I'm no professional investigator and I have only flown a glider - once - [with a professional pilot on board!] So okay, I don't have a pilot's licence! However, I have an avid interest in commercial aircraft and have been fortunate enough, prior to September 11 2001, to visit the flight decks of a Fokker Friendship, Boeing 737, Boeing 747's, and Boeing 767's. This, along with reading my many books and watching You Tube and the TV aviation crash documentaries, has given me some basics behind the operation of aircraft and their associated systems. I'm no expert; but I'm learning more and more all the time.

​

But other than having some understanding of aviation, the next most important thing is having the instinct of knowing when things don't add up, and the ability to be able to find a trail and follow it and see where it takes the investigation. Then it's a matter of piecing things together and ensuring that it makes sense and fits in with what we know and fills in what we don't.

One of my motto's is "Dig, Sift, Evaluate," and it really is that simple when piecing things together and it takes time - HEAPS of time with long hours well into the night. But it must be done if we are to locate and reveal what really happened. My other motto is, "The truth never lies." There are certain aspects of these four cases in which the world of science and the laws of nature prove or negate what we see, and what we are or are not told.

​

I understand that not everybody has the time to carve through a lot of what is provided on this website, so It is my intention to briefly give you some of the concerns with these cases. It's an opportunity to see the workings of my investigations...

​

So, let's check out Malaysia Airlines MH17. The second case I've ever tackled.....

​

* The Malaysia Airlines flight assignment manifest showed airframe 9M-MRD was to service MH17 on July 17 2014. However, this showed CANCELED. Was this flight canceled and then reinstated later?

* MH17 was directed over a known war zone at the minimum permitted altitude. This was done by a Spanish Air Traffic Controller working in the Ukrainian control Tower. Ukrainian military commanders are alleged to have instructed this controller what spiel he was to give if he was approached by officials.

* The previous ten MH17 flights all followed a south-easterly trajectory which went nowhere near the conflict zone. There was no need for MH17 to be diverted; so why was it?

* Video interviews with villagers in the vicinity of the main wreckage site stated there were two Ukrainian military, Russian built, MIG 29 fighter jets shadowing MH17. These were unanimously identified by individuals who viewed a selection of various fighter jet outlines, as would be witnessed from the ground looking directly upwards.

* Russia hasn't possessed any of the Buk missiles which were alleged to have brought down MH17.

The pro-Russian rebels at the crash scene did not have any Buk missiles nor the training and experience to launch any. Buk missile launchers require a separate support unit. It was noted that a Buk missile may not have the range or ability to track and attack a commercial aircraft from the ground.

* The Buk missile manufacturer claims that the Dutch Safety Board [DSB] Report images and calculations of damage are not consistent with the alleged type of Buk missile said to have been used.

* Investigations made into the Buk missiles indicates that a smoke trail would be evident in the sky for up to five minutes after it being launched. Witnesses at the scene do not recall seeing any smoke trails.

* The cockpit wreckage shows entry and exit holes on both sides of a 30mm diameter, consistent with cannon-fire as that used in fighter jets.

* The United States made a press release stating that MH17 was brought down by Russia. This was despite no officials accessing the crash site. Russia offered to supply radar evidence which would prove their innocence. It was declined. Russia maintains their rightful innocence.

* The recording made by the Ukrainian's claimed that a commercial aircraft was brought down. The ingrained date and time stamp indicated that this recording was made the evening before MH17 was brought down.

* In May 2017 I viewed a video containing the ATC radar data, up to and including the time when MH17 appeared to crash. This imagery shows a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777 approaching MH17 from the left rear on a south easterly direction. It overshoots MH17, then lines up behind it. At this point the transponder data goes off the radar. Did MH17 - [9M-MRD] really crash? Some of the scene wreckage is in direct conflict to this.

* The close-up villager's video of the smoke flume of "MH17" shows what appears to be silver streamers floating to the ground, along with some silver star-like flecks. This is known as chaff, a product dispersed from military jets to mask their presence on radar.

* The DSB report comprising 788 pages, is extremely questionable. The main report is 279 pages. It passes these silver streamers as being rolls of fabric from the cargo hold of MH17, unraveling as they drift to the ground. They even go as far as to present details of wind speed, direction, and rate of descent.

* On page 153 of this report is shown the left rear fuselage of the B777. This contains the rearmost left door and is clearly labeled with 9M-MRD. There is substantial damage to this door. The same identified piece of wreckage in the reconstruction hangar shows color and damage consistency in total contrast to the DSB report. Why? My belief is that the wreckage and bodies from MH370 were disposed of at this site.

* The DSB report is not comprised as part of any criminal investigation; rather, it is prepared to provide a record of 'facts' of what happened and how, and in making recommendations to the Schipol Airport and all Airlines operating in the relevant airspace, as to suggested changes to procedures to avoid events of a similar nature occurring in the future.

This report causes justifiable concern for me. It provides comprehensive details of what it alleges happened, of which it cannot provide any hard evidence to validate this. In fact, the DSB is not en-tasked nor responsible for apportioning blame. This is clearly stated at the beginning of their reports. Furthermore, the DSB has decided that a Russian Buk missile launched by pro-Russian separatives was responsible for the downing of MH17. It then takes the remarkable approach of working backwards from this allegation in a weak attempt to validate it. This is sheer ludicrous and not how any investigation [or report] should be conducted. The blame and means of the event were apportioned from the very outset and within 24hrs.  The U.S, Ukraine, and The Netherlands have colluded to put full blame of this crash solely on Russia. A letter sent to someone inquiring of Australia about the investigation, states that all four nations responsible for preparing a report have agreed to a non-disclosure document not to release details of the case. These four nations are Australia, The Netherlands, Ukraine, and Belgium.  This is the only aviation crash I know of where the scene has been left unguarded for unauthorised people to access, and for potential evidence along with passenger's personal belongings to be removed. There is also video evidence that the CVR and FDR were removed from the scene by local villagers and was only handed in upon a reward being offered for their return. They were returned three days later. But were they the original ones, and where is the transcribed data from them? Likewise, where are the DNA results from the bodies which were removed from the crash scene? Why were they removed and transported by train under armed military presence?

* The sister of the First Officer is on a video interview saying that his body was returned to her in a sealed casket. She was told his body was recovered intact and with no marks, yet she was unable to view his body and the burial was done under Military supervision to ensure this did not happen. Was his body in the casket, and why couldn't she view it? How can an aircraft exhibit such damage, particularly to the flight deck, yet no damage is made to his body?

* The reconstruction hangar contained parts of the 777 reconstructed on a wire cage. Media were permitted to walk through and take photos. Surely this should be treated as a restricted area.

* It took some time before the "officials" accessed the scene, and in total they accessed it only three times, stating weather conditions and not being able to access the scene as reasons.

* Within 20 minutes locals and an BBC Russia reporter was at the scene along with a Military Commander. The video produced by the reporter was instructed to be removed off the BBC website.

* The video shows bodies and luggage in the same location, which would indicate that they were in the same area aboard the aircraft. The bodies exhibit no blood nor decapitations, yet we are to believe they resulted from an aircraft breaking up as it crashes to the ground. Were the bodies placed there?

* Comment from those first on the scene was made with regards to the smell of what seemed like embalming fluid. The bodies exhibited signs of decay far in excess of the short time-frame lapse from the time of the crash to people arriving on the scene.

* A plastic bag of passports in pristine condition was located at the crash site. They had a corner hole punched or a triangle piece cut from the top right corner of the passport. An aircraft comes down in a charred scene and these passports are all together and undamaged! Pausing the video to read the details of three passengers from the same family clearly shows their details.

* Four attempts were made to locate the flight manifest of passengers aboard, in an attempt to validate these passengers as being aboard. Each attempt was via a separate search and website. The first list came back as approx the size of a large postage stamp and was completely unreadable. The second produced a replicated MH370 flight list. The third presented a series of numbers and symbols over the entire 'document,' much like this - 5*!6@9#52% . [Not the actual digits, but you get the idea!] The fourth flight list did produce a legitimate flight manifest. The three passengers names appeared on the manifest and appeared to be validated as genuine - however....

* The bodies at the scene were described as being predominantly of a 'coffee-colored' skin tone, which would be more consistent with that of Chinese and Malaysian's, rather than Dutch. 

* Some luggage which was open at the scene, [presumably from any impact with the ground], contained clothing consistent with winter conditions. A flight from The Netherlands to Malaysia would surely exhibit clothing suitable for a tropical climate; however at that time of year, passengers traveling from Malaysia to China could reasonably be expected to have winter clothing with them.

​

In closing - there are numerous and substantial areas which flag as serious concerns and anomalies. These need to be presented and challenged in a court of law in The Hague.

​

Due diligence and justice has not been fairly apportioned in this case; in time I am hopeful it will be.

​