieces.
The most convincing part is a piece of the tail of the missile embedded in the window frame of the
left side of the cockpit.
JIT: "A ball of twisted metal was found in the groove of one of the cockpit windows. This ball of
twisted metal appears to be part of the missile of the 9M38 type. The shape, dimensions and milling
traces on the metal match exactly the same part of the BUK missile that had been dismantled by the
Obviously not the entire part of the missile body behind the warhead impacted the airplane. Such an
almost frontal impact at 730m/s (missile) + 250 m/s (plane) = 1000 m/s might have sliced through
the airframe like a knife. Instead just some small shrapnels – seemingly a part of the lid in the upper
right picture (picture in picture) – impacted the cockpit window frame.
Notice that the lid is bolted to the last tail section of the missile:
So either the entire body of the missile disintegrated into small pieces or the last section of the body
just lost the lid. Even if the body of the missile was never found, it seems to be unlikely that the
entire body virtually vaporized due to the explosion of the warhead. The warhead is constructed in a
way that directs most of the pressure almost perpendicular to the sides.
However, the experts may decide if a still solid body might possibly lose a bolted lid due to the
warhead explosion while the pressure twists that metal to the shape of a ball prior to the impact. At
least the website
therefore not completely disintegrated into tiny pieces.
According to the JIT presentation (see below) that embedded piece of the lid apparently impacted
from left to right (red arrow). Notice that the higher profile of the undamaged side of the window
frame do not allow an impact from the right side (blue arrow).
According to the image the red marked edge of the alleged missile part sticks below the undamaged
edge of the window frame. The shadow below that folded piece of metal suggests that the impact at
about 1000 m/s (without any additional force) didn't deform the shrapnel in a way that it matches
(or embeds into) the surface of the groove along the window frame. Furthermore, there is no edge
that possibly could have bent the lower edge of the shrapnel (bright blue) upwards. Therefore, the
deformation appears not to be caused by the impact - or more precise by the impact to this window
But there is a much bigger problem. The
window frame this way:
Notice that the debris of the window frame has the shape of a cross pointing downwards.
If we now compare the JIT presentation to the reconstructed airframe, then we realize the JIT turned
that piece of the window frame upside down:
In other words, the embedded metal ball either impacted the window frame from behind the
airplane or maybe slightly from the side and behind. An impact from the front of the airplane can be
excluded. Therefore, the JIT illustration of the impact describes an impossible event that apparently
became possible by a 180° rotation of that piece of the window frame.
To complete the image burnt into the mind of the listeners, JIT made it very clear:
Keep in mind that the last tail section of the missile (either from Snizhne or from Zaroschenskoye)
and the bolted lid is located some meters behind the warhead and was still in front of the cockpit
when the warhead exploded.
A disintegrated missile body or a shrapnel from that tail section must have entered the cockpit from