13 months later. What happened to flight MH17?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

After 13 months little facts are know about what caused the shot down of MH17. We know it was not a bomb.

What has been told by the organizations and states involved in the investigation so far?

  1. the preliminary report of the DSB said MH17 was hit by high energy objects
  2. a possible scenario according JIT is one in which Russia supplied a BUK system and crew.

That is what we know. What we also know from other sources is

  1. Almaz Antey, maker of the missiles used by the BUK, said MH17 must have been hit by a BUK missile
  2. Jeroen Akkermans, Dutch journalist, found parts of a BUK missile at the crash scene
  3. JIT anounced they found parts of possibly a BUK missile in  Eastern Ukraine
  4. Damage is likely caused by a fragmentation warhead of a SAM according many experts.
  5. Nikolai Ivanovich Kozitsyn, longtime leader of Russia’s Don Cossacks, admits in a Vice interview that a missile shot down MH17. 
  6. The Dutch government is not very keen on releasing information. Many documents are kept secret. Why?

Plenty of indications a BUK was the cause. Now what could have happened?

In short: Russia supplied a BUK missile to the separatists. Ukraine knew about the BUK but did not close its airspace. Instead it might have provoked the BUK to shoot by flying close to the position of the BUK. A terrible mistake was made by the crew in the BUK. Or for another reason MH17 was hit. 

This post will provide my thoughts. It is a short summary. In a future post I will go into detail and show links explaining the circumstances.

Separatists required in July that Ukraine Air Force aircradt could be shot down by more advanced weapons than MANPADS. For example to destroy supply aircraft like the Antonov 26 and IL76.

To prevent Russia being caught in the act of supplying separatists with BUK systems an alibi was invented. Separatists suggested they stole a BUK from Ukraine army. In fact, one or more BUK TELAR systems were supplied by Russia. Also crews were supplied. The BUK TELAR was transported by separatists using a stolen Volvo truck and lowloader. Again to prevent evidence Russia supplied the TELAR.

At or before July 17 a BUK TELAR was transported by separatists to a field near Snizhne. It could  be on July 17. It could be on July 16. Photos presented do not provide any proof for the date. The times the photos were made seem to suggest the route was indeed from Donetsk to Snizhne.

The transport of the BUK did took place. There are no Photoshops. There are various videos showing the red lowloader, Volvo truck and Toyota RAV4 cars involved in other separatists convoys. Finding out the correct date of when the videos and photos were taken is crucial. If the BUK transport took place before  July 17 it is another indication Ukraine knew about BUKs in Eastern Ukraine and should have closed the airspace.

However not a single photo has EXIF information nor the photographer name is known.

Ukraine Air Force did not fly  at July 16. However in the afternoon one or more SU-25 were operating in the neighborhood of Snizhne. Many eyewitness saw aircraft flying.

At July 17 a BUK TELAR shot down MH17. While there is no technical hard proof that it was indeed a Russian BUK plus crew, the response of the Russian Federation is suspicious. First they claimed that either a Ukraine fighterjet or BUK system shot MH17 down. Then all sort of stories were spread in Kremlin controled newspapers. Now the final DSB report in close to publication Russian press and state officials like minister Lavrov say the DSB investigation is done all wrong. Russia not once showed reliable evidence of Ukraine involvement in the shotdown. Most if not all evidence presented by Russia was debunked in days if not hours.

This is still no proof for any judge to prosecute Russia. It could be an Ukraine army BUK was positioned and shot at MH17.  It could also be that one of the private armies in Ukraine got a BUK and shot down MH17 to put the blame on Russia.

Seeing the behaviour of Russia I put my money on Russian involvement. Russia did not have any motive to shot down an aircraft heading towards Malaysia. The Secret Service of Ukraine suggested the Russian BUK crew made an error and was ordered to shot down an Aeroflot aircraft. This is for sure a nonsense story from Kiev.

The BUK crew for sure must have thought they shot at a military aircraft. What could be the target and how was MH17 hit? That is a very difficult question to answer and I doubt we will get an answer within the next 6-10 years.

Lets provide some scenarios though:

    1. The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft.  A spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK. The BUK crew was informed an Antonov 26 was their target.
      An informant working at the airport where the Antonov 26 departed informed separatists about the planned Antonov flight.
      The BUK crew only at the last minute switched on the radar to prevent detection by SU-25s flying nearby. The crew had little time to decide and launched a missile. Mistakes are not that unlikely. Remember the mistake a US Navy crew made by shooting down an Iran Air Airbus.The Su-25s could have been used by Ukraine to out the BUK crew on stress and keep the radar off as long as possible.
      I think this is by far the most likely sceario.There is also a strange unreliable of the transponder which started  at 13:18Z according avherald.com
      Why became the data unreliable? Did the signal get spoffed/jammed to pretent MH17 was not a civil aircraft?
      A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration 9M-MRD performing flight MH-17/KL-4103 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) with 283 passengers and 15 crew, was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08) and was lost at FL330 at 13:20Z. The aircraft came down near the villages of Shakhtarsk and Hrabove (Ukraine) about 20nm from the last transponder position and 20nm from the Ukrainian/Russian border, the ELT of the aircraft was recorded at position N48.1230 E38.5258.
    2. The BUK crew saw an Antonov 26 flying at 6km. They shot a missile. The missile however hit MH17 at 10km. Maybe because the missile guidance system was compromised. See scenario 4.
    3. The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target. The missile found a new target being MH17. This retarget was the cause of the shotdown by an Ukraine S-200 missle of flight   Siberian 1812 in 2001.Not a likely scenario. First of all a retarget can only happen if the original target has been destroyed. Also a retarget of a BUK missile is unlikely. Last as soon as a SU-25 aircraft has a lock from the BUK, there will be an alarm in the cockpit. The SU-25 would make all kind of movements. Ofcourse MH17 did not. So the operator must have thought in this scenario that something was not right.
    4. The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system. This system guided the missile  to MH17. This Tweet from a Fin who claims to have been a BUK operator suggests the BUK missile guidance system can be compromised. Add the story of Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta that says Russia provided a BUK without missiles. The missiles were stolen from Ukraine army bases. Maybe for this reason it was easy to compromise the guidance. It would be a perfect scenario to blame Russia. We know a Ukraine BUK TELAR was in the area.

      Scenario 4 explains why the United States was so quickly with saying it was a BUK launched from separatists controlled area. It also explains all the evidence (photos/videos) released by Ukraine. It also explains why the Dutch goverment keeps information secret. It also explains why Ukraine did not close its airspace.

      Then there is this video. It was shown at a Ukraine military TV station. The video was uploaded on the evening of July 16. It shows an Ukraine BUK battery somewhere in Eastern Ukraine at July 16. It says it was in the ATO (Anti Terrorist Operation)region indicating Eastern Ukraine.
      The location where the BUK was positioned is not known at this moment. Nobody was yet able to geolocate it.   An Ukraine journalist comments on the video (includes english subtitles)
      Notice the batches on the uniforms of the staff are blurred! Why would that be?

      Before someone starts to think. An Ukraine BUK TELAR in separatists controlled area is impossible: that is not true.

      At the end of July  an Ukraine army convoy drove roughly from the North to the South crossing the Donetsk-Snizhne line. A long video of this trip was posted on Youtube but was taken offline for unknown reasons. Ukraineatwar website made a blogpost with many stills of that same video. It  can be readhere. The video and blogpost indicated  that it is not impossible an Ukraine BUK was located in an area which was according maps controlled by separatists.

      The period in which the Ukraine Army drove this route is for sure end of July. One of the photos shows Dutch RTL journalist Jaap van Deurzen. He was in the area around that time. Jaap van Deurzen confirms he was end of July at that location. My guess around July 27/28. See the RTL Nieuws of July 28.

    5. SU-25s were flying very close to passenger aircraft to use as a human shield.

      On the 18th of June, one month before this disaster, Elena Kolenkina, a Russian separatist in Sloviansk and the wife of rebel commander Arsen Pavlov reported that the Ukrainian Air Force were tailing civilian planes over Eastern Ukraine.  The claims, if proven true, indicate that the Ukraine were using civilian aircraft as human shields.

      In the foreboding footage, a uniformed Elena reveals in Russian, that “recently a passenger plane was flying by, and a Ukrainian attack aircraft hid behind it…it lowered its altitude and bombed a residential sector of Semenovka, then regained altitude and hid behind the passenger plane.” Kolenkina continues to explain that, “they wanted to provoke the militia to shoot at the passenger plane. There would have been a global catastrophe, civilians would have died.”

      I doubt this is likely. A passenger plane is flying at 10km with a speed of around 900/950 km/h. A SU-25 cannot fly that fast. Let alone it can dive to bomb and climb and hit behind a passenger plane again.

Open to comments!

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

355 Comments on 13 months later. What happened to flight MH17?

  1. There are stories that Siberian 1812 with the S200, was the same as #4.
    Which sound plausible with those older systems.

    Combination of two and four could happen.
    UA wanted to expose that Separatists had a BUK and they caught the guy who was supposed to send the SMS so they had details to work with.
    They sent AN26 flying near MH17, but being prepared and knowing about ‘stealing a guidance signal from the missile’ they used their BUKs as counter measure to send it somewhere else.
    The problem I have with this, is they could have sent self destruct message as opposed to redirecting target.
    I want to think any rational person would do this, Russian or Ukrainian.
    And as a bonus UA could claim they caught a BUK in separatist hands, saved a AN26 pilot, and destroyed the missile and gave some credance to the belief about 1812.
    So maybe this combination is not so plausible.

    There are a lot of theories, and by discussing compromised guidance system, you have exposed a lot more for everyone to consider! Thanks!

    Reminds me also of the Kursk submarine and its coverup, and when vova was asked about it – ‘It sank’
    5 days off to vacation at the beach, while for the next 11 hours people were still alive and might have been able to be rescued.
    Offers of international add were offered to attempt a rescue at 300 feet down.
    vova refused.
    he did not want to compromise defense secrets of their stealth sub.
    The biggest disappointment for me was that a few of the children of those that died when to the public anniversary of the event wearing vova shirt.

    So sayeth vova, so sayeth we all.

    Fare thee well

  2. It strains credulity that a BUK crossed the border near Krasnodon and travelled all the way to Donetsk before anyone saw it or that it would not be taken directly to Snizhne and instead took a scenic tour.

    If various statements are taken at face value, what if (1) rebels obtain a damaged BUK from base A-1402, A-1418, or A-0194 in June. It gets repaired. They also obtain Ukrainian missiles from one of the bases. At least some of a Russian crew crosses the border as volunteers and perhaps joins a couple of defectors or veterans. They truck the repaired BUK from Donetsk to Snizhne, accounting for the trail of photos/tweets.

    At the same time, Ukraine has deployed its BUKs into the field as shown by Russia on July 21, or something very close to this. Regardless, one or more Ukrainian BUK’s are “in range”.

    MH17 is shot down. Lets say for the sake of argument the rebel BUK did it with a Ukrainian missile and a partially Russian crew. The BUK is dragged to Russia and destroyed. The crew is threatened that if they talk, they will die in an accident.

    Russia demands Ukraine giver an accounting of its missiles and BUK’s to prove its innocence. Ukraine can’t, because she has abandoned BUK’s at several bases, which Russia shows on satellite photos. She also can’t provide an accounting of missiles, because some were carelessly left behind and then stolen from inventory. Investigators determine a Ukrainian type missile, not a modernized Russian one, is the one that brought down the plane. Russia provides evidence showing all its BUK’s stayed in Russia and it is not short any missiles and in an unprecedented act, opens its inventory to international insepctors. It demands Ukraine do the same. She can’t without making herself look guilty – a BUK is missing from inventory. 4 missiles are missing from inventory. A plane is shot down and is full of Ukrainian fragments.

    Do you think we would ever find out the truth if this is what happened?

    • Andrew, do you think the Russian crew, if identified, could withstand an international interrogation and not talk?
      That guilt must weigh heavily on at least one person.
      Unless they were tailor picked for an intentional targeting.
      Killing ‘Ukrops’ soldiers could handle, after all, they believed the various other stories like Odessa, crucified child etc.
      BUT an plane of innocent civilians? Nah, I think some are that heartless, but not all of them.

      I think the crew are already eliminated, unless it was intentional.
      At least one of them would have done something to protect himself on that type of covert operation if he came up missing.

      As far as missiles, they have inventory and numbering.
      Military is good about records of 20 foot long missiles.
      I can almost guarantee that one identifying part is already found.
      Or is being searched for vigorously.

      I really do not see if separatists stole some missiles from a Ukrainian military base that you can assume a large part of the responsibility falls on Ukraine.

      Ukraine would be the first to open up the inventory records for inspection in your scenario.
      If that happened and they identified it as a Ukrainian missile that the separatists fired, I think they would be screaming it in the UN right now.
      IN your scenario, we would know.

      I think overall the truth will come out.
      IF we all live to know it.
      What you have know as far as Kremlin propaganda will be intensified 10x before the trial.
      I can see the defense now, if Russian missile, Russian trained crew, Russian BUK is the accusation.
      We are being persecuted and you all are Russaphobes, and Ukraine did it with the American supplied laser cannon that followed up with the railgun.
      The DSB is tainted, the investigators are biased, etc.
      Something to attempt to put doubt in the judge’s thinking.

      Unless there is a Kremlin initiated war.
      Or unless there is a drastic change in RF politics.

      The only reason I could see the world being prevented from knowing all the facts would be prevention of all out nuke war, or the Kremlin gave up a martyr to prevent a civil war inside Russia and nukes getting into anyone hands who wants one over there, that greater good may outweigh the public from knowing I think.
      To Hollywood?

      Fare thee well

      • Boggled:

        “Andrew, do you think the Russian crew, if identified, could withstand an international interrogation and not talk?”

        Why would a hypothetical Russian crew (emphasis on hypothetical, since there is zero proof for the scenario proposed) ever face such a tribunal for an accident in war time? No one faced a tribunal over Iranian Air 655, KAL 007, Siberian Air 1812, etc. in fact, people involved in Iranian Air 655 got citations and promotions. What could possibly motivate Russia to provide suspects in such a case with zero evidence?

        • Andrew, I believe no one face a Tribunal in those other incidents because of what the investigation proved of accident or shared responsibility in the act.
          Also, each of the nation’s chose to work it out in the respective courts and no one demanded a Tribunal.
          They went through the investigative process, courts and were settled, 1812 still has some pending lawsuits if I remember right.

          KAL007 did raise ColdWar tensions a lot and there were mentions there of a Tribunal, but in the sake of shared responsibility of the pilots and the Russian military during and after the investigation, it was deemed not the appropriate venue.

          Because Eastern Donetsk and and Crimea are a conflict zone and a contested zone and there is a chance of intentional targeting and Russia has blatant disregard for International agreements it made in the past, a Tribunal will be called for by many nations to seek justice for their civilians and equipment lost and to place blame and sentencing accordingly on all Ukraine, RF and the Separatist leaders who organized it accordingly.

          The evidence will presented and a demand for justice will be presented as well.
          Will RF comply? or will they act as they are in the Yukos case?
          Time will tell.

          Fare thee well

        • I agree Andrew. We have no evidence of a Russian crew. No photos of them or anything else.
          This is why is a serious court there are rules of evidence and speculation like an hypothetical Russian crew that no one saw of photographed can’t be entered.

  3. scenario 1-is very likely,no doubting the shock of at least some rebels at FP being open,shoot and scoot tactic in what they likely believed was a free fire zone
    scenario 2-unlikely to impossible,Russian radar even believing their doubtful claim off a 5km radar level show nothing
    scenario 3-unlikely,retarget of 1812 was because target that was intended was no longer there,already destroyed,would mean Telar CW radar would have to retarget much higher intentionally and lower limit for 9M38M1 is 30m as i recall,nowhere for SU-25 to hide
    scenario 4-Finland changed from SA-11 which were purchased to defend Helsinki because of concerns off security for the missile control system,likely uplink,Finns concerned that they were sold a “monkey model” as was typical and rightly seemed annoyed that no changes were possible with Russia remaing tightlipped on full electronic disclosure

    • RB2, not to be confrontational, but 1812 is not quite that simple.
      Did you know none of the 11 of the forensic investigations could prove it was a Ukrainian missile?

      pdf here, if you can read Ukrainian –
      http://vj.net.ua/files/03a_md-expert_findings20100521.pdf

      or if you want to accept that, you can read here where I got the file from –
      http://deathpix.com:8000/wikipedia_en_all_07_2014/A/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812.html

      There are many older theories here – http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/541472/posts

      And no, the case was never really ‘solved’, which to me is strange with it being just a couple of weeks after 911 and it being an Israel to Russia flight starting in Israel.

      There have been additional theories which are plausible, not proven or disproved.
      A Russian sub launching an intercept missile that missed the targeted missile when it went silent is one.

      Another is that with all the testing being observed by many troops, both Russian and Ukrainian, everyone was painting the missile.
      Ukraine gave the order to shut down all guidance so the missile could self destruct, and it is confirmed all Ukrainian radar was shut off.
      It is not confirmed that Russian troops followed through and their radio guidance may have guided it to 1812.
      There were also radio transmissions and troops of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey following it with radio signals that may have guided to 1812.
      Where the plane was destroyed was out of range of the radio guidance both Russian and Ukraine had at Crimea, I think their range was about 150 km. with the equipment they had working.
      The missile was supposed to self detonate before then if it missed the drone.
      I think that is what the no fly zone was around that time.

      I would also add an American plane was a only a couple miles away from 1812 when it blew up at 36k feet.
      Also the drone was lower then 3000 feet that was targeted and destroyed by the Russian S-300.
      Why would a missile attacking a target at 3k feet suddenly decide a 36k feet is better?
      A last note, American satellite did follow the missile to the plane’s destruction, but they did not say were the launch of that missile came from.

      A possible bet is it was a UBL aligned group in the Black Sea with a boat of some sort that overpowered the Ukrainian missile signal and gave it new directions to hit either a USA or Israeli plane.
      And knew the command codes.
      Some say Syrian aligned groups, some say Chechen, Some Saddam, some just say terrorists.

      Some say it was a Ukrainian or Russian naval boat with inept crew that failed to turn off their guidance system and the plane was destroyed.

      Israel and America have a lot of enemies, and a successful plane destruction a couple weeks after 911 would been a big notch on their belt but as far as I know, no one of those AntiIsrael or AntiAmerica groups screamed we did it.

      The missile with all its newer electronics should have self destructed when Ukraine gave the order to turn off all guidance that was painting the missile and they did do that, the missile didn’t self destruct.
      The missile was kept alive by someone and directed toward 1812 or the American plane.
      So no it did not just miss a drone, that was destroyed by a Russian launched S-300 missile just before it got there, at less then 3k feet in altitude and about 40 miles out and then simply reacquire a target at 36k feet 150 miles further away.

      And that is why 14 years later, it is still unsolved although Ukraine thinks it MIGHT have been its missile so they agreed to pay claims, but not admit guilt.
      This one has a lot of secrecy behind it being just after 911.
      Just a few things to think about.
      Fare thee well

      • correction –
        Did you know none of the 11 of the forensic investigations could prove it was a Ukrainian missile?
        should read-
        Did you know none of the 11 of the forensic investigations could NOT prove it was a Ukrainian missile?

        Fare thee well

    • A spotter mistakenly see to a passenger jet at 10 km altutide speeding at 900+ km/h for an freighter speeding at 450 km/h at an altitude of 5 km is not very likely.

      It is also not very likely the military hadn´t seen passenger jets flying all day up to 16:20 EEST and thought it was a free firing zone. Remember there were no sorties of Ukrainian airforce in the morning as commander Strelkov asserted, but obviously there were passenger jets flying over.

      Do you REALLY think they are that stupid?

      • deleted for not being on topic

      • how the spotter operated or gathered his mistaken data is unknown,claims of connection to airport etc,quite common to use spotters so does fits,your point that BuK operators would have known it was a busy FP only strengthens case for non-local involvement,

        • Hector Reban // August 19, 2015 at 6:40 pm // Reply

          An irrational story supported by absence of evidence?

          Non-local involvement, for example an Ukrainian Kupol helping an Ukrainian false flag operation?

          When motive counts, the Ukrainians are the first to be scrutinized.

  4. Admin, many thanks for all information, for about all I know comes from you.

    Ad 1: Admin said:’The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft.’
    But on July 15, it was announced by the military in a Public Statement, since July 14 civil aviation was only allowed above 9,700 meters and military aviation was suspended. Furthermore the crew of the BUK noticed chem-trails of about 75 civilian planes a day.
    Therefore a better hypothesis might be the BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft beneath 9,700 meters:

    [- Hence, with this cloudy weather the spotter of the BUK could not verify his information. That day there was no visibility check possible that an Antonov actually arrived. And a transport aircraft as the IL-76 at 10 km altitude would be totally unidentifiable. But there was a solution because the operator on the BUK indeed saw appear a single aircraft on his autonomous radar, but without height measurement but with IFF identification as ‘enemy’, as did the MH17.]

    [- The Boeing 777 with a ground speed of 905 km/h at 10 km altitude, slowly came nearer on the BUK-radar. Its altitude was unknown, so it really looked like an Antonov (440 km/h) on just 6 km altitude, slowly approaching with radial velocity (towards the BUK).]

    – Admin said: ‘A spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’
    As Andrew said earlier [Andrew // June 26, 2015 at 5:57 pm //. ] there were big logistical problems for a spotter to identify any aircraft 50 km earlier especially on that overcast day. Therefore, one must have known that such optical information was unreliable.
    – Admin said: ‘The crew had little time to decide and launched a missile.’
    Handling a BUK is not that easy, so the operators knew exactly to be crazy to fire a missile almost at random, hence it must have been intentional.
    – Admin said: ‘Mistakes are not that unlikely. Remember the mistake a US Navy crew made by shooting down an Iran Air Airbus.’
    This may be right, this may be wrong. It is correct if one can not learn from previous mistakes. It would be wrong when such associations lead to easy tunnel vision.

    Ad 2: Admin said: ‘The BUK crew saw an Antonov 26 flying at 6km. They shot a missile. The missile however hit MH17 at 10km.’
    It was a rather overcast day and that AN-26 was also very difficult to identify at 6 km. And on that altitude the AN-26 might be just noticeable on Rostov’s primary radar. But the real problem is the product rule of independent chances: The AN-26 must have been contaminated exactly in a point with MH17 on the radar of the BUK. That’s very difficult, but not impossible, hence product chances seem low. This is not a parsimonious hypothesis.

    Ad 3: Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target. The missile found a new target being MH17.’
    Possibly, but everyone who is aware of this situation can construct his own alibi and shoot down MH17 in the first place. And because the operator of the BUK must have some professional experience we must conclude conscious planning.

    Ad 4: Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system. This system guided the missile to MH17.’
    Now an additional chance (Ukraine) is added to the product rule plus an intentional covariate to let all chances work together. So, here we leave the random situation. Hence, now we need the intention to fit an AN-26 on a civilian plane, to expect the firing of a BUK and taking over control of the missile just in time. This seems almost impossible to arrange in frantic war. May be it’s better to search for more parsimonious hypotheses. The stolen BUK makes it even more complicated.

    • Basic Dimension, according to your assertions regarding scenario 1, do you think the BUK crew was poised to play some Russian Roulette?

      • Hector said: ‘Basic Dimension, according to your assertions regarding scenario 1, do you think the BUK crew was poised to play some Russian Roulette?’

        No, what I mean is on that overcast day separatists had no reliable optical information about an AN-26, other than suggested by a double agent of Ukraine at Dnepropetrovsk. I agree this might be an unnecessary complication but then only one spot would be needed on the radar of the BUK, expected in a military area below 9,700 meters.

        [‘- We think about a double agent of Ukraine working as a spy for the separatists on Ukraine’s Dnepropetrovsk radar, or at an Air Force base. The spotter was tipped by this spy about an incoming military aircraft, an Antonov (the MH17) below 9700 meters.’]

        [‘In short, Ukraine got itself into a mess. Who here was the double agent of MH17? Who proves to have had real time phone contacts with the separatists and intelligence of military aircraft? Separatists apparently did not realize that they were bugged and possibly relied on orders from “higher up”.’]

        But to be fair I think the ‘compromised guidance system’ is the most parsimonious theory at this moment.

    • BasicDimension, to point one challenging admin, the skies were a lot clearer to the NorthWest of the launch point, were a spotter might have been located and the plane traveled at least to me it seems right on the border of the taller clouds.
      See here DSB prelim report pdf file page 18 –

      http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/DSB%20Accident%20777-200%20Flight%20MH17%20Hrabove%20Ukraine%2017%20July%202014.pdf

      Spotter may have had IR type binoculars, not just human eye spectrum to look for a plane, also.

      To 2, A BUKs radar would not have much of a problem seeing an and identifying some characteristics of an AN26 and shooting it down before it left the missiles range.

      A standalone BUK is not the optimum use, but it can operate alone in the missile’s target zone and identify targets and is made to operate in a variety of conditions, such as blizzard or sandstorm.

      Otherwise, I think you make a lot of valid points.

      Fare thee well

      • I know what you meant: the spotter-birdie thing is an invented lie and because of that – or we could choose to believe the remarkable apprehension of the ¨rat¨ at Dniepropretovsk airport the day after the crash (but who believes that story) – the only thing to do is play some Russian Roulette with a stand alone BUK without clear vision of the airspace. I really doubt this happened. Its highly unlikely because its highly irrational and higgly inefficient use of such a valued war asset.

        But in each case we can conclude the socalled spotter taps Ukraine handed over, intercepted calls from 2 minutes before the crash, have to be fake, at least regarding time and date.

        • Hector:

          The “Birdie coming” spotter call is supposedly at 16:18:XX.

          The missile from Snizhne must be launched no later than 16:19:30 to intercept the plane at 16:20:03 at the supposed last FDR position.

          That leaves, one minute and possibly less, for the receipient of the call to inform the crew inside the TELAR of the information, then the supposed Rebel TELAR to orient its radar and launch shoe to the presumed area of the target, determine the correct 7 degree angle of elevation to search, decide the correct target is identified once found, illuminate, acquire, and track the target to let the missile computer calculate its flight parameters, issue a “go to launch” command from the commanding officer, and then execute a launch sequence within the TELAR to get to the moment of firing the missile.

          This assumes that the TELAR engine is on and the radar is already on when the call is received. If not, we also need to take those steps.

          I would invite our friend Anonymous Defender to comment on that, but I find such a sequence of events highly unrealistic in 45-90 seconds.

          A more realistic sequence is as follows (not that I necessarily believe this happened, but we will take it as a hypothetical and enthralling story to illustrate).

          The spy/double agent at Dnipropetrovsk has been fed some of the flight plan and parameters of MH17 adjusted to make it look like an AN-26 to pass on the the rebels, pretending it is an AN-26 about to perform a HALO drop to the southern pocket from as close to 8 km as he can get. He is ignorant of the real plane to be hit. This includes an approximate time past certain points, most importantly that it will be near Gorlivka between 16:15 and 16:20. The target is one of convenience, intended to give another little lesson to Malaysia. An American spy satellite will be overhead to observe the shootdown if the rebels take the bait. No Americans, and certainly no Ukrainians will be on the flight. This flight plan data is passed on to the rebel air defense command, who pass it to the TELAR crew. Its been boring during the early afternoon with no military flights, but now they have a target to be expected around a quarter past 4! The TELAR crew fires up the machine around 16:10 and gets ready for the target, with the radar aimed to the correct elevation and distance to find the target. At 16:15 the radar is turned on to illumination mode and begins scanning the sky in the intended hunting ground looking for a mark. At 16:17 a mark appears on the screen 70 km out. Its MH17, but they don’t know that. Maybe this is the AN-26? The crew illuminates and begins tracking the mark, letting the computer calculate the missile flight parameters while they wait for confirmation. At 16:18:XX, “Birdie coming” message is passed on from Gorlivka – the plane was seen high up through a break in the clouds – two engines and since it is actually at 10 km, looking small enough to look like an AN-26 2-3 km lower. Its confirmed! They have the plane. The officer quickly issues a go for launch command and the crew initiates a launch sequence and fires the fateful missile at 16:19:30. Around 16:24, the crew hears the rumble of the explosion of the plane, smoke begins arising above the horizon, and the Zello networks explode with discussion of the plane being downed. Since the rebels were told it is an AN-26, coms chatter begins and internet posts go up crowing about an AN-26 being downed before anyone would have any time to confirm it.

          This series of events, which has the necessary time to actually launch the missile from the phone call, of course also implies that the CIA/SBU purposefully fed targetting information of a civilian plane to the rebels, intending its destruction to heap blame and condemnation upon their heads. Lets not forget this necessary step to shortcut the time to find the plane.

          I suggest a couple more steps also took place if the previous scenario is true, a coda to the story. Ukraine’s BUK network of KUPOL radars Tin Shield radars active on 7/17 is able to see and track the launch and confirm the hit. The operators watch dispassionately or perhaps helplessly as the events unfold. In northern Virginia, a few CIA/DIA operators are monitoring the satellite imagery and watching flight MH17. At Fort Meade, analysts are scanning a selection of phone numbers provided by the SBU, waiting to record. A Ukrainian BUK officer reports up command to the SBU that the rebels have launched and the hit was confirmed. A similar message comes from Washignton. Earlier agents on the ground had been asked to look for a special vehicle and report on it on social networks. A call is made around 16:22 from an SBU agent @WowihaY to his friend Pavel Aleynikov in Torez: “Listen, remember what you saw in Torez earlier today? I think something just happened. We need you to take some pictures. Look out your window towards the fighting – go to the roof if you have to. There you will see what you should photograph. When you have the pictures, send them to me and plan on doing some work this evening!” Shortly after this, he hears the explosions and grabs his camera. He is a military man, and he immediately sees the smoke trail against the clouds and takes a couple of pictures, knowing what it is, then turns and goes to a position to capture several pictures of the wreckage. He hurries back to his apartment and plugs his camera into his computer. First he downloads the photos and emails them to @WowihaY. He posts a first one of the plane smoke cloud. They begin discussing the missile trail and trying to locate the launcher and how to make the trail more visible. A third person is contacted from north of Snizhne who also looked for the smoke trail. They triangulate the two views and settle on the field half way to Saur Mogila while Aleynikov has played with the photo settings to brighten up the sky and emphasize the trail. When they have it just right, @WowihaY sends the information to the higher-ups of the SBU who passes it to Anton Geraschenko. At the same time, they begin creating a twitter post with the photo. Almost simultaneously, as the plane’s wreckage is still smoledering, the infamous photo comes out from both @WowihaY and the Ukrainian government, along with a thundering denunciation that it was done with a Russian BUK, which the American government confirms regarding the launcher. But how would they even know so early?

          That is, unless they knew all along and set the whole thing up and watched it unfold?

          War is a dirty business with innocent people suffering and dying and weighing on the conscience of those who wage it, but at least this time the Americans and Ukrainians involved look down and imagine in their mind that their hands are pretty clean compared to the suckers who just launched a missile and killed 300 people. Perhaps a couple of them chuckle to themselves, “those Russians really are terrorists!”

          The rebels arrive at the site and realize their error. Expecting to find dead Ukrainian military men, the ground is littered with civilians! Reports stream in to the rebel command who quickly puts together what has happened. A heavy report is made back to Prime Minister Borodai of what has happened, and he calls his handlers in Moscow – they have been fed bad information from a contact who clearly set them up to take down a civilian plane full of Europeans – a flight path and arrival time were supposed to have been confirmed to have been a military plane. One bit of direction is clear back to Borodai – “You had better get that F***ing BUK across the border by sunrise.”

          Defense Minister Shoigu is eventually tasked with the unpleasant job of informing President Vladimir Putin of the chain of events while he is in flight returning from the BRICS summit. The Donbass rebels have shot down a Malaysian Airliner by accident through misinformation fed from the Ukrainians using a BUK. Both men are furious at what has happened – its going to be hard to get out of being tarred with this catastrophe by the Americans and NATO. How could they have failed to consider such a double cross when they authorized use of a BUK in the conflict? Then Shoigu recalls a key detail of the operation. “Mr. President, there is a silver lining here. The launcher was loaded in Lugansk with four old rockets stolen from the Ukrainian base A-0194. They also had their BUK’s deployed in the Donbass and they even left some broken ones behind at their bases. Lets ask them to give an accounting of their missiles and their deployment plan. They will never be able to do so without exposing themselves to responsibility. We will slowly leak out the locations of their equipment and challenge them to provide an account. When the time comes, we can certainly show records of where all of our missiles are. And if we are ever called to account, we will explain the double cross to the world.”

          For the first time since being awaken with the news of the catastrophe, Vladimir Vladimirovich cracks a smile. It is all an unfortunate business, but it will be hard for Kiev to ever escape the trap they didn’t see when they thought to set a snare for the Russian Bear.

          THE FORGOING IS OF COURSE SPECULATIVE, IF ENTERTAINING, FICTION.

      • Boggle: ¨Spotter may have had IR type binoculars, not just human eye spectrum to look for a plane, also.¨

        Yeah, so had various witnesses of the fighterjets escorting MH17.

        • Spotter had a specific covert mission, the witnesses did not.
          Millions of dollars for BUK and missiles, I think a pair of 400 USD IR binoculars is not out of the question for investment.

          Fare thee well

          • And to all, I would add this point which is very important who think the SBU concocted the BUK story to frame Russia.

            13:05 – AP journalists see Buk moving through town in convoy with two civilian cars. This fact was reported by AP before MH17 was shot down. (AP)

            From here –

            https://www.interpretermag.com/category/blog/page/59/

            Just following that it discusses the spotter a little.

            Another interesting point – from there leads to this article from the SBU.

            http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129099&cat_id=39574

            Particularly as mentioned in the previous article –

            ‘At 2:00, July 18, two movers each with a Buk missile launcher crossed the Russian border in Luhansk region. At 4:00, another three movers: one of them empty, other carrying a launcher with four missiles and the latter allegedly with a control unit, crossed the state border.’

            Pretty detailed intelligence I would say.

            Fare thee well

          • boggled:

            “At 2:00, July 18, two movers each with a Buk missile launcher crossed the Russian border in Luhansk region. At 4:00, another three movers: one of them empty, other carrying a launcher with four missiles and the latter allegedly with a control unit, crossed the state border.”

            From base A-0194 in Lugansk, BUK TELAR 311, TELAR 312, TELAR 321, TELAR 331, TELAR 332, TEL 323, and TAR 301 were all filmedn at Soledar on March 5, 2014 and also on various highways in the weeks after that being transported west. In July 5, Ukraine featured them on a military news program and then they were seen deployed at Kramatorsk airbase. We know where they are.

            BUK TELAR 322, TEL 313, TEL 333, and possibly CP 300 were apparently abandoned at Lugansk at base A-0194 by Ukraine on March 5, 2014. After July 17 they suddenly vanish.

            Where are they?

            Interestingly,the SBU says three BUK’s and a CP were removed across the border from Lugansk to Russia the night of July 17.

            Could Russia have removed the abandoned BUK’s from the base in Lugansk to keep them away from the rebels and then the SBU reported about that movement?

          • boggled:

            “13:05 – AP journalists see Buk moving through town in convoy with two civilian cars. This fact was reported by AP before MH17 was shot down. (AP)”

            No, it was only published around 6 pm after MH17 was shot down. Perhaps it was reported to AP before 4:20p by its man on the ground, but we can’t know that without email/phone records from AP.

            Similarly, for all the Twitter movement reports, no pictures or videos were posted until around 4 hours after the shootdown, after it had already been claimed to be a BUK.

          • Specifically, Peter Leonard’s AP story was published at 5:51 pm Kiev time, 90 minutes after the downing, and it is clearly added quickly as an afterthought to an unrelated story titled “Ukraine: Air Force jet downed by Russian missile”

            I suspect the local reporter turned in the report between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm after the wreck and it was quickly added to an already approved story about to be published.

          • Andrew,
            – Could Russia have removed the abandoned BUK’s from the base in Lugansk to keep them away from the rebels and then the SBU reported about that movement?

            Doubtful, intention was to keep supplying arms and Strelkov et al were demanding more weapons or the LittleRussia movement would fail.
            They would have fixed them and repaired them and used them, if it was not for the fact MH17 got hit.

            Unlike you, If AP releases a statement that it was before MH17 got shot, I tend to believe it.
            They have a better credibility record then many.

            Here is the AP article.

            http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-dismisses-us-sanctions-bullying

            NOW, if you had just had MH17 or a AN26 reported shot down, don’t you think that would have been added to the article at its publishing time an hour and a half after MH17 was shot down?
            Would it have been a much better article if it mentioned the BUK got its man if it was still thought of as an AN26?
            Wouldn’t it have been best to write an article that includes such a horrific international incident such as MH17?
            Peter Leonard would have mentioned it.
            This article was written before MH17 was shot down, and the dispatch was before.
            You can believe what you want, but to me, it is a fact.

            Fare thee well

          • Boggled:

            “Unlike you, If AP releases a statement that it was before MH17 got shot, I tend to believe it.”

            I didn’t say the statement was false, I said it was only released at 5:51 pm, 90 minutes after the downing. Unlike the WowihaY group tweets which were posted 2-4 hours before the downing, it is not a pre-crash witness.

            “They would have fixed them and repaired them and used them, if it was not for the fact MH17 got hit.”

            Then where are they? And who took them?

          • Boggled:

            “Here is the AP article.

            “http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-dismisses-us-sanctions-bullying”

            My point was that the line about seeing a BUK was hurriedly added to the article. The line has nothing to do with the main subject of the article and it is a disjointed thought. The spotting could only have been between perhaps 1-2 pm. The reporter on the ground would then need to mail in the report so it was available for Leonard to use. If he was busy trying to get pictures or interviews or hunt for stories, he probably wouldn’t have done so until later in the day when he was wrapping up. There is no reason for him to have immediately reported the information as it wouldn’t have had any significance at the time to anyone other than just another spotting of military hardware.

          • Hector Reban // August 20, 2015 at 6:38 am //

            First, as Andrew said, the Peter Leonard story was published at 17:51 EEST.

            Second it mentions a BUK in Snizhne AND 7 ¨tanks¨. Those 7 tanks were not there, though at some point – but much later than 13:05 – there were 8 military vehicles in the neighbourhood, namelijk 3 tanks and an Ural from Vostok battalion and 4 tanks from Oplot battalion.

            So if your evidence is based on trust alone, it should comprise two rather strange assumptions:

            1. The AP man couldn´t add up right.
            2. The AP man could look into the near future, say two, three hours ahead.

          • Andrew – it is not a pre-crash witness.
            It is not a precrash article, but it is a precrash witness.

            Your guess is as good as mine, humanitarian convoy return, parked in some strange garage or museum.
            I have not a clue, as far as I know not many more have been reported since 7 17 14 in Eastern Ukraine.
            Lots of empty warehouses and dealerships after all the painted over military KAMAZ humanitarian aid trucks returned to Russia.

            By now they have had enough time to hitchhike from Moscow carrying new computer modules and and other repair parts.

            To your next comment.
            You state – There is no reason for him to have immediately reported the information as it wouldn’t have had any significance at the time to anyone other than just another spotting of military hardware.

            Sorry, but when a BUK gets discussed 2-3 weeks prior and you see one in Separatists hands, it is news.
            Not to mention also, 20 foot long missiles tend to make an impression and a 34 ton machine.
            Probably as important as some of the tanks that have been crossing the border lately.

            Fare thee well

          • hector,
            you state –
            ‘Second it mentions a BUK in Snizhne AND 7 ¨tanks¨. Those 7 tanks were not there, though at some point – but much later than 13:05 – there were 8 military vehicles in the neighbourhood, namelijk 3 tanks and an Ural from Vostok battalion and 4 tanks from Oplot battalion.’

            Great, I did not have wedding videos of me in the chapel, but I had quite a few of me celebrating later.
            Does that mean I can claim I did not get married?

            Really? that is the best you can come up with? There is no video, witnesses other then the AP one, or images that you have seen to corroborate the witnesses story, so therefore an AP witness must be telling a lie.
            O K A Y.

            I will remember your theory so when I get mugged, that if I do not have a video of it, then we al can say it never happened.
            Yup, sure, gotcha.
            AP would not put an article out there on just a hunch, I do not think.

            That is how LieNews works that just so happened to show up at the site of the crash all ready to take videos of a AN 26 that they a quite a few other International broadcasters from Russia reported on that day.
            Oh yeah, were did they get that inside info from?

            Fare thee well

          • Hector Reban // August 23, 2015 at 7:32 am //

            Well, Boggled, I haven’t seen one case in my whole life people getting the fiscal fruits of matrimony based on a statement they were married alone.

        • Hector Reban // August 23, 2015 at 7:36 am // Reply

          Moreover, you don’t address the logical inconsistencies in the statement, fact fromw hich doubts about its trustworthyness apply.

          Your case is extremely weak if not non-existent.

  5. Thirteen months later most of the “mountain of evidence” remains out of public view. It is hard to know with certainty what happened in the final moments of the flight and who is responsible. Impossible really.

    This event has to be seen in the light (or darkness) of the ongoing conflict between the US and Russia. I get the impression that both sides have something to hide. If so then many of us may not live long enough to know the truth.

    The comments by Malaysian Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai continue to bother me. What he said was for public consumption and does not necessarily reflect everything he knows. Even so he knows more than any of us and more than the media stenographers on both sides of the controversy. He is involved in the official investigations.

    Contrary to what just about everyone believes, he said it is still too early to speculate that flight MH17 was downed by missiles. On the other hand he said that after the final report is released we will know exactly what was the cause of accident. Which at this point strikes me as too good to be true. He said, “We know that it was shot down by a high energy object but what kind, whether it is a ground to air missile or Buk missile, we will have to wait for the report. At this point, as far as I am concerned, it is hearsay and it is too early to confirm and speculate whether it is a Buk missile and who owned the Buk missile.”

    I wonder why he didn’t say “I know exactly what brought down MH17, and after the final report is released so will you”. http://www.nst.com.my/node/95860

    Malaysia’s status on the JIT is unclear also. It was announced 12/2/14 that Malaysia joined the JIT as a full member. Then a vague report emerged 12/15/14 about an agreement from Eurojust. Then there was a 4/28/15 report saying that In late March, the Dutch public prosecutor visited Malaysia in the context of finalizing the agreements relating to the full membership of Malaysia to the JIT. This is the last I’ve seen on the subject. I’m not convinced that Malaysia is a full member of the JIT with access to the same information that all other members have. If Malaysia was a full member in early December then why were related agreements still unsigned in late March? Were the agreements ever signed?
    http://www.nst.com.my/node/58385
    http://www.nst.com.my/node/62687
    https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/dossier/33997/kst-33997-38?resultIndex=1&sorttype=1&sortorder=4

    Whatever Malaysia’s status is, I know where I stand. There are way too many puzzle pieces missing. Admin wrote, “We know it was not a bomb”. I’m 99+% sure there was no bomb. But it strikes me as odd that the DSB preliminary report said nothing about a bomb. It pointed to external high energy objects. It specifically ruled out mechanical failure and crew error. Why didn’t the report also put minds to rest by saying, “We searched for evidence of a bomb and found nothing”? I am hoping the final report will all-inclusive and clear about the cause as well as every potential cause that they investigated and ruled out.

  6. Can anybody tell me why they had to use a stolen truck to drive to Russia and back? Like Russia would give them a BUK costing 10’s of millions of dollars but not a truck. The BUK would already be on a Russian truck so they had to unload it and load it on the stolen truck.
    And why are these alleged BUK-missile part investigated know? I assume they had them for a long time.

    • Answer is quite simple: suppose Russia provided the truck and lowloader as well. Any photo would immediately proof the Russian involvement.
      Why do you think there is not a serialumber visible on the BUK! It was removed before the BUK entered Ukraine.
      Why do you think Russia delivered a BUK-M1? Because Ukraine has those as well. Russian BUM-M1 and Ukraine BUK-M1 look exactly the same. Only the font of the serialnumber is different. And Russia painted a number in white paint on the side at transportation of the BUK by train!

      Wondering why JIT did not release the intel yet is the same as wondering why a pokerplayer is wearing sunglasses and does not show its cards.
      It is part of the stategy.

  7. Ad 4: Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system. This system guided the missile to MH17. ‘

    In the second instance alternative 4 is an uncomplicated and attractive possibility. But then one does not comment yet on whether it was the intention to protect the SU-25 or to shoot MH17. If it works technically then the compromised guidance system leads to a very parsimonious hypothesis.

  8. I will do some more research on the reason Finland got rid of the SA-11 quite soon after these were purchased. A likely reason is the move of Finland towards NATO. They were afraid Russia had some backdoor in the SA-11 built in which could compromise the effectness of the SA-11 system.

    I do not believe we will ever find a reliable yes/no to the question if MH17 was shotdown by a missile guided by a different system than the Russian supplied BUK TELAR.

  9. sotilaspassi // August 18, 2015 at 10:05 am // Reply

    Russian radar data proves that there was no military planes in the area. So only scenario 1 is valid.

    • Rostov radar does not cover from groundlevel up to 15+ km or so due to horizon. We do not know what the minimum altitude is on which Rostov can detect aircraft flying near Snizhne.

      • I thought according to the MoD presentation, they saw a piece of the plane after it broke up around 5km.
        Was that a military specific radar and not the Rostov ATC?

        To the Finland BUks, I read it was due to debt of Russia they acquired them, then Finland thought they got the lemons or compromised systems.
        More here –

        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/finland-updating-its-air-defense-systems-05398/

        3 article is relevant, but the others are worth looking at also.

        Fare thee well

        • The ATC transcript included in the DSB report shows that the Russian air traffic controller saw MH17 fell apart. He could see that on the primary radar.
          The Russian MoD said the dots on the radar screen was a Ukraine fighter aircraft, possibly a SU-25.
          Russia released the recording of Rostov Radar ( a civil radar using both secondary and primary radar).

          It is all here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-radar-does-not-show-any-ukraine-fighter-aircraft/

          • Admin:

            “The ATC transcript included in the DSB report shows that the Russian air traffic controller saw MH17 fell apart. He could see that on the primary radar. The Russian MoD said the dots on the radar screen was a Ukraine fighter aircraft, possibly a SU-25.”

            The July 21 presentation shows the supposed fighter plane in a completely different location than the dots and notes it could not be detected because it had no transponder and was below 5000 m.

            A radar at Rostov with a direct horizontal line of sight would be blind to anything below 2 km at the distance to detection of the fighter aircraft which is near Petropavlivka. The statement by the Russian MOD that the limit was 5 km implies that the ATC radar looked slightly upward by just 1 degree of angle instead of a flat horizontal.

      • Admin:

        “Rostov radar does not cover from groundlevel up to 15+ km or so due to horizon.”

        Not only horizon, but the effect of being a point source beam with a certain azimuth and spread.

        However, there may be Russian military primary radar in the area which does cover closer to the ground.

        • Hello, Mr Liar. Please show radiation pattern of Rostov ATC radars. It easy to see how it look.
          What is certain AZIMUTH? Do you trying to lie about selective azimuth scanning of ATC radars?

          • AD:

            You need to account for curvature of the earth and also the frequent purposeful exclusion of low altitude zones from civilian ATC flight control radar (as opposed to landing/takeoff approach radar which wants to see right down to the ground)) to avoid clutter from low objects and civilian planes not using ATC system.

            Civilian ATC radar, if linked to military radar, would not normally be looking at or using military radar unless necessary. They mainly work with the transponder data.

            Another alternative is that the flight control computer may be set to purposefully not show low altitude zones in the data.

            If you have more information about why you think they said this, I’m sure everyone would be interested.

        • sotilaspassi // August 19, 2015 at 6:34 am // Reply

          We can see that the Rostov radar also picked up a military helicopter near the border. So, I believe it can see objects from 1km upwards.

          • Answer is – despite on lie words of russian DoD, radars cannot have FIXED detection ALT. It is function of radiation pattern, angles and target data.
            Especially, it work for Air Traffic Control radars (which drawn a video from russian DoD briefing). Such radars equipped by antennas with COSECANT radiation pattern. It give very good resolution by azimuth (very needed for dispatch issue so easy can separate planes) but not good resolution by ALT (not good, but since planes equipped by transponder with ALT in answer and TCAS it fine).
            If you look on radiation pattern then you can easy see – there is NO ALT LIMIT even if russian General give order to raise ALT.
            http://i.imgur.com/YW7cxWR.png
            Another thing is russian Air Defense radars ( 4th Air Force and Air Defense ARMY, ARMY, guys!, a whole ARMY full of radars near border with Ukraine or 30-100 km from MH17 death) which have only one limitation of ALT – height of antenna. What these radars seen and why russian DoD dont provide info from numerous military radars?

          • Im forgot said about russian ATC – it is included in russian Country Air Defense as part of Early Warning radar system.
            Interesting, right, why Air Defense need stationery powerfull radars on towers which cannot see who fly on range 100 km.

          • It is funny, the Kremlin defenders can’t come up with an answer for you AD, I think they are scared or butthurt from other times they have challenged you.

            *raise hand* I know why Russian MoD won’t do provide their military radar info and their air defense records.

            Their proxies or their soldiers would be implicated by the the location of the launch because it confirms what everyone else was saying all along!
            Did I get it right?

            To your last comment,
            Interesting, right, why Air Defense need stationery powerfull radars on towers which cannot see who fly on range 100 km.

            vova had crushed all the caviar that gives those units electricity, so at that moment they were not working at peak efficiency.

            Did I get that one right too? 😉

            I have a few question if you or the admin can answer, one specifically I hope you can if it is not classified info.
            I have not noticed the question before so forgive me if I missed it, there are a lot of comments and blogs etc.

            That is – Does a BUK standalone older unit have a way to tell the difference between a two engine and one engine plane?
            Maybe an add on module to update it if it did not come with one in stock condition?
            Something that can tell from heat signatures, or maybe the frequency put out by the turbines, or maybe some other means?
            Maybe not so necessary for targeting, but more for identifying targets when radar is not enough.
            Something to identify if a radar contact is being shadowed by a military jet, for example?

            Other two, first did you see comment above about 1812 I posted?

            Second, does it make any sense at all for a BUK that shoots and misses a SU25 and have a missile go astray, not to retarget that SU25 if they still have missiles left?
            Or should they automatically flee ?

            That is the thing I do not get about these shadowing claims, or these witnesses claiming to see a SU25 fleeing.

            If a Separatist BUK had a missile left and there was a SU25 target in range of their SAM, wouldn’t they fire at it before it can leave the scene?

            Or wouldn’t they target it right away, send one after the AN26 and one after the SU25?

            It is not like either are some sort of stealth fighter or anything.
            For me the SU25 or multiple SU25s in the area stories just do not work for me for those reasons.
            They are not going to sit and twiddle their thumbs while they wait for the AN26 to be identified before they go after another target, would they?

            If I was in a slow moving 34 ton BUK that just said ‘HELLO SU25 I am HERE’ after painting a target with radar and launching a missile, and I had 2 or 3 missiles left, I would shot them in fear it was on the way to attack.
            Do you agree?

            Fare thee well

          • Boggled: “That is – Does a BUK standalone older unit have a way to tell the difference between a two engine and one engine plane?
            Maybe an add on module to update it if it did not come with one in stock condition?
            Something that can tell from heat signatures, or maybe the frequency put out by the turbines, or maybe some other means?
            Maybe not so necessary for targeting, but more for identifying targets when radar is not enough.
            Something to identify if a radar contact is being shadowed by a military jet, for example?”

            non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR). This systems analyses the pattern of the radar returns. It can determine the type of aircraft by a typcial footprint of the radar return Also jet engine modulation, or the analysis of beats and harmonics in the radar return that are caused by engine fan or compressor blades is used to determine type of target. The return is kind of unique for each type of aircraft because of its size, number of engines, speed etc.
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/

          • Hector Reban // August 20, 2015 at 11:51 am //

            comment deleted. Please try to stick to facts and no personal attacks.

          • Another reason why a AN26 could not get identified.
            It is a turboprop and MH17 is a jet.
            A jet with many engines, a different altitude, a way different speed then an SU25.
            I believe for an SU25 to achieve that speed they would have to be diving or in straight line flight with no armaments.

            Also, to achieve that or a similar altitude would be a long slow climb.

            Thanks admin and apologize if it is an often asked question.
            Seems to suggest that an alternative plane and accidental shooting would be highly unlikely except in the place of operator error of reading of those screens.
            And that is possible, but unlikely if it was a veteran of the Georgia, Chechnya, Syrian or Afghanistan conflicts or a current trained Russian soldier in BUK operation inside the BUK and manning the controls.

            Fare thee well

  10. Just ROFLMAO! Only one scenario – Russia bring SA-11 TELAR for protect separatists which used it against civilian airliner, then both (terrorists anf Putin-Russia) start hide evidence and spread out lie.

    • If that is the case then we must ask why we have no photos or videos of the buk that can be dated to July 17. Even the the smoke plume photo can be dated but not one of the buk photos can be dated.
      Isn’t this a bit strange? We have lots of photos and videos of the buk and lots of sightings of the buk all on July 17 but we don’t have one photo where we can examine the metadata and confirm when it was photographed/filmed.
      It seems a strange lack of evidence. What do people think?

      • sotilaspassi // August 19, 2015 at 6:32 am // Reply

        Is there any proof that photos were taken much before MH17 event? There is no reason to discredit those photos without proof. So far they just all seem to prove that separatists had a Russian army BUK on their hands.

        • There is proof some of the trail consists of images and footage from another day. The Zuhres vid and Luhansk vid likely have been dated wrong. On this website and on my blog this has been asserted, so this knowledge is publically available. Of other images/footage no exact date is known.

          Admin has posted a forensic report by Micha Kobs today (in German). There is circulating a revised English version too on the net – maybe published soon – in which becomes clear the Paris Match pic is digitally altered, a photoshop construct.

          Besides, just having a BUK at hand says nothing. The Ukrainians had, even the Russians had them near the border for that matter.

          Regarding the three most important features of a crime – possession of murder weapon, opportunity and motive – its clear the Ukrainians fit the prescription to be suspect number one. For rational minds that is 😉

      • Im live near SA-11 regiment and even near SA-11 memorial, but dont have July 17 photo of it because it hide from everyone.
        Main evidence of SA-11 in separatists hand is damage pattern which fit well with direction from Snizhne. And yes – before launch alot of photo and video with this SA-11, also after it without ONE missile.

        • How many missiles had the BUK in the lone BUK video, driving itself from Snizhne to Pervomaiske?

          From where do you know the BUK must have had 4 missiles, when it was covered with a netting?

          Why do you think the damage pattern doesn´t fit a site south-west from Torez/Snizhne?

          • Hector Reban // August 23, 2015 at 7:49 am //

            Again, Boggled, you are mystifying again with your annoying ad-hoc theories to smooth over irregularities in the socalled evidence.

            There are no witness reports that stated the amount of missiles, except one, which was not an eyewitness account but a relayed message from an unknown source, probably from within the SBU/army.

            About the Russian lying, I sense you only take the parts in the testimonies/taps you can use to construct your narrative and discard those you can’t use for being lies.

        • In addition AD, besides the videos and photos, there is also a lot of NEW chatter on various twitter feeds and other social media places of MANY more witnesses.
          Many more then those few coerced to say they saw a SU25 or multiple SU25s fleeing the scene.
          And yes, I imagine JIT has asked for written submissions from each one of them.
          JIT and not DSB investigators, because that issue has little relevance unless they found any evidence of a AAM.

          The witnesses with other videos, images, and witness statements reported the amount of missiles coming and going if they paid attention to it Hector, keep that in mind.

          Main reason I disagree with a launch so perpendicular Hector is I believe it would have targeted the other side of the plane when it exploded with its proximity fuse and guidance.
          No sense in it targeting the other side of the plane once the proximity fuse arms, it would target the nearest intercept.
          A more head on collision would have chosen one or the other.
          A North one from the other Pervomaiske, would have exploded targeting the Pilot side, wouldn’t it?

          Remember, no sharp changes from the plane indicating the pilot saw the missile and attempted to avoid it.

          Just because Bezler admitted it was him but claims it was from another incident does not mean automatically he is telling the truth because he admits it is his voice on the intercepted communication.
          Russians are large users of manipulation of facts and lies in their various statements.
          And that is a fact you can take to the bank.

          It is like a guy that walks his dog and doesn’t clean up after it as they stop in my yard, so one day I take a video of the act.
          Next morning I stop him, he says yup, that is me, that is my dog, but that was not yesterday, I was not wearing any socks that day.
          So therefore the claim of my dog p**ping in your yard is completely false and the video is not evidence.

          Little does he know I have MANY other videos and allow will the courts to decide the next time it happens, I will not confront him again.

          Fare thee well

          • A proximity fuse is designed to explode the warhead at the optimal distance (within a few meters) from the target.

            Both the aircraft and the missile travel at very high rates of speed. MH17’s air speed was 293 kts per page 20 of the DSB’s preliminary report. A Buk missile would have been flying much faster than the aircraft. Both the aircraft and the missile travel a lot of distance in a very short interval of time.

            Consider the assumption that the missile was fired from a location that is roughly 90° to the right of the aircraft’s flight path. The angle specified by Almaz-Antey was 72-78°. Both the aircraft and the missile are flying rapidly toward the location where the missile exploded. Think about the relative speeds and distances of the aircraft and missile from that location in the last faction of a second. At which spot was the missile’s warhead closest to the aircraft?
            A. Just to the left of the aircraft’s center line.
            B. Just to the right of the aircraft’s center line.

            Re-consider this question in terms of time. Remember both the aircraft and missile are traveling very fast, covering a lot of distance in even a split second. At which time was the missile’s warhead closest to the aircraft?
            A. Immediately after it crossed the aircraft’s center line.
            B. Immediately before it crossed the aircraft’s center line.

            The answer to both questions is “A” unless you assume the missile was flying slower than the aircraft.

            I’m not saying that I agree a Buk approached from the right side or from any other direction. The launch of a Buk missile is spectacular. I have serious reservations about the suggestion that a Buk was fired from any reasonable direction in broad daylight from the conflict zone and there weren’t a lot of people who saw it, heard it, took pictures and videos of it, etc. Where is a location within reasonable range and direction that is so sparsely populated that you can launch a Buk missile from there on a Thursday afternoon and not even a dog will bark?

            Where is the wreckage of the Buk missile itself? From either of the claimed launch locations its fuel would have been exhausted in about the first 15 seconds of flight (per western experts) and it would have been gliding to the impact point. The remains of the missile were less aerodynamic and not under power after the warhead exploded. From there the missile debris would not have traveled very far. Where are the rocket body parts? The nose cone? The rocket engine? A Buk missile is big. When the warhead explodes the balance of the missile doesn’t turn into confetti. What are the odds that a Buk missile launched, flew over a populated area and exploded with no eyewitnesses, no videos, no pictures and no missile debris?

          • isthatso said: The answer to both questions is “A” unless you assume the missile was flying slower than the aircraft.

            Correct

          • Sorry IsThatSO,
            The answers are both B.
            The guidance system puts the warhead in the optimal position, the proximity fuse just is for those small errors that might come up like a evasive fighter or counter measures.

            The guidance system directs the missile to the most optimum point for the warhead to detonate.
            It takes the shortest path possible and arranges for the warhead to be in the right spot to intercept the plane.
            The torus of the missile warhead does not lie.

            Since MH17 was a flying goose and no deviations in its last 10 minutes, the BUK would have gone directly for the the optimum point dead center of the plane.
            Remember it is mad to also take out ballistic missiles and fighter jets that are usually less then half the size of the 777.
            If it was launched that far west and south, it would have targeted the co pilot’s side or the right side.
            That leaves it a more likely head or from the North of MH17’s flight path.
            However, a missile shot from the SW of the flight path could be possible if the guidance malfunctioned and you could be right.

            BUT I doubt that, as I said, they are a missile interceptor and a small military jet interceptor, and on should assume that with a sitting duck like MH17, it would have had no problems.

            As to why their are not more images of the launch or plume in the ten minutes it is floating in the air? Large scale fighting was going on at the time.
            GRADS flying left and right.
            This was a ‘contested zone’.
            People would have been hiding in basements or other places so they could avoid a stray bullet or whatever.
            Much of the fighting goes on through rural areas and farmers fields.

            There are some reports, but not many people were walking around with a camera, bulletproof vest and helmet to avoid friendly fire.
            Most were in basements or elsewhere, not sitting on the roof of their apartment stargazing and had a camera with them.
            We will have to wait a long time for more evidence of what the eyewitnesses saw that made reports to JIT.

            DSB report might mention BUK missile motors or parts found.
            Have to wait until October, unless the farmer jumps up and says this is what I found in my yard and says screw the confidentiality clause.
            More then likely though the specific evidence is probably going to be held until the Tribunal.

            You know a RT reporter is not going to try and find something that would make Russia or the Separatists look guilty, or if they would find it in a search, they would hide if those groups are guilty.
            The Kremlin sponsored International media has shown its willingness to lie in BIG ways.

            As far as secrecy from the other side, that is how professional investigations are done.
            Collect and bag and do it silently.
            Let the leak come from someone else.
            A Ukrainian farmer might not be able to tell the different between a Tochka, a BUK or a GRAD, and investigators would not tell him what they found.
            Just collect and bag it.

            Fare thee well

          • The answers to both are A. Forget all that guidance system stuff. Just do the math for yourself. Or take the easy way out and let Almaz-Antey show you that they designed the missile so that in this situation it matters not whether the missile was fired from near Snezhnoe or from near Zaroshchenskoe. In both cases the missile will cross the aircraft’s vector and explode on the opposite side. Just go to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/politics/68386.html and look at figure 16. Or check out the Almaz-Antey presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs.

            Lies do not “work” unless they are accepted as truth. The discussion about MH17 is dominated by “he said she said” dichotomies. You point out that Russians lie which is only half of the truth. Both sides tell lies. The public has a few facts that neither side debates. However, there is no available hard evidence to evaluate the controversial details. Anyone who is seriously interested in the truth will not favor either side when both are known liars. Neither side is worthy of trust.

            The murder occurred in the context of a shooting war. This conflict zone was and is monitored closely by both sides by every means available including but not limited to satellite, radar, communications monitoring and feet on the ground. Both sides beyond a doubt have revealed less than they know so far. The stakes are very high. Neither side has such a sparkling reputation that their claims can be accepted as truth. Both sides are willfully keeping the public in the dark. Justice is delayed, and justice delayed so often is justice denied. This is what so often results from “professional” investigations. The single-bullet theory has a potential 21st century twin, a single Buk missile that while flying over populated areas magically was unseen and unheard.

            Neither reason nor facts support the suggestion that people were too terrified to be outside to see, hear or photograph a Buk missile.

            In a war zone people quickly learn to judge their distance from the fighting. They also learn to recognize the sight and sound of particular weapons. They learn really well and fast because their lives depend on it. Neither side had enough manpower and equipment for the fighting to be raging at all locations concurrently. If everyone everywhere was huddled in a shelter, then tell me who filmed the Buk launch vehicle? Who filmed the crash scene still in flames? All those people at the debris field as it burned obviously were not under fire. It makes far more sense to expect eyewitness accounts and pictures of a missile because there are pictures of a launch vehicle. Instead we have pictures of a launch vehicle and a claimed missile launch that nobody saw, heard or photographed. Really? It makes no sense that we have the one but not also the other.

            Now consider what people were doing in the local area when MH17 crashed. We need look no further than the account of Inna Tipunova, a resident of the village of Rassypnoye. She was up the road from her home visiting a friend when her son Alexander phoned her and said a bomb had fallen through her roof. The “bomb” turned out to be MH17 victim “Number 26” whose body fell through Inna Tipunova’s roof and into her kitchen. Inna Tipunova wasn’t hiding in a basement. She was living her life, visiting a friend. Even after the incident she has no intention of leaving Rassypnoye. She said, “I have already lived my life. It is already behind me. I have nowhere to go.” Hers is not an isolated story. One may question the veracity of witnesses who say they saw one or more fighters at the time MH17 crashed. But there is no doubting that locals were present. They were not hiding in basements on 7/17/14. They should have seen a Buk missile if it was launched. They should have heard a Buk missile if it was launched. They should have taken pictures because a Buk missile in flight is much more spectacular than a launch vehicle riding on a flat bed truck.
            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/ukraine-villager-ponders-identity-of-mh17-victim-who-fell-through-roof/story-fno88it0-1226995903459
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/22/when-the-body-of-a-mh17-victim-fell-through-this-womans-kitchen/

    • Why did they use it against a civil airliner?

      You know an answer concerning the fatal mistake (based on Strelkov_info and Bezler/Kozytsin taps) must be discarded for being fraudulent.

  11. @admin: You say you want comments.Here is a question then. You write.” The transport of the BUK did took place. There are no Photoshops.”

    What evidence led you to say this?
    Thanks

    • Apart from the Paris Match pic the other evidence could well be real, only collected on other days.

      The truck and lowloader were in the possession of the separatists (already before the 8th of july when reported stolen by the company owner and parked and used at least until october 2014 on several occasions. It seems from GE images and archived websites of the truck company this company ran business as usual. Though in theory even the Ukrainians could have rented secretly this truck).

      The cars escorting the unique truck in the Zuhres vid and seen on the Torez pic and Paris Match pic (assuming the truck itself is real) were in the possession of the separatists too (though in theory it may be other cars of the same brand and colour).

      About the cars – a jeep UAZ 469, a grey Toyota RAV4 and a dark van – they appear in a mysterious convoy wavinf Russian flags (!) on the 15th, showing three Gvozdikas (self-propelled howitzers), three tanks and a APC-BTR on the road from somewhere near Luhansk to the Donbass Arena, the soccer stadium in Donetsk. The last known position: right in the way to the truck yard.

      In Michael Kobs´ report it is suggested maybe this transport was in fact the proverbial false flag operation – waving Russian flags, but in fact Ukrainian. It appeared suddenly out of nowwhere, would have passed an Ukrainian checkpoint and vanishes in the outskirts of Donetsk.

      Then only the cars reappear: in the BUK transport.

    • There are too many video’s and photos to be all photoshopped.
      Shadows seems to be correct with the rough timeline (not always)
      Video is hard to Photoshop
      I have yet to see a proof of Photoshop which ccould onvince me it is indeed a Photoshop
      Maybe some parts of the photo are Photoshop. But I am convinced what is seen did happen. Only not all on the 17th!

      • Admin:

        “Video is hard to Photoshop”

        Its hard to photoshop if you are trying to photoshop a lot of stuff in. But if you are just modifying something that was there to make it look like something else – say hastily drawing a couple of blue lines on the side of the truck – it wouldn’t be nearly as big an effort.

        This would be a great explanation of why in Torez, the blue lines on the truck are separated by a strip of white paint (and also in Sergey Belous picture in Donetsk and the Paris Match picture in Donetsk), and in Lugansk they are not, suggesting that the Lugansk video is of another truck and BUK where someone hastily painted in the lines to make it look similar in the couple of seconds of video where they are visible.

  12. @Admin: another question. You write.”. If the BUK transport took place before July 17 it is another indication Ukraine knew about BUKs in Eastern Ukraine and should have closed the airspace.”

    If the transportation took place before the 17th then doesn’t that mean we have false evidence deliberately planted by people saying they saw or photographed the buk on July 17.
    What would we then make of this false evidence?

    • Its very likely the trail is a fraud, at least regarding dates, but its likely too the separatists had possession of one or more BUK complexes – which of course doesn´t say they shot down MH17 with it.

      The scenario admin is proposing can be turn around too. In this scenario Russia delivered the BUK under the cover of the story of the seizure of a BUK by the terrorists after raiding Ukrainian airforce bases.

      But clear knowledgde and proof the separatists had possession (though earlier than the 17th) could also be a cover for the Ukrainians to stage a false flag or to mistakenly shoot down a plane and then cover this up by constructing the ¨track-a-trail¨ narrative.

      • There is no direct proof Ukraine shot MH17 down. It could be but at the moment very unlikely.
        Russia did not proof any reliable evidence of Ukraine shot down MH17. They too have satelites with missile detection.
        They only thing Russia did was releasing fake information which was easily debunked. Why provide false information? Why discredit the DSB investigation? Why order the Putin controlled press to construct all different stories?
        Why veto the tribunal?

        • There is no direct proof of scenarios you propose either.

          Ukrainian conduct is suspicious too:

          They didn´t hand over an inventory check list; They didn´t suggest an impartial investigation into their military inventory.

          They constructed false evidence;

          From some of their evidence oozes the smell of forknowledge and preconceived narratives!

          After the disaster they immediately rushed to accuse the separatists shooting down the plane fow which they used false evidence like the Bezler taps. (Russians issued their story only after 4 days!!)

          And they launched an attack at the crash site!!

        • Its not that hard to come up with rational explanations why the Russians are not so keen on the investigation and a possible Kangaroo court which is gonna use the found evidence. This has been written down in several well argumented analyses.

          About the JIT: when such a team after nine months of investigation comes up with clear fabricated story full of fake evidence, as Micha Kobs and others show, and is only asking for corroborating witnesses, my pants are falling down, as we say in the Netherlands.

          What people like Micha Kobs, Charles Wood, ¨Ole¨, ¨Andrew¨ can do, should also have been done by a prestigious group of international investigators. But they clearly are operating on Kindergarten level. Its really a mystery to me – when I disregard cynical options to explain this, that is of course.

          You don´t have to be Russian to have doubts about these things.

        • Thirdly 😉

          The Russians didn´t issue their missile detection satellite images but neither did the Americans to sustain the scenarios you are proposing. So no advantage to put blame on either side here.

          Why the Russians handed over some evidence easily debunked is hard to say.

          Maybe you need to make a distinction between evidence cooked up for usage in social media, well cut out for popular use and pressure (the Ukrainian evidence) and evidence constructed for usage in the realm of international politics, as the Russians seem to do.

          They have a history of issuing information we ¨normal folks¨ can´t comprehend, but intelligence communities in other countries can.

          A fine example was their reaction to the Ukrainian response on 31 July 2014, showing the famous 7/17 11:08 EEST Digital Globe SAT. The Russians said they had detected Ukrainian satellites Sich 1 and 2 were not in the air, so the Ukrainians must have got their image from the US spying satellite.

          Obviously they knew Sich 1 and 2 projects had turned out to be a farce, and were not in operation for a long time, so with this punchline they gave the Ukrainians a disguised blow.

          But it could also be the case they are sometimes do stupid things.

          Its clear the Bezler taps and the Khmuryi taps are pieces of evidence disclosed as frauds easily when you look at them without the attached suggestion. But the message is clear and well used to gain some leverage against the Russians at the western home markets.

    • Correct. It could be someone planned all this. There are many indication for it.

      • Hector Reban // August 20, 2015 at 6:09 am // Reply

        So that´s why my preliminary assessment goes out to the Ukrainians in poll position. Planning is entangled with a false flag operation, though provocation – your favorite scenario – comes in second.

        I have asked myself if the fatal mistake narrative around the Strelkov_info dispatch and the Bezler taps have been planned too. At first glance the SBU seemed to rise to the occasion, using easy made false assumptions about the Strelkov message to make a story, which could be followed up by making the forgery of the confessing rebels.

        If the provocation scenario was followed, maybe they planned something would happen like the posting made by the Strelkov_info admins to use it after it really occured to construct a fatal mistake narrative.

        As Micha Kobs and I showed, the ¨AN-26¨ and ¨Progress mine¨ soundbites were spread instanteneously through social media by pro-Maidan sources, ready to be picked up by the Strelkov editors.

        But then again, Its more likely they picked it up from local chatgroups whit local citizens and militia men, for as everybody – pro- and anti-Maidan alike – jumped in the first hour to the same hasty conclusions.

  13. @Admin:You wrote: While there is no technical hard proof that it was indeed a Russian BUK plus crew, the response of the Russian Federation is suspicious. First they claimed that either a Ukraine fighterjet or BUK system shot MH17 down.

    But the Russian Federation never claimed that. They did however ask why Ukrainian military jets were flying nearby.
    Here is my evidence.
    http://www.rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/

    This seems a reasonable question for the Russian Federation to ask at that time, as people were still trying to work out what had happened.

  14. Scenarios are developing and former comments will become unclear. That’s no problem if scenarios concerned are written out.

    Scenario 1: Admin said: ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft.’

    In my recollection they said about: no civil airliners were allowed flying THERE. They might have meant: not below 9,700 meters and that’s correct. And a lot of civil airliners passed with chem-trails every day.

    Admin said: ‘A spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK. The BUK crew was informed an Antonov 26 was their target. An informant working at the airport where the Antonov 26 departed informed separatists about the planned Antonov flight.’

    This is two scenarios in one:

    1: A spy of separatists informed about an Antonov flight which is invisible on Rostov primary surveillance radar.

    2: The spy of separatist in fact was a double spy for Ukraine and in reality no AN-26 was coming.

    I will defend the second scenario:

    This all means separatists ‘knew’ the radial velocity of the plane had to be 440 km/h:

    [ – The Boeing 777 with a ground speed of 905 km/h at 10 km altitude, slowly came nearer on the BUK-radar. Its altitude was unknown, so it really looked like an Antonov (440 km/h) on just 6 km altitude, slowly approaching with radial velocity (towards the BUK).]

    Admin said: ‘The BUK crew only at the last minute switched on the radar to prevent detection by SU-25 flying nearby. The crew had little time to decide and launched a missile. Mistakes are not that unlikely. Remember the mistake a US Navy crew made by shooting down an Iran Air Airbus.’

    This scenario becomes unnecessary complicated with an SU-25 for several reasons. Firstly, two planes would be unnecessary confounding and this strong plot does not need an auxiliary SU-25. Here we just give the operator in the BUK all the time to get the aircraft down. But even with the threat of an SU-25 the operator had already made up his mind. Hence in this scenario there is no room for a dilemma between planes, because there was no choice left to make.

    Admin said: ‘The Su-25s could have been used by Ukraine to out the BUK crew on stress and keep the radar off as long as possible. I think this is by far the most likely scenario.’

    Secondly, no, because Ukraine had its own double spy in function. For Ukraine it would be unwise to contaminate the plot with a Ukrainian fighter aircraft. And, thirdly, with a double spy there was no reason for a threat by SU-25.

    Hence in this powerful scenario:

    – There were no optical problems for the spotter, because he was already informed by the spy, who only waited for bad weather.
    – Civilian planes in the sky were no problem and congruent with reality. They flew higher than 9,700 meters.
    – We need only one spot on the radar of the BUK: AN-26 (MH17).
    – Hence, there was no dilemma, no choice to make by the operator of the BUK.
    – Ukraine SU-25 would only invalidate and falsify the plot of the double spy.

    Every scenario must be as parsimonious as possible to be strong. If there is enough evidence for SU-25s, the double spy can be skipped.

    Scenario 4: Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system. This system guided the missile to MH17.’

    This would be one of the strongest and most uncomplicated scenarios ever, if it is true. But here also there is an unnecessary complication in: ‘This system guided the missile to MH17’.

    We only need the possibility to interfere with the operation of the BUK-missile, that’s more than enough.

    Of course, derived hypotheses will follow and will be tailored to a variety of situations. But then immediately follow accusations for which one must have more evidence.

    But if this works everybody can compromise the effects of BUK and judges will sweep away all the evidence, head shaking. Is this why the Dutch OM (Public Prosecutor’s Office) seeks help from the United Nations, looking for political condemnation?

    • Has anyone done the math for the radial speed of an AN26 vs the radial speed of a 777?

      At a distance of 40 km the AN26 at 6000m would have an elevation of 8.5°, the 777 an elevation of 14°.

      Radial speed of the AN26 would be:
      cos 8.5° * 440 = 435 km/h
      For the 777:
      cos 14° * 905 = 878 km/h

      Bottom line is, it’s hard to confuse an AN26 with a 777. Equally hard to believe is that a trained crew was not aware of the commercial airliners constantly flying overhead.

      • Agree. Very hard to believe the crew misidentified an Antonov for a Boeing 777.
        It could be their target was believed to be a IL76

        It could be the missile was aimed at sU-25 and then retargeted at MH17

        • The biggest problem I have with an SU25 story would be the the BUK has the ability to track and launch at multiple targets.
          Newer the computers the less they can be fooled by a shadowing.

          IF the BUK missile missed, they would have launched another missile at a SU25 if it suddenly popped up because of shadowing or whatever.
          The BUK crew would have been in fear of their lives and launch a missile, or multiple missiles, at any available target in their range.
          They had real time operational awareness.
          They knew what the targets were.
          If they were targeting a SU25 and it missed, then they would have attempted to launch another missile.
          If there was a SU25 on their radar, they would have fired at that.
          That is why I discount almost any theory that presents a SU25, witnesses or in an accidental MH17 destruction scenario.

          Fare thee well

        • Admin:

          “Agree. Very hard to believe the crew misidentified an Antonov for a Boeing 777. It could be their target was believed to be a IL76”

          But if they believed that, why all the immediate social media posts about an AN-26 going down? Why not post about an IL-76?

          • What was the first source mentioning an Antonov 26 was downed? I do not know. Could be the Strelkov fanpage.
            It could just be an educated guess that an Antonov 26 was downed. And many media copied it without checking facts first.
            I know at least one media mentioned a IL76 was flying near MH17.
            https://burkonews.info/russia-shoots-down-malaysian-mh17/

            The source in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine reported that the route of a military transport aircraft IL-76 had lain close to the route of Boeing. IL-76 headed to deliver goods to the blocked Ukrainian troops. It was also noted that there were anti-aircraft defense units in the area of deployment of Ukrainian forces.

          • Hector Reban // August 19, 2015 at 6:29 pm //

            Admin, already at 16;30 EEST it was mentioned the first time, so before first the Strelkov_info posting.

            BTW, this is from a pro-Maidan poster

            https://twitter.com/vladicvp/status/489764022082748416

          • Hector Reban // August 19, 2015 at 6:29 pm //

            First time *on twitter, that is.

          • It was a very big fire for anyone to think it an AN-26 or an SU-25. Anyone who stopped to think would realize a very large fuel load was going up in flames.

        • Comment on: admin // August 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm // Reply

          Admin said: ‘Agree. Very hard to believe the crew misidentified an Antonov for a Boeing 777.
          It could be their target was believed to be a IL76’

          We already wondered why Rostov’s primary surveillance radar missed AN-26 on about 6 km. But it would be peculiar to miss the IL76 at 11 km. Hence, there was probably only one plane on track: MH17.

          • It is an assumption Rostov radar recording provided by Russia shows all traffic it could detect.
            What if Russia modified the recording?
            We do not know.

          • admin, do you mean that the Russian Defense Ministry REMOVED some radar targets (such as your alleged IL76) from their presentation ?

          • I do not know. We should be very carefull with any type of information. Info is only true when verified.

          • admin,
            The Ukrainians stated they were not flying that day.
            Strelkov stated that the Ukrainians were not flying (at least in the morning).
            The Russian Defense Ministry presents radar images that does not show any Ukrainian aircraft in the air at the time MH17 went down.

            Even better, the Russian Defense Ministry uses the radar reflections of the falling debris from MH17 (while 298 people are falling to their death) as an argument that Ukraine was flying SU25’s near MH17.

            Yet, you argue that “Info is only true when verified.”.

            Seriously, admin, when is any info “verified” in your book, and considering the hypocrisy from the statements from the Russian Defense Ministry …. what is wrong with you ?

            Have you lost all perspective of reason and logic ?

          • Rob:
            Rostov radar had a limited view. At the MoD pressconference is was said the radarcoverage is from 5km and higher
            We are talking about flying activities in the afternoon.
            There are many eyewitness who saw SU-25s flying just before MH17 was hit. SU-25s typically operate below 5 km so below Rostov radar coverage.
            Nowhere in the DSB preliminary report it says the DSB got primary radar tapes from Ukraine.

            There were many SU-25 sorties flown at the 16th. Two were hit.
            Explain to me why there would be no flights at all of Ukriane air force on July 17?

            There is no proof at all there were NO flying activities in the afternoon at July 17.

          • admin said “There is no proof at all there were NO flying activities in the afternoon at July 17.”

            There is no proof at all that leprechauns shot down MH17 either.
            Seriously, admin, I’m with “Basic Dimensions” on this one.

            If there really was a Ukrainian IL76 flying on the 17th, at the time that MH17 went down, then the Riussians would have been the first to show that in their radar images.

            It would be borderline ludicrous to suggest (as you just did) that they would remove that target from their radar images and then still argue in front of the world that SU25’s were close to MH17.

          • Rob: So why would Russia be the first to show an IL76 on Rostov radar? That would be a target for the BUK and a very good reason to shoot. So I can imagine Russia wipes this off the recording.
            An SU-25 is interesting to show to suggest this shot down MH17 (I am sure SU-25 did not shot down MH17)

          • Admin, show how Rostov radar can have limited view? Im know about radio and TV antennas with apperture combined for more emmition for certain directions. But it is static, non-rotating antennas. How Rostov radar can have limited view if it just rotating antenna?
            if you talking about ALT limit then show on radiation pattern where is limit of ALT
            http://i.imgur.com/YW7cxWR.png
            Cosecant radar antennas dont have limits by ALT, in really by LOW ALT, their radiation is close to ground as possible. But cosecant radar antenna have problem with HIGH ALT (look on alt 10km and more).

          • Obviously I am talking about an altitude limitation. After a certain range (which depends on type of radar signal, height of the radar tower, hills) aircraft will be below the radar. I am not sure about the specs of Rostov radar but it is very well possible SU-25 flying at a certain height are below view of Rostov radar.
            http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2952/can-you-actually-fly-under-the-radar

          • admin, the altitude limitation of Rostov radar over the area where MH17 was shot down (a distance of some 130 km) would be mostly determined by the curvature of the planet.

            This reference
            http://www.tscm.com/rdr-hori.pdf
            suggests that if the Rostov radar was mounted at ground level, that the altitude limitation would be around 5000 ft (1500 meter) at that 130 km distance.

            So the Russian Defense Ministry’s assertion that they could not see below 5000 meters is nonsense.

            Just add that to the pile of lies from that institution.

          • I know 5000 meters is nonsense. Their radar recording shows they are telling nonsense. The falling debris can be seen for quite some time. It suggests radar coverage is lower than 5 km.
            See my post of November 2014 here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-radar-does-not-show-any-ukraine-fighter-aircraft/

            So that is a lie. It does not automatically lead to the conclusion Russia shot down MH17 and Ukraine is totally innocent.

          • I deleted this response of AD.
            AD claims a certain horizontal range of Rostov radar by including a random image he found on the internet
            AD does not include any information to back his claim. Horizontal and vertical reach is determined by many parameters like height of antenna, frequency used, angle of the antenna, terrain (hills etc) and power of the antenna.

          • In reality,
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/ROSTOV_on_DON_AIRPORT,RUSSIA_-_panoramio.jpg
            and various other pictures of the radar mast at Rostov suggest that the Rostov ATC radar is mounted at something like 100 ft (30 meters).

            Which reduces the the altitude limitation at 130 km to about 4000 ft (1200 meters).

            Yes. That is your maximum altitude for your hypothetical low flying SU25’s.

          • I am not sure if this photo shows the radar mast of Rostov ATC. Also the Russian MoD mentioned Rostov used two radar stations.
            So it is hard to tell for sure what the minimum altitude is Rostov can detect aircraft.

            SU-25 is used to attack ground targets and operates on low altitudes. On the other hand, Ukraine air force started bombing sorties from high altitude (6 Km) as they were afraid for MANPADS.

          • message deleted: Rob if you want to make your point on this forum refrain from expressing your opinion about others opinions and skill sets.
            Concentrate on facts and likely scenarios please.

          • The altitude limitation of Rostov radar is 5000 ft or less.
            Can you accept that ?

          • admin said “I am not sure if this photo shows the radar mast of Rostov ATC.”

            Is this one more convincing ?

            http://www.panoramio.com/photo/115827653?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com

          • You have to provide me some better proof. This is a lightpole Rob.
            a radar tower does not need to be on the premises of an airport BTW. I could be further away.

            Update:
            these are the two radar towers Russian MoD mentioned
            Baturinskaja http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=45.836798&lon=39.460187&z=18&m=b
            Ust-Donetskij http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=47.616774&lon=40.682395&z=18&m=b

            Minimal altitude for Rostov is aronnd 1500-2000 meters.

          • Ust-Donetsk tower
            http://i.imgur.com/Sc5RUgO.jpg
            http://i.imgur.com/TcbrFqt.jpg
            Scheme what you deleted, admin, not random picture but radiation pattern of ATC radar Utes-T.
            You should learn about radars before decision random picture or not.
            http://i.imgur.com/SyzAknc.png
            How anyone can see – Ust-Donetsk ATC radar can easy see targets from ALT=3000m at least. So russian DoD just LIED about 5000m.

          • Thanks for the pictures. That is a great help!

          • And this is detection range, alt for different targets of radar Pamir (ATC radar Utes is civilian version of this radar)
            http://i.imgur.com/CHNk1VO.jpg

          • Interesting thing with detection range/alt of radar.
            1. In really, russian DoD dont lied.
            2. Almost dont lied.
            3. Okay, lied but about range.
            CITATION of russian Dod about detect range/alt.
            {The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.}

            Now we look on detection range/alt of radar (without words, just curve and digits).
            http://i.imgur.com/LgY0kF2.jpg
            What we see? For big target like B777 detection at range 320km (radar Utes-T have maximum range 360 km) limited by Alt = 5000m.
            So russian DoD dont lie about ALT LIMIT 5000m, they just lied about RANGE OF THIS DETECTION.

          • admin said “You have to provide me some better proof. This is a lightpole Rob.”

            You are right, and thank you :o)

            Rob said “The altitude limitation of Rostov radar is 5000 ft or less.”

            admin said “Minimal altitude for Rostov is aronnd 1500-2000 meters.”

            I’m glad we agree on that.

          • Admin and AD:

            Technical data of installation from the manufacturer:

            http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/civil_catalogue/1343/1348/1317

            The distance of Ust-Donetsk is 175 km to the interception and of Baturinskaja is 265 km.

            AD, you marked the 6000 m curve on your image. The 5000 m curve must be done by interpolation.

            I assume the three colored ranges are for different sizes of aircraft, with the larger the craft, the further the range?

          • thx. interesting info. I also am wondering what the three different colours are in that diagram

      • Thanks, but that means Ukraine may have used SU-25’s to confuse the operator of the BUK as long as possible, also in this scenario.

        • I think this is a very likely scenario. I am also wondering what the goal was to bomb an apartment building in Snizhne at July 15. 11 civilians were killed.
          Was it to lure a BUK to Snizhne? Or was there already a BUK operating in Snizhne?

          We do not know. I doubt Bellingcat searched on social media for mentions of BUK for dates other than July 17.

          • Hector Reban // August 19, 2015 at 6:21 pm //

            Higgins told me he did a few months ago, and found nothing. An american thinktank IISS said they had something, but never responded to my questions about it.

            Its possible a BUK already was there. So when a story had to be constructed, Snizhne was the place to be because the lone BUK vid already was in possession of the SBU.

            The bombing on the 15th could be a provocation to smoke out the BUK or a attack gone bad on the equipment yard nearby in Lenin street (also nearby Karapetyan street, where the offloaded BUK was photographed).

          • He must not have looked very hard. There are mentions if you know what to look for.

          • Andrew I appreciate some proof for your suggestion.

          • Hector Reban // August 19, 2015 at 6:54 pm //

            Yes, Andrew, there are some people mentioning on the 17th the BUK already moved by a month before. Do you have some too in your collection of evidence? 😉

          • Admin:

            Here is a single example – please read the whole conversation. Anyone interested can find more on their own if they are clever enough. I have my own reasons for not wanting to simply expose things I have found.

            https://twitter.com/big_b_brother/status/489417974294790145

            Lets just say that a BUK already being there on July 16 or July 15 means the whole July 17 movement is probably phony rubbish, and if it shot down, say, an SU-25M1 on July 16, it would be short more than one missile if it also shot down MH17 and travelled through Lugansk.

            The problem with faking things is keeping the story consistent.

          • Thanks for that. While the translating does show words Buk and SU-25 it is impossible for me to understand what is being discussed. Can you tell me?

          • On July 16th the rebels themselves claim their successes against the Su-25s in the southern cauldron to be the result of a BUK:
            “The appearance of a combat-ready “Buk” is a significant aid. The operational Su-25 is for now a cherry on a pie, ”

            http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/26716.html

          • Admin:

            “it is impossible for me to understand what is being discussed. Can you tell me?”

            They are making a rhyming joke in Russian about the BUK shooting down an SU25 over Saur Mogila.

          • Does the conversation say that a SU-25 was shot down near Saur Moglia by a BUK? Or are they hoping/suggesting/thinking this?

          • Admin:

            big_b_brother observes yet another plane was just shot down at Saur Mogila about an hour before and ask how many more “these sneaky bastards” have.

            updatekey asks if they shot it down using BUK-M’s (BUK-AMI).

            big_b_brother responds with the rhyming pun conflating the word BUK-AMI into BABUKAMI.

          • I did some research. It is not clear for me where the two SU-25 were downed. I read different stories.
            Also the weapon is not sure.
            It would be Ukraine claims a SU-25 was downed by an air to air missile launched from a Russian fighter jet. While instead a BUK was used.
            Maybe the fact that BUKs were around should not be known to the outside world?

            Ukraine states:
            At July16 two SU-25 were shot at.
            Ukraine claims the Russian airforce shot it down. On July 16 at 18:55, Ukraine’s military intelligence found evidence that aircraft of the Russian Armed Forces Air Force were used against the Ukrainian Air Force SU-25 near the town of Amvrosiyivka ( a source says Hryhorivka (25 km from the town of Amvrosiyivka)..The missile only hit the engine nozzle and the pilot executed an emergency landing, as reported previously. Lysenko however said ” Our airplane was shot down. The pilot catapulted and was evacuated into safety by the AFU detachments. The pilot is OK,”

            the other incident was a MANPAD hit
            “Today, on July 16th, at about 13:00 during the execution of a combat mission in the area of the anti-terrorist operation the terrorists damaged the leader of a Su-25 pair using a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS). This was in the east of Ukraine.
            https://www.facebook.com/Embassy.of.Ukraine.in.Singapore/posts/510211852442290

            The pilot led the jet into a specific area and carried out a forced landing successfully,” – noted the departmental announcement. The airplane received minor damage and can be repaired.

            http://mediarnbo.org/2014/07/18/nsc-news-analysis-center-briefing-at-12-00-july-18-2014/?lang=en

            Rebel commander Igor “Strelkov” Girkin said two Su-25 planes had been downed during fighting at the Marinivka border crossing. Marynivka is quite close to Saur Moglia

          • Admin:

            I think the SU-25M1 downed on July 16 lies here just outside Hryhorivka per your citation (do you have a link?) and 25 km on the dot from Amvrosiivka: 47°51’28.90″N, 38°47’54.23″E

            This mess on the ground shows up in the first satellite imagery available after midday on July 16, which is from July 21.

            The wreck location fits with this report:

            http://lifenews.ru/news/136731

            The Militia shot down a Ukrainian plane at the border with Russia

            Before that, the pilot crossed the air border of our country.

            The Ukrainian air force aircraft entered Russian airspace, I made a turn and began to leave towards Ukraine, but was shot down by militias at the height of six thousand meters, told LifeNews source in law enforcement bodies of the Rostov region. The incident occurred at about 19:00 on July 16.

            Fighter was seen in Russia. The plane could be seen even from Kuybyshevo, – said the source. – He did a u-turn and headed in the direction of Ukraine, however, the militia managed to shoot it down.

            According to preliminary data, the aircraft pilot managed to
            eject. Downed the plane crashed on the territory of Ukraine.

            ———————————————

            You tell me how you think it was hit at that height. I don’t believe it happened via Ukraine’s absurd story of Russia just randomly picking that day to shoot down a Sukhoi with a MIG.

            In one of the Khmuryi “BUK” tapes, he speaks of getting a BUK “this morning” (odd way of talking about the magic Bellingcat BUK arriving at 1:30 pm) and using it to shootdown an SU25. He places the day relative to a a prior day when the Militia thought they downed two SU-25’s near Saur Mogila (Saur Mogila group claimed two downings on July 15), and he states he is in Marynivka (Militia captured it on July 16) and is going to go pick up three Gvozdika self-propelled mortar’s in Donetsk (three Gvozdika’s came to Donetsk afternoon of July 15). Has to be a call from July 16th, doesn’t it? Or maybe General Khmuryi is delusional?

            So why is Ukraine trying to pass this off as a tape about a BUK travelling on July 17th to shootdown MH17? And if they knew there was a BUK there on July 16th, why didn’t they close the airspace or at least caution civilian flight operators? And whose BUK was there and how did it get there? Why did Russia the evening of July 16 suddenly close its airspace adjacent to Saur Mogila up to 10 km and issue a warning of military firing from Ukraine in the direction of Russia applicable to all flights up to FL530 and reroute all takeoff/landing vectors from Rostov towards Dnipropetrovsk just after this SU-25 was shot down? You think Russia was afraid of its own MIG’s shooting down Aeroflot jets from Rostov?

          • Andrew: thanks. This is an interesting story to further investigate. The Ukraine embassy in Singapore mentioned the exact small village where the SU-25 crashed. Very close to the Russian border. https://www.facebook.com/Embassy.of.Ukraine.in.Singapore/posts/510211852442290

            Can you help me with more info on your statement? Particulary that aircraft from Rostov were rerouted.

            Why did Russia the evening of July 16 suddenly close its airspace adjacent to Saur Mogila up to 10 km and issue a warning of military firing from Ukraine in the direction of Russia applicable to all flights up to FL530 and reroute all takeoff/landing vectors from Rostov towards Dnipropetrovsk just after this SU-25 was shot down?

          • Andrew:
            Can you help me with more info on your statement? Particulary that aircraft from Rostov were rerouted.

            Andrew wrote:
            “Why did Russia the evening of July 16 suddenly close its airspace adjacent to Saur Mogila up to 10 km and issue a warning of military firing from Ukraine in the direction of Russia applicable to all flights up to FL530 and reroute all takeoff/landing vectors from Rostov towards Dnipropetrovsk just after this SU-25 was shot down?”

          • admin, I urge you to remember that there are various cities, oblasts and villages that all have the exact same name.

            It is likely Strelkov and others do get this mixed up also.
            So when he said they were both downed at the same point, they probably were at different locations and he interpreted or stated facts incorrectly.

            Then you have to understand that sometimes the Russian and Ukrainian name are slightly different.
            Then you have to understand their might be slight variations in the spelling of the name that gives more results.

            If I remember right there are four locations with that name, but there may be more.
            One is right on the Russian border, one is near Saur Mogila as you point out, and there are others.

            A few links confirming different parts of that.

            An article describing it as a Russian border checkpoint fourth paragraph down.

            http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-rebels-reclaim-village-russian-border-130530741.html

            An article describing a Separatist Ukrainian road checkpoint.

            http://ukrainiancrisis.net/news/1354

            And a couple from Google Maps.

            https://www.google.com/maps/place/Marynivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@48.1709629,37.3698307,12.25z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x40de253191213c89:0x1049732bf58e0cf6

            https://www.google.com/maps/place/Marynivka,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/@47.9024378,38.8368077,13.25z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x40e1a936745807db:0x800bd49862e61dbe

            Anyways, I think that is what happened, Strelkov got reports from two different locations with the same name, and then reported two jets shot down at the same location.
            And that is why Ukraine reported it as two different locations.
            Kind of just like the BUK crew is reported to have done, they could not figure out which was the right location after they entered it into their GPS.
            A Ukrainian would not have made that mistake I do not think.

            Fare thee well

          • Andrew states –
            ‘Ukraine’s absurd story of Russia just randomly picking that day to shoot down a Sukhoi with a MIG.’

            To me it makes perfect sense and most likely a factual report.
            Let me remind you of this just a couple days before.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-warns-ukraine-of-irreversible-consequences-after-cross-border-shelling/2014/07/13/d2be1bb0-0a85-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html

            They could have just claimed a fighter jet shot a missile at their plane, but did they?
            Nope, they specifically named the type of plane.

            Honestly Andrew, I believe the Kremlin at that moment was setting the state for a full scale invasion in the name of a Peace Keeping mission.
            Readying their nation with that news, Readying the world and setting up that they are justified in doing so, especially with the fact that mosty of DNR leadership at that point was begging for help and thought they were in danger of loosing the whole Little Russia project.
            I wonder why most of the leadership went to Moscow just a couple weeks before MH17’s downing.
            I wonder why even Strelkov himself was bad mouthing Moscow and saying they will not help with everything they want, just like a child riding in a shopping cart in a department store and saying I want that and that and that, and if you do not give it to me I will throw a tantrum.

            Even had people making statements like this one in the article linked.
            ‘“We need to use precision weapons, like Israel’s, to destroy those who launched the bomb,” the deputy speaker of Russia’s upper house of parliament, Yevgeny Bushmin, told the state-run RIA Novosti news service.’

            Yeah, a MIG attack was likely fact.
            And I do not usually quote WP, but this time they were on the money.

            Fare thee well

          • Boggled:

            The “irreversible consequences” were a threat to destroy the border expeditionary force that was the cause of the shelling.

            I don’t see the connection of that article to shooting down a plane that strays over the border. Russia didn’t attack the Ukrainian APC’s that got lost over the border. Can you cite a single witness who saw such an aerial dogfight? There seems to be plenty of people who saw it shot down by a missile from the ground.

          • Admin:

            There is a Daily Mail article from the period which writes quite frankly that the attack on Snizhne was a misbegotten attack on the Rebel base/supply yard nearby. I don’t see why they would lie.

            Why would Ukraine make such a risky attack which would kill civilians? If you assume there was one or more BUK’s there, it would need a supply of a missiles at a rear operational base with all the attendant logistics of a crane, supply trucks, technicians, repairmen, etc. Ever watch the movie Flight of the Intruder, about an attack on a supply yard of SAM missiles in Hanoi?

            Of course again, if Ukraine is attacking a BUK base on 7/15, why hasn’t it closed the airspace or provided a warning of what is going on? And what in the world is all the 7/17 Bellingcat/SBU BUK trail nonsense?

          • Andrew: Daily Mail is one of the most ill informed newspapers on this globe. They really publish nonsense.

          • Admin:

            There are multiple sources saying the same thing. Here is the Daily Mail.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707368/Putin-s-secret-army-HQ-exposed-A-chilling-eyewitness-dispatch-epicentre-clandestine-operation-smuggle-rockets-town-launched-strike-doomed-flight-From-IAN-GALLAGHER.html

            “It is thought the sortie had been targeting a separatist military base just 100 yards away – which has become the headquarters of Putin’s covert war. …

            “‘A Ukrainian plane hit us at 6.30 in the morning – I was still in bed. The building shook and there was this massive explosion and I tried to get out of the door but it was blocked by rubble. So I jumped out of the window.’ He took us room by room through the building. ‘Why did they attack these families? Why?’

            “After the attack, the militia began to ‘appear more panicked’, according to one local. Others spoke of seeing ‘tanks and military vehicles’ moving through the town later than night. Further down Lenin Street, less than 100 yards from the apartment block, we came across an empty supermarket and, adjacent, the sandbagged entrance to the militia’s HQ, a converted warehouse.

            “This, several residents tell us, was the Ukrainian plane’s real target.”

          • Admin:

            And here is vicenews.

            https://news.vice.com/article/a-bomb-seemingly-misses-its-mark-in-ukraine-and-11-more-civilians-die

            “The position of a large rebel base, about 650 feet from where the bomb dropped, leaves open the possibility that Ukrainian forces may have misfired and dropped short of their intended target.”

          • Andrew, there were three SU25 hit that day, One Manpad, One Undetermined, and one believed to be a MIG.
            Incidents happened at 1300 and 1900
            There were a pair at the border, your LieNews article only says one plane witnessed by a police official.
            I am not so sure I will give any credibility to LieNews there or an anonymous police official, the pair flew together
            Or the fact they try to imply that the plane was in Russian airspace, no proof of that.
            We do have the GPS of the computer in the SU25 that was salvaged.

            That is the one that got hit by a MANPAD in the tail and limped back to base.
            The other got hit by the MiG that did cross the border.
            And that one crashed.

            The other incident one plane crashed after being hit by a MANPAD and the other was unharmed.

            Two separate instances both involved a down fighter, both had two planes flying together.
            There was no dogfight, UA SU25’s were fleeing and the MiG pursued and hit its target and the MANPAD hit a plane in the tail.
            Or something like that.
            This article describes both incidents also.

            http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/17/ukrainian-su-25-downed-near-russian-border/

            So Andrew, you witnesses could be from a variety of different flight paths the SU25’s took.

            There is even the possibility of one being an BUK or other SAM hit similar to the AN26 downing in July 14 from inside Russia.

            https://informnapalm.org/3396-vydeofakt-ukraynskyj-26-byl-sbyt-s-rossyjskoj-terrytoryy

            Fare thee well

          • I am doing some research on the SU-25 shot downs at July 16. I know of two: one hit by MANPADS north-east of Donetsk. Aircraft hurt but could fly.
            Around 1900 a SU-25 was shot down. Aircraft crashed.Pilot ejected. This was at Ukraine-Russia border. Ukraine claims shot down by air to air missile by Russian fighter jet. Separatists claim just ‘shot down ‘ but do not mention weapon.

            What is the third shot down?

          • admin, in the article I posted it explains a little.
            at airheadsfly it states both incidents, one at 1300 and one at 1900
            both which had a pair of jets flying.
            1300 incident had only one plane hit of the two and it went back to base.
            Sorry, my original comment I think wrong about this.
            1900 incident both planes were hit and only one went down.
            the other flew back to base.
            The 1900 incident was near the Russian border in had the questionable MiG hit and another by a different equipment, maybe MANPAD.
            So it was 3 planes hit, but two made it back to base.
            The only crash, the pilot was rescued and returned to base.

            I will offer a few links with other articles with info, some with additional links.
            airheads and this site go into two planes hit at 1900, one goes down.

            http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167954

            The others list a hit but plane got back to base at 1300

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_aircraft_losses_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis

            http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=UR&page=1

            So yes, there may be some confusion, and I have doubts on Strelkov’s claims about downing of plane maybe actually being successful hits, but plane made it back to base.
            He did not want to admit the MiG or maybe Russian SAM strike since they do not have aircraft or captured SAM units.

            I look forward to the article, like you I am still somewhat confused as to what the truth is, I did not have time do more in depth research, but I might later.
            And wonder if some clarity can be sought from NSDC or SBU or maybe from other sources.
            And then various databases can be updated to what happened.
            It maybe the this case remains ‘open’ for the UA military because they have not determined the exact cause.
            So they only make statements they can prove, like prosecuting attorney, maybe?
            I am not sure.
            I will look deeper and see if I can add more info later.

            Fare thee well

          • correction in comment in moderation-
            1300 incident had only one plane hit of the two and it went back to base.
            should read-
            1300 incident had only one plane hit of the two and both went back to base.

            Also would like to point out, that all Strelkov had was words from the field and as we saw with MH17 and the claim of AN26, he has been wrong many times before.

            You have a large lists of his briefings here at this page.
            I am not sure if I or others posted before.

            http://slavyangrad.org/category/military-briefings/page/2/

            Site has some history, there were another two or three I read similar to this, but this may lead you to some of his statements and other people’s.
            I am sorry I do not have a cached history of what was there to compare with.

            Fare thee well

          • admin, I think you know what I think is the reason.
            Preparation for launches of SAM’s and artillery from inside Russia across the border into UA against UA’s fighters and aircraft that are trying to attack Separatist camps, equipment and ammo and their supply routes.
            There is a reason all of the manned border checkpoints on UA’s side were destroyed and OSCE is only limited to viewing from 2 border stations in UA, and not allowed at the border stations inside Russia.
            Either that or the possibility of a full scale invasion disguised as peacekeeping mission.
            I do not see many other reasons that make sense of Andrew’s statements and the NOTAM’s.

            Fare thee well

          • Admin:

            “Can you help me with more info on your statement? Particulary that aircraft from Rostov were rerouted.”

            Sure, I’ve posted this here before.

            V6158/14 NOTAMN
            Q) URRV/QARLC/IV/NBO/E/000/530/4818N04008E088
            A) URRV
            B)1407170000
            C) 1408312359 EST
            E) DUE TO COMBAT ACTIONS ON THE TERRITORY OF THE UKRAINE NEAR THE STATE BORDER WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE FACTS OF FIRING FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE UKRAINE TOWARDS THE TERRITORY OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION, TO ENSURE INTL FLT SAFETY, ATS RTE SEGMENTS CLSD AS FLW:
            A100 MIMRA – ROSTOV-NA-DONU VOR/DME (RND) ,
            B145 KANON – ASMIL,
            G247 MIMRA – BAGAYEVSKIY NDB (BA),
            A87 TAMAK – SARNA,
            A102 PENEG – NALEM,
            A225 GUKOL – ODETA,
            A712 TAMAK – SAMBEK NDB (SB),
            B493 FASAD – ROSTOV-NA-DONU VOR/DME (RND),
            B947 TAMAK – ROSTOV-NA-DONU VOR/DME (RND),
            G118 LATRI – BAGAYEVSKIY NDB (BA),
            G534 MIMRA – TOROS,
            G904 FASAD – SUTAG,
            R114 BAGAYEVSKIY NDB (BA)-NALEM.
            SFC – FL320.
            DEP FM/ARR TO ROSTOV-NA-DONU AD TO/FM MOSCOW FIR CARRIED OUT ALONG ATS RTE G128 KONSTANTINOVSK NDB (KA) – MOROZOVSK VOR/DME (MOR) AND R11 MOROZOVSK VOR/DME (MOR) – BUTRI ON ASSIGNED FL.
            DEP FM ROSTOV-NA-DONU AD TO DNEPROPETROVSK FIR CARRIED OUT ALONG ATS RTE A102 KONSTANTINOVSK NDB (KA) – NALEM ON FL340 AND ABOVE.
            ARR TO ROSTOV-NA-DONU AD FM DNEPROPETROVSK FIR CARRIED OUT ALONG ATS RTE A712 TAMAK – SAMBEK NDB (SB) THEN DCT KONSTANTINOVSK NDB (KA) ON FL330 AND ABOVE.
            SFC – FL530, 17 JUL 00:00 2014 UNTIL 31 AUG 23:59 2014 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 16 JUL 17:08 2014

            Decoded:
            This NOTAM was created at 20:08 pm local time for Donbass, it applies in general from Surface to Flight Level 53,000 feet = 16.1 km.

            The cause of the NOTAM is “combat actions on the territory of Ukraine” and what Russia calls “the facts” of firing weapons from Ukraine in the direction of Russia that could endanger international air traffic.

            The purpose of the NOTAM is stated that it is to ensure international flight safety – i.e. civilian air traffic from the combat actions.

            The first part of the content closes numerous air corridors around the border of the Donbass region up to Flight Level 320 = 32,000 ft. = 9.8 km

            The second part of the content restricts arrivals to and departures from Rostov heading in the directions of Moscow and Dnipropetrovsk. These flights, instead of making their normal turn north or northwest on departure or arriving from the same directions and turning southwest into Rostov are instead restricted to flying northwest to Konstantinovsk until they gain cruising altitude and only then being permitted to proceed over the combat zone, or coming from the combat zone proceeding at cruising altitude until they reach Konstantinovsk and then beginning an approach vector to the southwest to reach Rostov.

            Why I think this is interesting is that it is stated that a Ukrainian plane violated Russian airspace, began to make an attack run on the Saur Mogila area and was then shot down at 6200 m/6500 m (the reports aren’t clear but are referring to FL 200 or FL 210) and crashed at the village of Hryhorivka 25 km from Amvrosiivka at the coordinates I gave you. So the plane likely came at high altitude (probably 7-9 km) down from the north along the border near Izvarino, swept west along the border at Dolzhansky and dipped into Russia near the TAMAK waypoint where it could be witnessed at Kuybyshevo. West of TAMAK, the border bumps north 3 km for a length of 20 km. Perhaps the pilot was being overly clever – he would only be in Russian airspace for 2 minutes and could use that time to set up his bombing trajectory to the northwest to hit Saur Mogila or Stepanovka or Marynivka while seemingly being safe from being shot at by the STRELA-10 known to be working the area which has a 5 km range and perhaps a 4 km max elevation similar to the IGLA MANPADS. Then he could climb and hightail it back to Mirgorod or Dnipropetrovsk. He must have been surprised when his SAM radar lock warning went off while he was still just over Russia, and he smartly bailed rather than wait and find out what was targetting him at that height.

            The plane was probably hit over Russia and plummeted into Ukraine. Its crash site is 8 km from Saur Mogila but just 2.5 km from the border so it being hit over Russia is far from range of any MANPADS or the STRELA-10.

            Blaming the incident on a rebel BUK firing towards Russia both makes the kill possible and also accounts for the dispassionate account of the Russian NOTAM – combat actions inside Ukraine including firing towards Russia that threaten international air traffic in and out of Rostov. The likely trajectory taken by the Ukrainian plane from the southwest would make it look on radar like a plane coming from Rostov. The 10 km restriction is not so much accounting for the BUK and its capabilities as accounting for the Ukrainian combat actions – they were flying war planes beneath that elevation and getting shot at. Instead, the Russia NOTAM applies the caution of flying into an area of combat actions threatening international flight safety to FL 530, which is the outer limit of commercial and private civil aviation.

            It should have been a big warning sign.

  15. My post was meant for: Ole // August 19, 2015 at 1:09 pm // Reply. Want to say: The scenario of the double spy of Ukraine might also need SU-25’s.

  16. There is a dogma going around that the Kremlin controls all media in Russia. I would like to question that dogma and ask what is the evidence it is true.
    I would say that some of the stories coming out or Russia are so stupid that it shows that the Kremlin does not really control all the media.

  17. Estimated probabilities of scenario 1:

    Prob. statement true = .20: ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft.’

    (P = .8): ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft below 9,700 meters.’

    ======
    Separatist spy or Ukraine double spy:
    ======
    Separatist spy:

    (P = .3) : ‘A separatist spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

    —-
    AN-26 or IL-76:

    AN-26: (Remember a real AN-26 was en route).

    (P = .8): The BUK crew was informed an AN-26 was their target below 9.700 meters, NOT INTERFERING with civilian planes. Remember separatists feared the higher areas and did not use Flightradar, otherwise they would have identified MH17.

    (P = 1.0): Message intercepted by Ukraine.
    (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends SU-25s for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity AN-26 NE MH17. (In this scenario really an AN-26 was approaching BUK, parallel to MH17).
    (P = 1.0): Just in time shifts AN-26 its course.
    (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar certainly would have shown the AN-26 trail parallel to MH17.


    IL-76: (Remember a real IL-76 was en route).

    (P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target at 11 km, INTERFERING WITH civilian planes. But, because separatist did not use Flightradar this would come down to Russian roulette in the higher areas, which they feared.

    (P = 1.0): Message intercepted by Ukraine.
    (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends no SU-25 for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity IL-76 EQ MH17. (In this scenario really an IL-76 was approaching the BUK, parallel to MH17).
    (P = 1.0): Just in time shifts IL-76 its course.
    (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar certainly would have shown the IL-76 trail parallel to MH17.

    Conclusion: Russia definitely would have reported any trail parallel to MH17 of Ukraine’s military planes but Russia did not and we therefore assume no trails existed. Hence we conclude THERE ALSO WAS NO SEPARATIST SPY SPOTTER.

    ===
    Ukraine double spy:
    ===

    (P = .8): ‘A Ukraine double-spy spotter located at Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk radar somehow informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

    —-
    AN-26 or IL-76:

    AN-26: (Remember no AN-26 was en route).

    (P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an AN-26 was their target.
    (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends SU-25s for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity AN-26 NE MH17.
    (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar shows no AN-26 trail because there was no trail.


    IL-76: (Remember no IL-76 was en route).

    (P = .8): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target.
    (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends no SU-25 for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity IL-76 EQ MH17.
    (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar shows no IL-76 trail because there was no trail. Rostov only showed MH17 with working ADS-B-transponder

    Conclusion: Russia certainly would have reported any trail parallel to MH17 of Ukraine’s military planes, but Russia did not and we therefore assume no trails existed. Hence we conclude there could only have been a double spy spotter active from Ukraine. Therefore “Birdie coming towards you” must have come from Ukraine.

    • When the separatist spotter announced an existing IL-76 he correctly stated other civilian airplanes were on the same trail, which he could not identify as MH17 because he definitely used no Flightradar. So he correctly informed the operator of the BUK of the great risk of shooting down a civilian plane.

      But when a double agent of Ukraine announced the not existing IL-76 he explicitly told no other planes were on that trail and he was believed. In this case no SU-25’s were needed for distraction of the operator on the BUK.

      But in case the double agent designated an AN-26, the difference in radial velocity with MH17 would be too large and Ukraine would need SU-25s to prevent the operator’s timely notice of difference in radial velocity.

      Hence, only when the scenario based on the double spy is correct and Ukraine did not want to intrude the dilemma of high-flying civilian airliners, it would have reason to use SU-25’s for distraction.

  18. Scenario 2:
    Admin said: ‘The BUK crew saw an Antonov 26 flying at 6km. They shot a missile. The missile however hit MH17 at 10km. [Not included: Maybe because the missile guidance system was compromised. See scenario 4.]’

    – A month before the MH17 was shot Elena Kolenkina posted this video on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENJhZwfEfc&list=LLZ3GTMiT5A5cyMntaf6Nh6w&index=4

    http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/07/28/smoke-signal-separating-issues-ukraine/

    – Elena says SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding, so they could not be touched by the separatists:

    [(1:32/2:14) This means it was a provocation; they wanted the self-defense force to shoot down an airliner so that the militias can be declared to be terrorists who shoot down airlines. Hundreds of passengers would have died; it would have been a huge catastrophy.]

    Estimated probabilities of scenario 2:

    (P = .5): The BUK crew saw an Antonov 26 flying at 6km. (Bad weather).

    (P = 0.0): They shot a missile.

    No, of course they shot no missile because in this scenario no threatening SU-25s were active. And because of this slowly approaching AN-26 with very low radial velocity, they have got time enough to inspect the autonomous radar of the BUK. Then, they immediately noticed not one, but two spots on radar, with quite different radial velocity. And chances of confounding these spots, following the product rule of independent chances are near zero.(No imposed course corrections on MH17 in this model).

    Now, because they were very experienced, they immediately grasped a civilian airliner must be nearby. Hence they did not shoot, though they did not expect their BUK missile would ever miss the AN-26, just because this was no quick SU-25. But they simply did not want to take the silly risk. May be the Pantsir of Elena would have missed AN-26 but even that can be doubted. Hence the total chance of the second scenario is zero.

  19. 2 all injectors of idea B777 instead of An-26, Su-25, Il-76 – does it mean B777 dont killed by terrorists even if they think it is military plane?

    • AD said: 2 all injectors of idea B777 instead of An-26, Su-25, Il-76 – does it mean B777 dont killed by terrorists even if they think it is military plane?

      If I understand your question correctly, that’s a very good ethical point. In real war situations the downing of B777 can be seen as collateral damage only if authorities (Ukraine and the greedy airlines) have taken their responsibilities. Then no civilian airlines were flying above Donetsk.

      In this special case Ukraine, Russia and the separatists as well as the greedy airlines are morally responsible. But everyone knowing of this irresponsible situation in his turn is responsible too. Hence also all Governments whose nationals flew over Donetsk are responsible.

      To answer your question more specifically: Even if separatists or others have shot down MH17 by accident, morally they remain fully responsible for war crimes. There are no extenuating circumstances. And even further, shooting down military planes also is not without ethical consequences, just as bombing civilian areas, wherever.

      Now, in case Ukraine has put a trap for the separatists, there will be a shared responsibility and the court will decide on guilt allocation. Of course, it is never that separatists are not to blame. They always are guilty because they had or could have had prior knowledge of possible criminal intent of Ukraine or of themselves.

      • This is not military issue – usage of SA-11 in war conflict area. SA-11 is present in alot countries:
        Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, India, North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela.
        But we dont heard about shot downed civilian airliners by SA-11 over that countries even in war conflict area.
        Why it?
        Because (as any military weapon) SA-11 as part of Air Defense must have a few steps which protect civilians from weapon.
        1. Verification.
        2. Confirmation.
        3. Control of deployment.
        When Russia provide solo SA-11 TELAR to terrorists then Russia broke these steps and prepare MH17 death. If tomorrow Russia give a weapon to another irregular army aka terrorists then this weapon will kill civilians again. But somehow (if you wonder why – reread safety steps) same weapon in Russia dont have such a problem (killing a civilian airliners) even with much more a/c traffic and numerous SA-11 TELARs in use.

        • That is a very good point AD.
          In the long history of BUK service, how many accidental targeting of airliners with a BUK have happened inside Russia or countries with them?
          It just doesn’t happen.

          To your original question, I think all occupiers inside Ukraine, including Crimea, are terrorists.
          The soldiers on safari, the one’s who left their GPS home, the little green men, the Moscow organized crime groups, the warlords, the Moscow skinheads that have flooded Eastern Ukraine, the Russian GRU and FSB leadership inside Ukraine, the Russian citizens that are the political leadership of the Little Russia project, those inside Red Square, etc.

          If MH17 was intentionally shot down, which I believe it most likely was, it is terrorism and a terrorist act.

          If on the slightest chance it was an accident and they can prove it was an accident (doubt either side could prove that) I would say the crew themselves are not guilty of ‘terrorism’ but a vile criminal act.
          BUT they are still terrorists for being inside Ukraine.

          HOWEVER charges that would be also included in that would be issued for those that supplied the BUK to that experienced crew and those that begged the Kremlin for one.
          And those people are guilty of terrorism, in my interpretation of the word.

          Fare thee well

          • Boggled:

            Are the Crimeans occupying themselves? How about the Russian Black Sea Fleet? Are both terrorists occupying Crimea since the 1780’s?

            Were the Ukrainian BUK crews inside Georgia terrorists during the 08/08/08 war? Or Ukrainian mercenaries fighting with the Chechens? What gave them the right to be there and participate in those conflicts? If the Maidan side of Ukrainian politics has been formally at war with Russia both inside Russia and killing Russian troops acting as peacekeepers for over a decade, does Russia have a right to respond?

            Is this a two way or a one way street?

            Do you have the slightest proof that there was a Russia BUK crew inside the hypothetical 7/17 BUK? Why would it be impossible for disaffected locals who served in the 156th Air Defense Regiment or actual defectors from that unit to the rebel side to serve as a crew? Or Ukrainians from Crimea from the 55th Regiment?

            Like its non-accounted for inventory of BUK launchers and BUK missiles, can Ukraine provide an accounting of the troops actively enrolled in the 156th Regiment and their whereabouts on 7/17? How many where MIA or AWOL? How about troops who recently finished their enlistment period and failed to report for a re-mobilization? Or who had served in the more distant past?

            You folks are really stuck on this hypothetical crew from Kursk (and where were they in the alleged BUK convoy that no one actually saw since it did not go with the Vostok tanks – riding shotgun in the Volvo truck?). But you cannot even account for the skilled people immediately available in the Donbass or provide any information at all about Ukraine’s own use of BUK’s!

            I think the 53rd Kursk BUK crew is as much a fantasy as the frankly racist idea that the rebel side is mostly Chechens and Ossetians that was widely circulated by Ukraine, and not their own fellow countrymen.

          • Andrew, you raise a lot of questions in the beginning of your comment that are covered by international law and territorial agreements between nations.
            That is not my specialty, but I know a few things about what is going on I will admit.
            You as a lot of rhetorical and hyperbole type questions.
            And are outside the site’s main theme.

            I was answering AD directly in my statement and trying to keep with the sites orientation somewhat primarily around MH17, the sites focus and what this article covered.

            You address a lot of subjects relating to the whole UA RF conflict.
            I will leave you to do your research on international laws and treaties.
            There is a reason why Russia has been blacklisted by most of the world.

            Now to the BUK and crew.
            Each piece of technical military equipment has its own quirks, and the crew that operates that piece of machinery knows all the quirks.
            Most likely, the crew that was trained on that BUK came with that BUK.
            IF it came from Russia, then it most likely was a Russian crew.

            Not saying it is impossible for some others to be operating it, but most likely if Russian military supplied an technically advanced expensive piece of equipment like that, then it was most likely a Russian crew.

            Do you think Ukraine’s SBU just throws those numbers out there randomly of Russian soldiers inside UA?
            Why not 100k, why not 30k? I think the last number I saw was about 5k, but I think they underestimate that intentionally for public media.
            They have intelligence, they have captured Russian soldiers at all levels of rank.
            A Russian crew is very likely.

            As to your other statements, there is even less evidence of your presented scenarios.
            However, there is credible evidence, some circumstantial I agree, of a Russian BUK with a Russian BUK crew and probably with Russian missiles as well.
            So you take little or no credible evidence and follow that.
            I will use some credible evidence and and follow that, and see who comes up with the truth.

            You are wanting me to do the job that official investigators are doing in trying to discount theories on what happened.
            Something which I do not have all the evidence to do.
            And neither do you.

            What is your proof that Ukraine has not turned over its records to DSB or JIT?
            I will not take statements of Lavrov or some other politician or diplomat with an agenda.
            Just because Ukrainian military classified information is not in public view does not mean it has not been presented to investigators.

            Of most of your scenarios , nothing is impossible.
            However I tend to go where the evidence and logical thinking and probability leads me from the evidence I have at hand.
            A Russian or Russian aligned Ukrainian crew is a possibility to consider, but more likely it is the crew that worked on the BUK regularly.
            As far as I know, I have yet to see anything to suggest a BUK was smuggled out of Crimea and Ukrainian intelligence has been watching.
            It is possible it could have been loaded in Crimea, delivered up to Sochi on a Russian Navy boat, and driven around to come into Ukraine, but unlikely when they have BUK’s in the Rostov area.

            You have little to no evidence, that makes it conspiracy theory.
            You present something that might fit the equations of what we know, but is unlikely – the lower probability of evidence the public has – and not supported by available evidence the investigators have at their fingertips and usually get thrown out by prosecutors in seeking justice for what they CAN PROVE.

            You may have a different way of thinking of the way to carry out justice, but the thinking of most peoples is work with what you can prove first before you have to search for what might have happened.
            Most to all conspiracy theories get thrown in the dustbin by investigators when there is evidence to discredit them.

            So you can scream ‘what if’ all you want but rational people go with what they can prove and go where the evidence they have takes them in producing the most likely timeline of events.
            Your welcome to have your own opinion, but available facts to me tend to describe reality, I think.

            Fare thee well

  20. There is no ukrainian Su-25 over or below MH17 at same time. No one ATC radars dont detect it. Russian military radars dont found it too.
    Even russian AWACS A-50 from Taganrog airbase dont spot Su-25.
    All information about Su-25 is russian lie.

  21. Scenario 3:

    Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target. The missile found a new target being MH17. [Arguments: This retarget was the cause of the shotdown by an Ukraine S-200 missle of flight Siberian 1812 in 2001.Not a likely scenario. First of all a retarget can only happen if the original target has been destroyed. Also a retarget of a BUK missile is unlikely. Last as soon as a SU-25 aircraft has a lock from the BUK, there will be an alarm in the cockpit. The SU-25 would make all kind of movements. Ofcourse MH17 did not. So the operator must have thought in this scenario that something was not right.’

    Estimated probabilities of scenario 3:

    (P = 1.0): Two low flying SU-25s were on the scene.

    The high flying SU-25 on Rostov’s primary surveillance radar could be debris of MH17. But this scenario presupposes low flying fighter aircraft and there are said to be a lot of witnesses who saw one or more low flying SU-25. Therefore SUs possibly were not needed for shooting down MH17 by Ukraine, but for distraction of or attacks on the BUK. Hence, for the sake of argument we will suppose one or two still unproven SU-25s.

    (P = 0.3): ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target.’

    There must be statistics or simulations of this chance.

    (P = 0.1): ‘The missile found a new target being MH17.’

    [arguments: First of all a retarget can only happen if the original target has been destroyed. Also a retarget of a BUK missile is unlikely.]

    The total probability of scenario 3:

    (P = 0.3): ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target.’

    (P = 0.1): ‘The missile retargeted and found a new target in MH17.’

    Total probability: 0.3 times 0.1 = 0.03, a very unlikely scenario.

    Chances are dependent and somewhat higher if SU-25 dives in the direction of MH17. But this seems ridiculous.

    (May be some not really miscellaneous scenarios are missing in which separatists or Ukraine had the deliberate intention to shoot down MH17 with P = 1.0. Then all possibilities are inventoried before moralizing.)

    (Another possibility is the separatists were not interested in SU-25’s for the moment – because apparently fighter aircraft were not attacking the BUK- but separatists were deliberately aiming at AN-26 or IL-76 or even MH17 with P = 1.0).

    Furthermore, everyone who is aware of this situation can construct his own alibi and shoot down MH17 in the first place. And because the operator of the BUK must have some professional experience we must conclude conscious planning to shoot AN-26, IL-76 or MH17 in the first place.

    And finally a retarget will cost energy and time; hence it would be even more difficult to reach MH17 from Snizhne.

  22. Scenario 4:

    Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system. This system guided the missile to MH17. [Arguments: This Tweet from a Fin who claims to have been a BUK operator suggests the BUK missile guidance system can be compromised. Add the story of Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta that says Russia provided a BUK without missiles. The missiles were stolen from Ukraine army bases. Maybe for this reason it was easy to compromise the guidance. It would be a perfect scenario to blame Russia. We know a Ukraine BUK TELAR was in the area.
    Scenario 4 explains why the United States was so quickly with saying it was a BUK launched from separatists controlled area. It also explains all the evidence (photos/videos) released by Ukraine. It also explains why the Dutch goverment keeps information secret. It also explains why Ukraine did not close its airspace.’

    Yes, and it possibly could explain more. There could be secret agreement between Ukraine and Russia since both have a stake in old BUK missiles. May be Ukraine and Russia immediately after the disaster with their toy contacted for a kind of window dressing. That could explain the exuberant and silly defending of the separatists by Russia as kind of distraction of their common interest. They possibly agreed Ukraine would accuse the separatists and Russia would defend them. But they would have a moderate attitude towards each other. Hence, Russia and Ukraine could agree to a cover up of integer research into the cause of the disaster of MH17.

    The old BUK missiles may have a defect or simply a secret security and control code:

    In case of a hidden defect it will be worthless in sales and the manufacturer can be sued for the consequences. This officially never would be admitted to the OVV and JIT. But the secret services of NATO could already be informed for years, so the United States also knows and blackmail Russia. What could be the reason the public never will come to the bottom of this issue. Of course, for Russia the financial loss because of the boycott has become much bigger now, but that they might have not foreseen from the start and now they cannot return without losing face.

    In case of a secret security and control code Ukrainian BUK missiles were protected against theft. Remember that electronic engineer who managed to fix the Ukrainian BUK missiles again.

    Estimated probabilities of scenario 4:

    (P = 0,4): The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system.

    If it was a Russian BUK missile, then there would be a general system failure of BUK missiles. If separatists earlier had stolen Ukranian BUK missiles it could be they did not detect the secret code of Ukraine in their missiles.

    May be to compromise the guidance system of the separatist TELAR, the Ukrainian TELAR had to be in the neighbourhood. That could be a problem. Otherwise a Ukrainian TELAR in Zaroschenske would be able to take control over the BUK missile of Snizhne.

    (P = 0,6): This system guided the missile to MH17.

    This could be somewhat difficult because separatists possibly would notice and defend their missile.

    The total probability of (the very complex) scenario 4:

    (P = 0,4): The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system.

    (P = 0,6): This system guided the missile to MH17.

    Total probability: somewhat more than 0,24 because of dependency.

    But remember the second step is not really needed. This because it will be already concluded from the first step no legal guilt can be assigned and no cause of the disaster can be found. Hence the second step is unnecessary.

  23. AD and Admin:

    I finally found a Russian link that gives technical details of the capability of the BUK TELAR operating independently and operating linked to a command post and KUPOL radar. As it was posted on June 10, 2014, it is unlikely to be contaminated with post-MH17 edits.

    The summary:

    TELAR Fire Dome radar in offline mode:
    65-77 km detection range above 3000 m elevation
    32-41 km detection range at 30-100 m elevation
    21-35 km detection range for helicopters

    TELAR Fire Dome radar in centralized mode linked to KUPOL/Snow Drift and Command Post:
    44 km detection for 3000-7000 m elevation
    21-28 km detection at low altitudes

    Firing sequence duration (detection to launch) in offline mode
    24-27 seconds

    As reference, MH17 would have been 36 km downrange from a Snizhne BUK at 16:19:15, 51 km downrange at 16:18:15, and 66 km downrange at 16:17:15. Gorlivka which is also 66 km downrange from the Snizhne BUK. As we can establish that launch would have been at 16:19:28/30, go to launch command would have been issued no sooner than 16:19:01 assuming a top-notch crew. At that time, MH17 would have been 40 km downrange and directly north of Kirovske and at 10 km elevation, while they have supposedly just received word within the past 45 seconds of a plane just having passed over Gorlivka at 6-7 km in altitude. Why would they have set the radar to look where MH17 is?

    http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/4741089/post327409193/
    (autotranslation by Yandex)

    Army Buk missile system (C)was intended to fight in the conditions of radio jamming with aerodynamic targets flying at speeds up to 830 m/s, at medium and low altitudes, maneuvering with congestion 10-12 units, at ranges up to 30 km, and in the future – and with ballistic missiles “lance”.

    The development was started by the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of 13 January 1972 and involved the co-operation of developers and manufacturers, the basic composition of the corresponding previously involved in the creation of SAM “Cube”.

    For the early strengthening PVO main striking force of the army – armored divisions-with increasing the combat capabilities of the members of these divisions of anti-aircraft missile regiments “Cube” by doubling canalmost by purpose (and ensure the full autonomy of these channels in the process from discovery to defeat the purpose). The decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of 22 may 1974, was ordered to carry out the creation of a Buk missile system in two stages. Had first offered at an accelerated pace to develop missiles and self-propelled fire installation Buk missile system, able to make a start as missiles M and MM away “KUB-M3”. On this basis, using other means of complex “KUB-M3” suggested SAM “Buk-1” (K-1), providing the joint tests in September 1974, while previously prescribed volumes and terms of works on the complex “Buk” to complete a given composition.

    For SAM “Buk-1” supposed to be part of each of the five anti-aircraft missile batteries of the regiment “KUB-M3”, in addition to one self-propelled exploration and guidance and four self-propelled missiles have one propelled fire installationA composition of the Buk missile system. Thus, through the use of self-propelled fire installation with a cost of about 30% of the cost of all other means of batteries of anti-aircraft missile regiment “Cube-MOH” target number of channels was increased from 5 to 10, and the number of combat readiness missiles from 60 to 75.

    In the period from August 1975 to October 1976 SAM “Buk-1” composed of self-propelled vehicles for reconnaissance and guidance SM, self-propelled fire installation A, self-propelled launchers PM, Suhr MM and Mand machine maintenance (MTO) W passed the state tests at the Embensky polygon (head of polygon B. I. Vashchenko) under the guidance of the Commission, which was headed by P. S. Bimbos.

    The test result was obtained detection range of aircraft radar self-propelled missile launcher offline work from 65 to 77 km at altitudes above 3000 m, which at low altitudes (30-100 m) was reduced to 32-41 km Helicopters at low altitudes were found on removal 21-35 km In a centralized mode of operation because of the limited capacity of the issuing of targeting self-propelled vehicles for reconnaissance and guidance SM range of detection of the aircraft was reduced to 44 km for targets at altitudes 3000-7000 m and up to 21-28 km at low altitudes.

    Working time of self-propelled fire installation in standalone mode (from target detection to launch missiles amounted 24-27 seconds. The time of charging and discharging three missiles MM or M was about 9 min.

    When firing missiles M defeat of planes flying at altitudes above 3 km, were provided on a range from 3.4 to 20.5 km, and a height of 3.1 m is from 5 to 15.4 km kill Zone height ranged from 30 m to 14 km, foreign currency exchange option is 18 km away. the Probability of hitting the aircraft with a single SAM M were 0.70-0,93.

    • Andrew, are we supposed to take serious a post or your comment that states in a stand alone mode a BUK is more capable then when it is connected to the full battery of vehicles that go with it?
      Maybe you typed an error?
      Maybe there was an error or maybe that error was intended to be there to throw off calculations in a post you copy pasted from? I do not know.
      But that just does not make sense.

      Fare thee well

      • Boggled:

        In linked mode, the TELAR would receive distant radar data from the KUPOL radar via the Command Post, which is far more capable and further seeing. Its own radar would be used for targetting. The text seems to state the capability of the TELAR’s own radar is purposefully limited in linked mode. The 44 km range given would account for the speed of most aircraft and the reaction time to acquire, fire, and hit them near the outer range of the launcher, which is 35 km.

        The article is very interesting because it confirms what AD asserted regarding autonomous mode being 60-70 km range and also explains the radar range of 42 km provided in Wikipedia, which would be in linked mode. Sometimes, everyone can be right.

        • Thank you for the explanation Andrew, I hope you understand were I am coming from.
          The wording makes it sound to me of being specific to the overall working capabilities of the BUK and Kub.

          Now your statement gives me the impression it is describing more specifically the TELAR Fire Dome and
          how it SPECIFICALLY reacts
          linked up and becoming subservient to the master Snow drift and describes little if anything regarding the overall capabilities of the equipment in a a linked state.
          It is just describing how the Fire Dome of an individual BUK changes in linked or standalone mode.

          Is that correct?
          And do you understand the reason for my initial observations from reading the comment and understand it can be a little misleading?

          Fare thee well

        • And this is LIE.

          • Your statements make much more impression when arguments are added. Please do so or do not post this useless comments. Thank you.

          • AD you might be right, and I give your personal knowledge more weight then I give some poster that Andrew found.
            or Andrew’s understanding of what is written.

            It is not the first time Andrew put a deception in truth.
            Sometimes depends on translation, sometimes depends on understanding of the article and your interpretation of the words in it.
            It also would not be the first time he has made a false statement that does not agree with evidence.

            In many comments, I see Andrew as advanced GRU agent in deception, but in his lies he reveals little facts sometimes that even I did not know.

            This appears to be an article from an old Soviet handbook about a version of a BUK that could launch both KUB and BUK missiles.
            I think Andrew trying to justify why he believed what he believes, but it is not really the facts.
            So I doubt his interpretation of the article.

            These missiles were at end of service life in 1985 if I remember what I read in older book.

            And all of these BUK are destroyed and in junkyard and museum, I believe.

            But I would like to here what you feel is lie, is it Andrew’s comment? Or is it something with article?

            or is it something I say?
            You not direct comment to me or him.
            Thanks in advance for explanation.

            Fare thee well

          • “It is not the first time Andrew put a deception in truth.”

            I’m not trying to decieve anyone. I’ll leave that to people who assert things without reference.

            “It also would not be the first time he has made a false statement that does not agree with evidence.”

            That is outrageous. I’ve never lied here about anything I know.

            “I see Andrew as advanced GRU agent in deception”

            That is really funny. The closest I ever got to being in the military was acing the US Navy ASVAB test at 17 before being forbidden to join by my mother. Being called a GRU agent is hilarious.

            “This appears to be an article from an old Soviet handbook about a version of a BUK that could launch both KUB and BUK missiles.”

            Could be. I found it by searching on Yandex.

            “I think Andrew trying to justify why he believed what he believes, but it is not really the facts.”

            I’m just trying to find facts which are in short supply on this topic. Unlike other people, I did not make up my mind when Anton Geraschenko typed a Facebook post as the plane still burned.

        • This is LIE because describe old TELAR 9A38 (Buk-1) with missile 9M38 and radar 9S35, but B777 shot downed with usage of SA-11 TELAR 9A310M1 (Buk-M1) with missile 9M38 and radar 9S35M1 or even russian 9A310M1-2 (Buk-M1-2).
          Im already tired from all these manipulation with facts. Accidentaly admin is like everyone who bring here myths, fairytales and any lie what protect Russia.

          • correction
            9A310M1 (Buk-M1) with missile 9M38M1

          • AD: I am getting really annoyed by your way of responding and lack of respect for people with other opinions.
            I know you for a long time. In the beginning I trusted you but I now doubt about your intentions. You made a couple of mistakes which does not fit your claimed expertise.

            Let me tell you this: I have serious doubt about the innocence of Ukraine. Ukraine should at least have close the airspace at July 14.
            They started an intensive air attacks on July 16. Knowing BUKs are in the area.
            We need to have answers the main stream media is not going to provide. And we need to know what is true of social media photos of the BUK.

            I appreciate other opinions as it keeps the focus broad and prevents tunnelvision. However, if you do not stick to the rules here you will be banned from posting further comments.

          • Well AD, if it is a “lie”, why don’t you find a reference article for us to use that can settle the matter? I think I asked for that over a month ago. I’m perfectly happy using this article until then, as it seems to match up with much of what you said and its from before 7/17.. I’m not sure why you are so upset with citing it.

            Also, you really could contribute a lot more by not calling everyone a liar and russian trolls and the rest. Just talk civilly to us. We are all just regular people like you.

          • admin said ” I have serious doubt about the innocence of Ukraine. Ukraine should at least have close the airspace at July 14.
            They started an intensive air attacks on July 16. Knowing BUKs are in the area.”

            admin, the first sentence is an opinion.
            The second sentence is an opinion.
            The third sentence “They started an intensive air attacks on July 16.” is not sustained by evidence.
            And the forth sentence “Knowing BUKs are in the area.” can you please provide the evidence that the Ukrainians knew that there was a BUK on their territory prior to July 17 ?

          • Rob:
            you should read a bit more what is written on this website. Or do some research.
            At July 16 many flights were operated. 12 by Ukraine Air Force and 17 helicopters. Ukraine state itself confirmed. Two aircraft were shot at. One destroyed.
            Read here
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/an-overview-of-ukraine-air-force-flying-activities-in-period-july-14-july-17/

            Read this post for an indication that Ukraine knew BUKs were in the area long before MH17 was shot down.
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/another-sighting-of-the-buk-from-a-forgotten-statement/

            Read Michael Kobs his report for inconsistencies in the story of the BUK. http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/many-inconsistencies-in-the-route-of-the-buk/

            At July 14 the airspace should have been closed when the Antonov was shot down. Even if Ukraine was not aware of BUKs in area at that time.

          • Rob:

            “provide evidence the Ukrainians knew their was a BUK on their territory prior to July 17”

            In one of the “Khmuryi” tapes the SBU released, General Petrovsky is recorded saying he is in Marynivka and received BUK-M “this morning” and shot down an SU-25 with it.

            What MORNING would that be?

            Or do you think he would call 2 pm on July 17, “this morning”?

            I’ll sit here twiddling my thumbs while you decided if Sergey Petrovsky is delusional or demented and can no longer tell time or that the SBU is lying and fabricated evidence because “ipse dixit” there were no BUK’s around Saur Mogila prior to 2 pm July 17. I’m feeling very generous – your chocie of what happened. Please let us know your choice since you claim this isn’t evidence.

          • admin said “Read this post for an indication that Ukraine knew BUKs were in the area long before MH17 was shot down.
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/another-sighting-of-the-buk-from-a-forgotten-statement/

            I did.
            And I found that Gerashchenko’s remark about Snizhne as the launch location was misinterpreted by some media as “Ternove”.
            And that Gerashchenko stated “the first half of the day”, as when the BUK arrived in Snizhne area, matches with the Bellingcat timeline where the BUK arrives in Snizhne at around 1pm.

            So I’m not really sure why you state that ” Ukraine knew BUKs were in the area long before MH17 was shot down”, unless you define “3-4 hours” as “long”….

          • Rob: Ukraine authorities reported that BUKs crossed the Russian-Ukr border into Ukraine in the early morning of July 17.
            I assume SBU did not check the webcam located at the border after MH17 was shot down. They must have known at that time BUKs came in. And should have closed airspace.

        • Okay Andrew.
          – I’m not trying to decieve anyone. I’ll leave that to people who assert things without reference.
          [ The article you posted above was deceptive and you had knowledge of its deceptive nature but did not mention it until I called you on it.

          – That is outrageous. I’ve never lied here about anything I know.
          [ You have made statements about what you did not ‘know’ and tried to pass them off as facts.
          Called on them, you are shown to be making a lie by first posting them, that is unless you admit you were incorrect, which I have yet to see you do.

          – Being called a GRU agent is hilarious.
          [ Maybe my statement should have included defense attorney at the end.
          I made a followup comment, but it was removed that included that analogy.
          It was not making a statement that you are, but you must admit, there could be the very real possibility you are.
          I am not asking for your CV, or saying you are.
          I could never prove it, it was more of an analogy.
          Troll factory in a few areas have been already exposed, advanced GRU or FSB agents acting as managers there or as posters are a very likely possibility.

          And just because you live in the USA as you state, I will accept this is truth, does that mean a FSB agent or other never has been bought to give RF information or to spread the ‘Russian side of News’ ?

          Just for the record, make some negative statement about vova.

          – Unlike other people, I did not make up my mind when Anton Geraschenko typed a Facebook post as the plane still burned.
          [ I am glad you didn’t, there are many that did not also, but more and more facts and connections became relevant.
          Yours and others have shown various reasons for challenging the ‘accepted’ theories presented so far.
          And that should be done, I believe in checks and balances.
          A defense attorney or devil’s advocate should have a role to play in order to gains some understanding and to discount some presented ideas.
          All investigators discount theories as new facts and evidence gets presented to them.
          You are playing an important role in the discussion of getting to the bottom of this.
          I hope you understand, RF and vova’s familia stand a lot to lose.
          And they would invest a lot of their laundered money to prevent this from getting blamed on them.
          And for that, anyone who repeats the Kremlin narrative at the same time a Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece states it, that makes you suspect of being a propaganda agent.

          I am not saying you are, just understand there are people like that that exists, and some of them you might read articles from in your defense.
          You serve a good purpose also, because without people like you a lot of people would go to jail that are innocent.
          BUT also with that, a lot of criminals get away with their crime because of people like you and the fact the prosecution did not do their job adequately enough.

          -We are all just regular people like you.
          [ Not all, but I will agree some are.
          You will have to agree from reading some of the posts I am sure you have, there are people on both sides of the equation that use the Soviet method of Maskirovka.
          Moscow has practiced it for a long time, and Russian ‘occupied’ neighbors had to live with it and learn to counter it and use it as well.

          Fare thee well

    • Andrew,
      Do you have any reference for where you obtained that information about a TELAR Fire Dome radar in “off line” mode and “centralized mode linked to KUPOL/Snow Drift ” ?

  24. AD : do you have a source for any of your claims? I’d like to see evidence just to be sure. Thank you

  25. What I mean is the Admin recently said he only wants evidence based claims and that we should back our claims up with at least a url. Can you do that please? Thanks

  26. Scenario 5:

    Admin said: ‘SU-25s were flying very close to passenger aircraft to use as a human shield. On the 18th of June, one month before this disaster, Elena Kolenkina, a Russian separatist in Sloviansk and the wife of rebel commander Arsen Pavlov reported that the Ukrainian Air Force were tailing civilian planes over Eastern Ukraine. The claims, if proven true, indicate that the Ukraine were using civilian aircraft as human shields.’

    [- Elena says SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding, so they could not be touched by the separatists:]

    [(1:32/2:14) This means it was a provocation; they wanted the self-defense force to shoot down an airliner so that the militias can be declared to be terrorists who shoot down airlines. Hundreds of passengers would have died; it would have been a huge catastrophy.]

    Two conclusions:

    The total chance of this scenario (not attacking SU-25) is very high (p = 1) and it very likely has been regularly used by Ukraine. Which means it works perfectly because the separatists do not dare to shoot civilian aircraft.

    The total chance of the scenario (attacking SU-25) seems very low, unless the on-board radar of the BUK missile primarily aims at the object (passenger plane) with the largest mass.

    But whatever scenario we choose, it did not happen with MH17 because there was no BUK in Pol’ove, the village where MH17 was shot down. For this scenario only works within 2 km of the BUK or Pantsir.

    How it works:

    Because separatists are no pilots, tailing civilian planes means they see only one spot on the autonomous radar of the BUK-TELAR. It is not needed the SU-25 also flies on 10 km altitude, because height cannot be seen on the autonomous radar. Hence, the SU-25 flies at 5 km and the civilian aircraft at 10 km. So, if the operator of the BUK only sees one spot on the radar, he is not sure no second (passenger) plane is involved. That’s why separatists will shoot SU-25’s from villages further away than 2 km from that is bombed.

    The strategy:

    At the airbase the SU-25 pilot waits until a civilian plane approaches with a flight path right on the village he wants to bomb. Now he knows the trail also he must fly, he knows the speed of the passenger aircraft (905 km) and the exact time of its arrival above the village. The plane flies at 10 km altitude and the SU-25 at 5 km. Within 2 km from the village the SU-25 dives and bombs the area, after which it rises quickly up to 5 km in the same track:

    MH17: alt=10km;dist=2km;speed=905km;radial speed of MH17=cos78°*905km=177km.
    SU-25: alt= 5km;dist=2km;speed=450km;radial speed of SU-25=cos68°*450km=167km.

    Estimated probabilities of NOT attacking SU-25:

    [- Elena says SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding, so they (could) WILL not be touched by the separatists]

    (P = 1.0): SU-25s were flying very close to passenger aircraft to use as a human shield.
    (P = 1.0): SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding.
    (P = 1.0): Elena said: SU-25 (could) WILL not be touched by the separatists.

    The total probability of scenario 5: Not attacking SU-25 = 1.

    Estimated probabilities of attacking SU-25:

    [(1:32/2:14) This means it was a provocation; they wanted the self-defense force to shoot down an airliner so that the militias can be declared to be terrorists who shoot down airlines. Hundreds of passengers would have died; it would have been a huge catastrophy.]

    (P = 1.0): SU-25s were flying very close to passenger aircraft to use as a human shield.
    (P = 1.0): SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding.
    (P = 0.3): The BUK crew shot at the low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target.

    [There must be statistics or simulations of this chance.]

    (P = 0.1): The missile found a new target being MH17.

    [Arguments: First of all a retarget can only happen if the original target has been destroyed. Also a retarget of a BUK missile is unlikely.]

    [Question: What is the first target? Is it the bigger object or the first object? And what happens after an escape maneuver of SU-25?]

    The total probability of scenario 5: Attacking SU-25:

    (P = 0.3): The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target.

    (P = 0.1): The missile retargeted and found a new target in MH17.

    Total probability: 0.3 times 0.1 = 0.03, a very unlikely scenario.

    Now remember this is a perfect attack strategy for Ukraine because it appears the separatists dare to bet any BUK or Pantsirs. But if they fired a BUK on the SU-25 it might possibly stick to the larger object on radar and attacks the passenger plane in the first place…

    Some off topic moralizing:

    Did Elena Kolenkina accidentally put a fall for Ukraine?

    – The interview with Elena (separatists) was posted on YouTube on 21 June 2014, approximately one month before the attack. Elena Kolenkina alerted the world about an impending disaster with an airplane. But it is unclear whether she realized the scope of her observations that not only separatists but also Ukraine could (let) bring down a civilian plane.

    – Elena also did not realize she implicitly admitted that the separatists in June 2014 already possessed Grads and Pantsirs, which could reach 15 km high to bring civilian aircraft down. Worldwide alarm a month in advance, but missed….

    – This video shows the fear of the separatists for the terrible disaster they desperately tried to avoid. But it also shows Ukrainian government since 18 June SHOULD HAVE BANNED civil aviation. Any delay meant inciting of war crimes by conditional intent with probability consciousness.

    – But from the present scenario we see Ukraine had good reason to sustain civil aviation above 10 km. This because the very peculiar separation of passenger planes and military aircraft at 9,700 meters is in line with and perfectly reflects the measure for the 2 km attack strategy of the army. Hence, civil aviation was not safer above 9,700 meters, on the contrary in this way it was the perfect shield for the bombing of civilian areas. And now, at last, we found the real reason of the Public Statement of the Military:

    – On July 15, it was announced by the military in a Public Statement since July 14 civil aviation was only allowed above 9,700 meters and military aviation was suspended. But actually military flights went on as usual.

    – Both parties, Ukraine and the separatists incited war crimes by conditional intent with probability consciousness. What means separatists here demonstrate to have known the risks of their actions for civilian aircraft, for which they blame Ukraine. But the SBU of Ukraine followed YouTube and has been highlighted by Elena on this potential hazard. The conclusion is both parties are guilty of inciting war crimes by conditional intent with probability consciousness.

    • Basic, please provide proof of SBU and Ukraine government responding and acknowledging Elena’s statements on this matter.
      Yes, there is a possibility of what you allege is being truth and you make compelling argument.
      I have yet to see proof anywhere of UA AirForce actually shadowing a passenger plane, and that claim of her’s needs that proof to back it up.
      Being Motorola’s Gf and wife, she has many reasons to lie, but sometimes a lie is mixed with truth.

      So two items, if you please, proof of shadowing, and proof that UA’s leadership was aware of her statements on this matter and responded to it.

      And just so you know, I do not believe any SU25 were near MH17 at the time of the intentional destruction of it, the BUK can actively target two or more targets and launch missiles at each and whoever manning the BUK would have done just that.
      Your proof of UA fighter jets actively shadowing any time between March 2014 and July 17 2014 will be appreciated.
      Thank you.
      Fare thee well

      • Boggle said: ‘Basic, please provide proof of SBU and Ukraine government responding and acknowledging Elena’s statements on this matter.’

        This question was to be expected and that’s why I placed my moralizing off topic. Long before people were able to prove their theories they first developed wild thoughts in a pre-scientific phase, called ‘brainstorming’. This way, religion of early Homo sapiens can be seen as the first theorizing about the parallel universe without any math of wormholes. Is this all science? No, of course not, but it is a necessary pre-condition of scientific thinking.

        Now, I am only a developer of human thought scenarios and here I am already standing in reality with Elena’s declaration. Also I know the absurd Public Statement of the Military. Now I have two elements I don’t have to prove. To see how they relate, I developed a closure theory. Of course, I am sure at best using civilian airplanes as a shield for bombing civilian areas can only be a tiny part of the measure of the Military. And of course I have no prove, but I state to offer the first tentative technical theory for this bizarre measure.

        And finally, admin asked about: let’s develop some scenarios and he stated: ‘Seeing the behaviour of Russia I put my money on Russian involvement.’ And therefore we are brainstorming prior to the compelling need to prove.

        Now to answer your question more specifically:

        ‘Basic, please provide proof of SBU and Ukraine government responding and acknowledging Elena’s statements on this matter.’

        Indeed, I wondered why so few people noticed this declaration but I take it for granted SBU keeps track on Donetsk affairs on YouTube. Then they must have made up their mind and have come to a conclusion. I do not know their conclusion but hypothesize it could be part of the Public Statement of the Military. So indeed I reject the idea the Secret Service of Ukraine does not keep track on YouTube for Donetsk affairs.

        You stated: ‘I have yet to see proof anywhere of UA AirForce actually shadowing a passenger plane, and that claim of her’s needs that proof to back it up.’

        That’s quite correct.

        You stated: ‘Being Motorola’s Gf and wife, she has many reasons to lie, but sometimes a lie is mixed with truth.’

        Hence, I elsewhere stated earlier:

        http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/07/onderste_steen_seperatisten_sc.html | 17-07-15 | 11:10Yes, but Elena married a few weeks later with the rebel leader. Therefore, some uncertainty is in place if this was not a false flag. Basic Dimension | 17-07-15 | 11:16

        I meant separatists could also have built an alibi to shoot a civilian aircraft. But so far they have not brought a passenger plane down with scenario 5, because no BUK was in Pol’ove. That’s the result of this brainstorm without proof.

        You stated: ‘So two items, if you please, proof of shadowing, and proof that UA’s leadership was aware of her statements on this matter and responded to it.’

        As I stated earlier in brainstorming asking for proof is a form of destruction 🙂

        Finally you stated: ‘And just so you know, I do not believe any SU25 were near MH17 at the time of the intentional destruction of it, the BUK can actively target two or more targets and launch missiles at each and whoever manning the BUK would have done just that.’

        No, don’t think so, the BUK can actively target nothing. It is the operator who launches missiles and it is only your firm conviction he has done that. But, Boggled, to avoid tunnel vision, can you prove your statement?

    • The Elena Kolenkina video may well hurt “rebels” as well as Ukraine in the future,proves foreknowledge off civilian airliners and the risks posed by radar guided SAM use,used anyway.
      as for tailing jets do not buy into it at all as an excuse,would at the least require knowledge of BuK location to try and create single paint on radar due to differences in alt

  27. 2 admin
    What mistakes you talking about? Can you then delete this article please, since im did mistake for provide you info about SA-11
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/

    • Remember you wrote 9N314M does not exist? That was before the AA presentation. M was for dummy/mockup according to you.

      • admin, where exactly did AD state that “M was for dummy/mockup” regarding the 9N314 warhead ?

        The only mention of “mock warhead 9N314M,” appears to be in a Russian report compiled by “Russian military engineers”
        which you brushed off with “I believe this report was made by a Western secret agency to strengthen the BUK theory. ”
        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-newspaper-reports-ukraine-buk-shot-down-mh17-lets-analyze-that/

        • Link what u refer is built on my info which im provide to admin of this site when he was open for true info. When we spot 9N314M warhead im said it can be Mockup warhead. I was wrong. After that im informed admin about it but he was lazy for correct this info and start to hear pro-russian trolls which bring to this site massive wave of lies.

        • admin: comment deleted for constantly using words not allowed on this forum!

          • You can fight with me, im dont worry. At same time your site become as place of ridiculous mh17webtalk trolls with funniest and weirdiest ideas like compromised guidance, redirected missile, Su-25 under cover of B777. Way to go man, Putin’s hall of fame and Maxvandefwerff with his soviet Gaz car waiting for you.

          • I like to give anyone an opportunity to enter their knowledge and opinions. Mind I did have to block some people with weird ideas like a bomb inside the aircraft.
            We need to find all possible pieces of the puzzle to detect what to puzzle looks like. Think about me being a judge. I have to listen to both Ukraine lawyers and Russian lawyers to be able to make up my mind.

          • Ad:
            what can you tell us about the possibility the missile guidance is compromised?
            I understand Finland got rid of the BUK because it found out Russia could remotely do something to make the missile fail once it was shot. Kind of backdoor.

          • You just dont uunderstand differense between ECM and compromised guidance. SA-11 is very vulnerable but cannot be redirected from outer source.
            It is just bullshit – try to understand how work command guidance before believe in that lie.

          • You are correct I do not understand ECM. Actually I know hardly anything about the BUK. That is why I asked you.
            You seem to know a lot.
            So why is SA-11 very vulnerable. To what and what can happen? you have to explain before I can understand.

          • Im already show to you something on 9M38M1 seeker.
            http://i.imgur.com/L73fdfm.jpg
            Number 7 is command-guide antennas which receive from TELAR radar signal of correction and REFERENCE SIGNAL which compared with re-emitted signal from target. So if you trying to compromise signal from other source then own TELAR then you will MISS. Missile just dont recognise a true position relative to target since it receive both signals – reference and target with WRONG DELAY. Also false TELAR must calculate a false command with false angle position of seeker to target. And im dont talking about alphabet of any communication on battle field like frequency change, frequency set, pulse and set of commands.

          • AD, forgive my ignorance, but do you know if have any of the BUK missiles, M1 and later, ever been satellite guidance as a confirmation of reference location and targets location?
            Or is it and has it always been terrestrial based radar that checks and confirms those items?

            Second question, does the missile have to be hardwired to the launcher in order to receive those various codes for communication with the launcher?
            Or is it some sort of wireless signal back and forth?

            Or is it preset in factory with certain command codes, and then once a nation gets them they can change them so they are all in the field with a similar code so they can be launched only by the nation that imports the missiles?

            Last one doesn’t make sense to me, it seems to easy to compromise but I thought I should ask.

            And thank you for making me understand it is not that easy and near impossible to ‘steal’ a SAM in its 20 second flight.
            Might be doable if you had 3-4 minutes and strong enough radar and the codes and a super fast computer, but still very difficult.

            For a BUK it is so difficult to do in that time frame, you would more likely cause the missile to miss any target.

            For example, ECM with a very strong radar and enough of the codes to confuse a missile’s guidance computer.

            Final question, does a BUK have a self destruct to it?
            Thanks in advance.

            Fare thee well

      • Do you know how used missiles in troops? We never seen how warhead is detached. Buk missile had alot incidents with static electricity which explode old warhead so 9M38M1 missile have protection from detach containment 3. Only technical team can detach warhead in their facilities. It why im dont seen M letter on real warhead. But we seen alot 9N314 without M letter and 9N314M warheads which marked as Practice and Practice Dummy, on that im based my opinion 9N314M is next gen of practice/training warheads which have varied opetion and new letter. Also M letter is offten mean Moulage, Mock for training issue.
        Again, when you please delete info about SA-11 from your site? You gather it from me so please complete our relations fair.

  28. Admin to suggest it is possible Russian MoD removed radar paints of UA mil aircraft would run contrary to non stop claims by the same body that UA a/c were in the area.
    as for Rus MoD claims on 5km radar horizon these too are doubtful,would need high ground between area in question and Rostov emitter,also the brief radar appearance of a unidentified craft on the Russian side would seem likely to be a helicopter which would be near/past service limits to breach 5km alt

  29. Reply on: admin // August 23, 2015 at 7:21 pm //

    Admin said: ‘So why would Russia be the first to show an IL76 on Rostov radar? That would be a target for the BUK and a very good reason to shoot. So I can imagine Russia wipes this off the recording. An SU-25 is interesting to show to suggest this shot down MH17 (I am sure SU-25 did not shot down MH17)’

    Good thinking. Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk radar will also keep its mouth shut though also they possess primary radar and of course know about IL-76. Now, if ‘the birdee story’ is true Ukraine would not take the risk of a BUK attack on its IL-76, which plane would take another course. So remember, Russia black mails Ukraine with their tapes of the track of IL-76 and Ukraine black mails Russia with separatists deliberately willing the IL-76 to shoot. NATO and Russia have full proof from their satellites while we are stubborn engaged with radial speed. We must wait for further inspiration, could be an interesting scenario 🙂

    • Russia black mails Ukraine with their tapes of the track of IL-76 because Ukraine did not warn MH17, though they acknowledged to have got the birdee information, so Ukraine is a suspect who has set up a trap for the separatists. They also hang. Becomes even more complicated.

      • This is getting odder by the minute,unrealistic to claim Rus+UA “blackmailing” each other with radar images,if UA aircraft on radar Rus would show it and simply maintain its a fighter,far better than what they had to use in radar presser
        It is good to think out of the box but necessary to stay realistic
        claims such as SU-25 or IL76 were hiding under MH17 hold no water,to do so UA would need to know exact location of BuK launcher as it measures slant range which includes alt as a distance,otherwise we are claiming they simply gambled and launched on one off several targets
        Admin as for missile being compromised,Finland clearly worried about Russian codes/uplinks they could not alter,similar claims about exocet missiles in Falklands conflict

        • Please RB2, we are in a dynamic brainstorming process and I have left ‘blackmailing’ already, see my new comment on scenario 1 below. Also the diving theory has been simplified:

          ‘So, the SU-25 theoretically flies exactly below the civilian aircraft with same radial speed only within 2 km from the BUK. But it all becomes much simpler, because the only thing the pilot must remember is to bomb exactly when MH17 is in the zenith of the BUK. And the trail and speed of the passenger plane he may forget.’

          A further simplification is to expect BUKs and Pantsirs everywhere and always bomb when a passenger plane is in zenith.

          • and there is your problem,if SU-25 flies directly below MH17 at a much lower alt-never mind radial speed at all makes no difference, MH17 is showing as being behind SU-25 not as merging,slant range is different,now there are 2 targets with the SU-25 being closer on radar but not targeted

          • Problem with such people – they dont understand how work radar, especially 9S35.
            They think it just PPI screen with one dot above another dot.

          • Thanks RB2, I know slant range:
            [Because separatists are no pilots, tailing civilian planes means for two planes people see only one object in the sky or about one blip at the autonomous radar of the BUK-TELAR. Hence, it is not needed the SU-25 also flies on 10 km altitude, because height cannot be seen on the autonomous radar. What does not mean blips of two planes immediately coincide because the radar measures slant range which differs. But with the same radial speed they will converge into a single point just above the BUK. And within 2 km they certainly are falling together]

          • Basic Dimension said ” it is not needed the SU-25 also flies on 10 km altitude,But with the same radial speed they will converge into a single point just above the BUK”
            no they won’t,radial speed is not important,BuK reads slant range,distance from emitter to target,includes alt,this is not the same as downrange distance,decking a SU-25 under MH17 would show 2 targets with MH17 further away than the lower SU-25

          • Reply on RB2 // August 24, 2015 at 4:27 pm //

            Well RB2 as I understand slant range shrinks on its way to the zenith of the BUK, eventually stabilizing to the difference in height of both planes. So, there must be an increasing blurr. But of course, its not my profession, so will you please be so kind as to press my name, then the third article is Counter-espionage with MH17. It starts with the dive theory of SU-25. Please do me a favor and skip most profound errors. Thanks

          • Basic Dimension said “slant range shrinks on its way to the zenith of the BUK”
            correct still shows on BuK as different range,to merge signal need to know exact location off BuK emitter and stage behind MH17 quite far due to alt differences,all very unlikely

          • Well RBS, thanks for your reaction. I think slant range ultimately shrinks to the different altitudes of the planes. Hence a difference remains and the higher plane will stabilize further from zenith than SU-25. And I started positioning the location of the BUK emitter as a condition.

            But now we take the next step and suggest for maximum psychological confusion in the mind of the operator of the BUK complete blurring could be counterproductive. On reflection, the deterrent effect might be greatest when both blips are as close as possible but just not blurring. Then, firing a BUK missile possibly will be more difficult than not knowing whether there is a second plane. Because we know Helena was frightened just because she knew of a passenger plane.

            The only thing the SU-25 pilot has to remember is to throw off his bombs when the civilian aircraft is in zenith of the village. A more optimal distraction seems not possible. So he forgets about the BUK, the Pantsir and Manpads. How about that?

          • Basic Dimension-slant range will never narrow enough with the huge difference in alt for there ever to be only a single blip,SU-25 would be the one showing as closest even if under MH17 so would be targeted
            with respect all your conjecture relies on UA knowing the exact location of the BuK which is not so,any claim of SU-25 being used has to accept it was visible to BuK radar and therefore only some sort of hopeful gamble BuK would not target it which defeats the purpose claimed

          • Comment on RB2 // August 24, 2015 at 6:53 pm //

            Yes RB2 thanks, due to the persistent difference in altitude at the same ground track the blips will not converge further than admitted by the different heights. Therefore we now enlarge the ground track of the SU-25 so that it compensates for the larger slant range of the civilian aircraft. On its way to the village the SU-25 may fly lower, but now he will fly far behind the passenger aircraft on the circle his slant range describes to the earth, which defines the uncorrected slant range of the airliner at the ground.
            Then, the airliner describes likely a convex path on the radar which the SU-25 has to mimic. For distraction, two SU-25s at 5 km altitude perform also convex paths as they throw their bombs. Then, big confusion should arise. And about the presence of BUKs, Pantsirs or Manpads the SU-25 pilot will not bother. How about that?

    • Basic Dimension, admin,
      Let me get this straight.
      You guys are suggesting that :
      (1) in the radar beam of the Snizhne “separatist” BUK towards MH17, there was a Ukrainian IL76, and
      (2) The missile that this BUK in Snizhne fired missed the IL76, and subsequently hit MH17, and
      (3) That IL76 was detected on the Russian Ministry of Defense radar images, and
      (4) The Russian Defense Ministry decided to REMOVE that radar target from their July 21 presentation, and
      (5) instead the Russian Defense Ministry used the pieces of falling debris from MH17 to argue that Ukrainian fighter jets where near MH17 at the time it was taken down, and
      (6) Ukraine Dnipropetrovsk radar also detected that IL76, but decided to keep their mouth shut because of some game of “blackmail” between Russia and Ukraine ?

      Did I get that right ?

      • No, that is not what I say. What I mean is: the recording of Rostov rader could possibly not reflect the true situation. People should consider that Russia altered the tapes and for instance removed another high flying aircraft like an IL76.

        Mind the believe of separatists they shot down an Antonov 26 could have been sourced from social media. I have never read a official statement of separatists of what they believed they targeted.

        We cannot remove a scenario unless it is proven that scenario did not happen.
        For me it is very unlikely both a spotter and BUK crew mistook a low, slow flying propellor aircraft with a much faster and higher flying jet aircraft.

        • admin said “No, that is not what I say. What I mean is: the recording of Rostov rader could possibly not reflect the true situation. People should consider that Russia altered the tapes and for instance removed another high flying aircraft like an IL76.”

          That only addresses my point (4).

      • If separatists BUK shot down MH17 – does it mean separatists killed 298 people? Why you need bring mythical Il-76, Su-25 anything else, if murders is murders anyway?
        And terrorists dont said – they targetting other plane (military) instead of MH17. No! They said they dont do it because they dont have Buk, but Ukraine did it.

        • AD: can you explain why a BUK crew shot down a civil aircraft? I am pretty sure a Russian BUK shot down MH17. But they story is not so simple as it is written in the Western newspapers.
          BTW: what about your Tweet a couple of weeks ago the location is not south of Snizhne but more north?

          • Crew of SA-11 TELAR did their job and did it well, from one missile on inbound target, all by tutorial.
            There is no job of TELAR separate targets, crew must communicate with high rank commander (battery commander or higher, depend from organisation of SA-11) which have all necessary for separate civilian from military targets as info from CP/TAR and ATC net or ATC dispatchers and flightplans.
            Experienced crew (officer mostly) can find difference between B777, Il-76, An-26 or Su-25. But it work only for Country Air Defense which work hard even in peaceful time so have working mechanism (safety stepa – verification, confirmation, controlled deploymant) for dont kill civilians each day. Only Ukraine use SA-11 in such manner. Russia dont have it in country air defense but in army air defense what mean ready for kill anyone non-friendly in war time.
            So russian crew was not prepared to work in autonoumus mode and separate civilians from military targets. They found target on screen and kill it. All what and how they learned. Im bet, they was even proud as far they just complete order for protect sky. Sky was full ov civilians but it is closed info for army air defense which use their launchers only during firing exercise (on poligons with closed airspace) or during wartime (where no mercy and no civilians).
            My location is same – possible launch from point
            48.026818, 38.693527
            with some deviation.

          • AD
            It could be a simple as that. However I think it is hard to believe a BUK crew shots down an unidentified target in an airspace not closed for civil aviation.
            We do not know what the crew has been told nor what they saw with their own eyes. Did they see contrails of civil aircraft? Did they switch on their radar at the very last minute? Did they check their optical sytem?

            How did you determine that possible launchspot? Why there and not somewhere else?

          • AD: you wrote: My location is same – possible launch from point
            48.026818, 38.693527
            with some deviation.

            How did you determine this location? Why not south of Snizhne?

          • Who said to TELAR crew if airspace is dont closed? TELAR crew commander rank is not high enough for ask this info. And all separatists was wonder why planes still fly here.
            Crew probably receive simple order – protect area from ukrainian inbound planes, may be they receive another order = shot down plane at certain time (by spotting or intel).
            TOV ( TV-optical visor) was blind since clouds in area.
            Crew can turn on on radar in last minutes (it can be their first switch on or one of series) or just wait target with certain direction (in direction of Snizhne from Dnipro or Kramatorsk).
            Anyway, TELAR can detect target but cannot show it B777 without well-trained crew with experience during peaceful time. And Russia dont have such experience for SA-11 in troops.

          • Separatists had a sort of believe civil aircraft was not possible anymore around July 15-16. I believe at July 15 a communication tower at Donetsk airport was destroyed.
            http://tass.ru/en/world/741192 & http://slavyangrad.org/2014/07/16/briefings-july-14-16-2014/
            One of the separatists spokemand said some time ago MH17 was illegaly handed over from Kiev to Dnjepropetrovsk air traffic control.
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/more-nonsense-from-pro-russians-ukraine-atc-directed-mh17-under-missile-fire/

            At that time I did not understand that remark. Could it be the separatists believed by sabotage of the communications tower Dnjepropetrovsk was not able to control civil aircraft anymore?

            Or was the shot down a deliberate act to make sure the airspace would be closed? As other measures like sabotage did not help.

          • Any reason why russian TELAR shot down MH17 is nothing since Russia broke safety of usage so deadly weapon. And after it, Russia start to lie to everyone who did it and how.

          • AD:

            The MH17 article by CORRECT!V claimed to have talked to people from the 53rd Regiment in Kursk. It is stated in the article that only an officer would have permission to fire a BUK, and that the officers were highly trained and went through special military school devoted to air defense. Conscripts might be so fortunate as to simply drive a BUK on the road before their term of service was up. This is completely at variance with your claims that the Russians are poorly trained.

            Also, I understand that nearly 10 years ago, Russia began the reorganization of the position of the air defense assets to be under the control of the air force. When you say that they are part of the ground forces, you don’t seem to be aware of this change. See this article.

            http://www.vko.ru/voennoe-stroitelstvo/kak-stroit-vko-v-sovremennyh-usloviyah

          • Admin:

            “Separatists had a sort of believe civil aircraft was not possible anymore around July 15-16. I believe at July 15 a communication tower at Donetsk airport was destroyed.”

            All they had to do was look up on July 16 to see civil aviation in the sky. There are pictures posted I believe to the “Overhead in Torez” vKontakte group from July 16 showing civil aircraft in the sky.

            But, yes, some may have had that belief. They had after all destroyed the tower at Donetsk as you notice, and also the radars at Spartak/Donetsk, Lugansk, and I think at Severodonetsk. I understand that in Soviet times Donbass was under the control of Rostov, not Dnipropetrovsk, which makes sense based on the distance to the control centers. As I have said before, it would be interesting to know what capabilities Dnipr Control actually had on July 16/17, and how much it relied on equipment at Donetsk to act as a source of information and control. The discussion on the MH17 transcript makes it seem as if Dnipr did not have primary radar coverage over Donbass, as he asks Rostov what he sees instead of stating what is on his own screen.

            (1) Did Dnipr control ever have primary radar coverage of Donbass from the Dnipropetrovsk radar installation? (2) Was this only provided by equipment in Donbass?

          • Andrew: those are good and valid questions. Lets see what the final DSB report will say about what kind of ATC sources they used.

          • Conscripts used in TELAR crew for detect and lock target if computer cannot separate target from noise signal or on early stage of detection.
            Conscripts after a few months of training have BETTER skill for guide TELAR (firing part and guidance) then any officer. Officer in TELAR crew need for planning work and last step of safety – decision for open fire after confirmation and veification from major commander. Also commander know how work TELAR in theory and on practice, can fix minor details and understand how to use TELAR as part of battery.
            You can try to show officer is better sharpshooter then regular soldier-sniper but in really soldier-sniper can hit target much better when officer command much better to bunch of soldiers.
            And you again wrong with Air Force and SA-11. Russian Country Air Defense now is part of Air Force since it do same function – protect country airspace. But SA-11 work as Point Defense for keypart points like airbase. They dont used during peaceful time and dont have ability for protect country airspace. If you look on deplyoment of SA-11 as part of Air Force then you will see it positioned near airbase and INCLUDED in organisation structure with other air defense systems. All-time work in peacufel time have only S-300/S-400 units as Country Air Defense and Country Anti-Ballistic Defense.
            Another story is Army Air Defense. SA-11 have fully unfolded structure in it, based on CP/TAR +TELAR+TEL organisation where SA-11 and only it can be used during war time. Sometimes it reduced to TELAR+TEL organisation if SA-11 included in brigade/division of ground troops. I hope you dont believe in usage of SA-11 and ground troops without war time?

          • Hector Reban // August 24, 2015 at 3:42 pm //

            AD: “So russian crew was not prepared to work in autonoumus mode and separate civilians from military targets.”

            Precisely why Russian generals would not hand over such an advanced weapon. Its as highly irrational as it is likely.

            The peddling of this insane Russian Roulette scenario combined with some really ill-invented false flags (Russians picking the wrong village to shoot down an own airplne and the Snizhne bombing) is telling us a lot – as is of course the remarkable absence of any American back-up as evidence is concerned.

            All my money goes to the Ukrainians as ill deemers are ill doers and there are some evil crazy bastards running around in government circles and beyond.

          • There is now other way for Russia to support terrorists. Russia cannot openly invade on Ukraine with full organisation of SA-11 battery/division since separatists captured only TELAR without CP/TAR.
            So Russia provided “captured and repaired” TELAR which used like frag grenade in monkeys hands.

          • If local people were aware of the airliners:
            https://vk.com/wall235893372_14659

            Then surely any imaginary BUK crew was aware of what was going on in their hunting ground.

          • Hector Reban // August 25, 2015 at 5:59 am //

            AD: “So Russia provided “captured and repaired” TELAR which used like frag grenade in monkeys hands.”

            Maybe that sounds rational when you are anti-Russian enough, but of course its completely bogus.

            Heard before of a power supplying heavy weapons to monkeys to take care they fire blindly and cause an international conflict diametrically opposed to the interests of the supplier?

            Don’t fool me, bro.

          • Hector said “a power supplying heavy weapons to monkeys to take care they fire blindly and cause an international conflict diametrically opposed to the interests of the supplier?”

            Yes. That does not make any sense.
            Not to mention that IF Russia supplied that BUK to the “monkeys” in Eastern Ukraine, that they seriously endangered their own air fleet.

            It makes much more sense that the Russians kept control of this operation at all times.

        • I agree AD. The official position of the rebels stated in a press conference within 4 hours of the wreck on the evening of the 17th was that a Ukrainian Sukhoi shot down MH17, that this was witnessed by numerous people, and that they do not have a BUK.

          Everything else regarding claims of what the rebel position consists of is social media malinformation. Whether or not their statement is true is another matter, but lets at least credit their official position for what it is.

          • Andrew said “The official position of the rebels stated in a press conference within 4 hours of the wreck on the evening of the 17th was that a Ukrainian Sukhoi shot down MH17,”

            Yes. And look how there is ZERO evidence for that assertion by the “rebels”.

      • Re-estimating probabilities of scenario 1:

        Conclusion: (p = .01): IL-76 en route of MH17, with self-informed separatist spotter.

        (P = .8): ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft below 9,700 meters.’

        ======
        Separatist spy or Ukraine double spy:
        ======
        Separatist spy:

        (P = .3): ‘A separatist spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

        Remember Andrew’s analyses showing there were big logistical problems for a separatist spotter to identify any (military) aircraft in this time and place path.

        —-
        AN-26 or IL-76:
        ——
        IL-76: (Remember in this scenario a real IL-76 was en route).

        (P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target at 11 km, INTERFERING WITH civilian planes. But, because separatist did not use Flightradar this would come down to Russian roulette in the higher areas, which they feared.

        Remember Andrew’s analyses showing there were big logistical problems for separatist spotters to identify the IL-76 in its time and place path, where they obviously used no Flightradar on a rather overcast day. The spotter really could not have the slightest clue to identify IL-76. He must have warned the operator of the BUK for uncertainty about this IL-76 observation and not to confound it with civilian aircraft. Concluding separatists had no clue at all about the identity of that so called IL-76. They were completely unable to identify above 10 km, otherwise they would have identified MH17. (In case of Flightradar, IL-76 had its ABS-B responder off.)

        (P = 0,01): Truth of: message intercepted by Ukraine. (‘Birdie coming towards you).

        Our assumption is the SBU had real time information about phone calls of the separatists. Also remember Ukraine must have known Rostov’s primary surveillance radar would follow the track of IL-76.

        So, if Ukraine trapped MH17 (with a real IL-76) it never would admit foreknowledge by ‘Birdie coming towards you’. They would only just in time change the course of IL-76 to sacrifice MH17.

        Hence, a real IL-76 in the sky does not fit with the downing of a passenger plane by the separatists on behalf of Ukraine.

        And a real IL-76 in the sky combined with the Birdie story certainly would compromise Ukraine (because no general alarm given).

        Because if Ukraine was not setting a fall for the separatists – and a real IL-76 was en route – they would have aired ‘Birdie coming towards you’ AND they would have warned MH17 on the same course immediately, what they didn’t.

        Hence, if someone obviously planned to target a real flying IL-76, – there probably was no other Birdie in the sky – Ukraine would have given a total alarm for all civilian planes above 9,700 meters in Donetsk.

        The conclusion must be there was NO real IL-76 en route (also there was NO AN-26 in the sky).

        Hence, Ukraine ‘knew’ (by Birdie) the danger for all passenger planes but they did not warn, because there was no trail to warn for. That’s because there probably was no military plane in the sky. But then how the separatists got this information in the first place?

        Therefore, we are inclined to conclude there was no self-informing separatist spotter involved at all and the Birdie message never existed. And there were also no military planes in the sky because that could compromise Ukraine. Ukraine is in a big mess with this scenario because now only the double agent remains.

        Conclusion:

        The total probability of a Ukrainian military plane is near zero. We conclude there was no self-informed spotter of the separatists involved and there also was no ‘Birdie’ message. Because we concluded no IL-76 was in the sky, we need not judge about Russia cleaning its radar.

  30. Since all of these scenarios suffer from severe issues, let me add one more scenario, which IS sustained by evidence :

    6) Russia’s Defense Ministry established a data link between their BUK units in the Kuybyshevo area and the TELAR in Snizhne.
    A high-level call came in from Moskow to switch on the radar at 17:20 Moskow time and shoot down the target that was approaching from 115 deg.

    • Rob: can you provide evidence for this scenario? Such a link suggest the crew in TELAR at Snizhne knew they were targetting a civil aircraft. Or at least the crew in Kuybyshevo area knew because of advanced radar there.

      • sotilaspassi // August 25, 2015 at 10:20 am // Reply

        To me Ukraine@war supports that scenario as well.
        (I just think it’s way too sick and criminal scenario to be real.)

        • I have seen various claims done by Ukraineatwar which does not make sense at all. It does not help the owner of this site is 100% PRo Kiev.

          • sotilaspassi // August 25, 2015 at 12:42 pm //

            It’s only 95% PRo Kiev. 😉
            (I’m sure he has done some anti-kiev articles, for example about Ilovaisk.)
            Otherwise there is a lot of good stuff with source material. But as with every thing on internet, one must look deep in before one knows what to trust.
            Likewise, your site might look pro-kreml here & there. But having gone through a lot of your writings, all seems pretty ok and balanced.

            No-one of us know all about everything and all of us do mistakes, etc.

          • I would not call my site pro-Kremlin. Have a look at a number of postings. For example this one
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-radar-does-not-show-any-ukraine-fighter-aircraft/

            Many more posts debunk the nonsense from Kremlin.

            But there is nonsense from the state of Netherlands as well. And from CNN. And from Ukraine state.

            I try to do my best to keep my site as unbiased as possible.

      • The thing that is scary about my deliberate scenario, is that it is the ONLY scenario that fits with all the evidence we have. Russian BUK, from the 53rd brigade, came with Russian crew, drove to Snizhne, and shot MH17 down via a command from their superiors.

        The BUK crew did not know that it was a civilian plane. They just followed the order to shot down the target approaching from 115 deg. Well trained, they could have noticed that this was a large jet plane moving fast and the TELAR radar elevation spread (AD please fill me in) is something like 2 deg (800 meter altitude error at 25 km), so if they were alert and informed they may have deduced that the plane was flying close to the closed airspace limit. but they probably could not determine that it was flying above that limit.

        So, yes, the only thing that would be required would be a ruthless chain of command from the top (if MH17 was shot down deliberately, there is no question where this command came from) down to the commander who instructed the BUK crew.

        Unfortunately, there is an amble supply of ruthless commanders in charge of Russia right now.

        • And may I note that the “deliberate” scenario also explains the circumstantial evidence of Russia’s direct involvement :

          1) If the BUK came from Russia, but under “separist” control, why did Russia continued to fly their commercial airliners over Eastern Ukraine on the 17th ?
          You don’t do that if you just handed over a BUK to some untrained (what some call) “monkeys”.

          2) And if the BUK was captured by the “separatists” from the Ukrainian army (for which there is no evidence at all by the way) then why didn’t Russia just cooperate with the Dutch and extradite the “separist” in charge ?

          3) Either way, (1) or (2) there is NO reason for the Russian Defense Ministry to lie through their teeth on the 21st of July. Especially the hypocrisy of using the radar reflections of the pieces of MH17, while 298 people were falling to their death, to blame Ukraine for flying SU25s around MH17 is truly mind boggling, And it tells something about the extent to which Russia went to not just put up smoke and mirrors around this crime, but actively use it to blame somebody else. Ukraine in this case.

          • 1.
            a) Russia dont worry about civilians all time. Military commanders with Putin stay away from any investigation or justice. It clearly show submarine Kursk, Tu-154 of Siberia Airlines, victims of Chechen and Georgia wars.
            b) After transfer TELAR, Russia can believe in usage against military a/c. Russia all time provide military intel to separatists. Only their fault – ppl who involved in transfer and usage of SA-11 Telar didnot know about limited info which receive 9S35M1 radar on TELAR and dont worried about safety steps (connect with high commander at least). It happen because all action was hided and who order do it, who towed it, who received it, who used it and who give order like search zone, deploy loc – all them was DIVIDED by individual humans dont belonging to same UNIT (SA-11 division for example).
            Look – order to transfer can give general of GRU (which have zero knowledge about SA-11 TELAr and how it must be used for safety), tranfer make one of colonel from Kursk air defense brigade which receive order to give one launcher, someone towed it, russian or separatist crew (for example Fedor Berezin) using it after receive order from separatist commander where deploy it and from what direction and what time wait target (or start work when ready). All these people complete their own task but without understanding what they doing and why it wrong.
            2. Russia in state of war with NATO and believe in NATO legions on Ukraine and nazi in that country. So no wonder Russia DONT COOPERATE with western country and member of NATO. Anyway, separatists is controlled by russian GRU and FSB which never reveal their plans to public.
            3. Again, Russian in state of war with NATO and USA. Ukraine is just battlefield where Russian fight with West. This is reason for LIE – all good on war. All lie of russian DoD already debunked. No trust for them.

          • Monkey can shot down planes just for fun. Russia dont know how weapon can be used in terrorists hands.
            Look and enjoy their fun.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFK_xxvY9ws

          • AD: what is your opinion on what is written at buran.ru.
            http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm

          • Rob, intriguing scenario, all scenarios must be taken seriously.

            You wrote: ‘A high-level call came in from Moskow to switch on the radar at 17:20 Moskow time and shoot down the target that was approaching from 115 deg.’

            If this scenario should have a chance of success, an additional degree of freedom should be given splitting the command of the Russian army: then we have got two opposing faces of the Russian Army:

            1: Russia’s Defense Ministry.

            2: A renegade faction within the Russian Army.

            Russia obviously has no motive and therefore is above suspicion, but it does not apply to factions within the military who acted on their own and wanted to force a war with Ukraine:

            [ Other scenarios

            – But in addition to a double agent of the Ukrainian army there are other possibilities:

            – 1: A renegade faction within the Ukrainian army could have escaped the army to control their own policies. Then the double agent possibly came from this insurgent group.

            – 2: The same could have occurred within the Russian army, where officers with their own agenda may want to start a war between Russia and Ukraine.

            – But official Russian involvement seems excluded. Because it is totally unlikely Russia under Putin would send troops to Donetsk to take the risk to shoot a Western airliner under the command of the separatists and unaccompanied by Rostov radar or a BUK target acquisition radar vehicle (TAR).

            – That would be tantamount to suicide of Russian foreign policy. Therefore the intentional shooting down of MH17 should be excluded and as stated radar guidance also removes the possibility MH17 has been shot by mistake. Therefore, the official Russian army will not have shot down MH17.

            – But in case of rebellious Russian officers, they may have given a solitary BUK TELAR to Russian mercenaries or separatists, only with the intention of shooting a Western civil airliner to rebel against their own government which they blame not to occupy Ukraine.

            – And in a completely solitary action rebellious Russian officers may have launched a BUK SA-17 with a 9M317 missile from Russian territory near Snizhne because MH17 flew within 50 km of the Russian border. In that case, the shrapnel fragments should be rods or “parallelepipeds’ (diamond shaped craters) (unconfirmed).

            – Destabilization of the Russian army is a major threat to world peace.

            (Parallelepiped = a three-dimensional hexagon, all of whose sides consist of parallelograms which are pairwise equal.)]

            Now we can change your script in a deliberate action of the operator of the BUK:

            [‘The BUK crew KNEW that it was a civilian plane. They just followed the order to shot down the target approaching from 115 deg. Well trained, they NOTICED that this was a large jet plane moving fast and the TELAR radar elevation spread (AD please fill me in) is something like 2 deg (800 meter altitude error at 25 km), so THEY were alert and informed.’]

            This statement remains:

            ‘So, yes, the only thing that would be required would be a ruthless chain of command from the top (if MH17 was shot down deliberately, there is no question where this command came from) down to the commander who instructed the BUK crew.
            Unfortunately, there is an amble supply of ruthless commanders in charge of Russia right now.’

            You wrote: ‘And may I note that the “deliberate” scenario also explains the circumstantial evidence of Russia’s direct involvement:

            1) If the BUK came from Russia, but under “separist” control, why did Russia continued to fly their commercial airliners over Eastern Ukraine on the 17th ?
            You don’t do that if you just handed over a BUK to some untrained (what some call) “monkeys”.’

            The BUK was not under separatist control and Russian government was not yet informed about this renegade action. And this renegade faction would welcome the BUK shooting down a Russian aircraft because they desperately wanted an invasion into Ukraine.

            But for some reason they have chosen MH17. Deliberately because they possessed all kind of radar equipment. May be those officers did not want a Russian invasion of Ukraine, cause in fact they blamed Ukraine and the separatists. Hence, the flaw in this script is they should have known the enormous damage brought to the separatists and that’s why it is not my favorite. This only has a very, very low total chance.

            You wrote: ‘2) And if the BUK was captured by the “separatists” from the Ukrainian army (for which there is no evidence at all by the way) then why didn’t Russia just cooperate with the Dutch and extradite the “separist” in charge ?’

            That’s because – as the Russian government later concluded – not separatists but a Russian renegade faction was involved. BTW, I would not cooperate with the Dutch either 🙂

            You wrote: ‘3) Either way, (1) or (2) there is NO reason for the Russian Defense Ministry to lie through their teeth on the 21st of July. Especially the hypocrisy of using the radar reflections of the pieces of MH17, while 298 people were falling to their death, to blame Ukraine for flying SU25s around MH17 is truly mind boggling, And it tells something about the extent to which Russia went to not just put up smoke and mirrors around this crime, but actively use it to blame somebody else. Ukraine in this case.’

            Just by adding an extra degree of freedom all arguments are in line. But now motives of the renegade faction are incorrect and seem completely false. In this scenario Russian government really must have been shocked about what happened. Just as we do they developed all kind of scenarios (not to blame Russia). If the official Russian government deliberately would have shot down MH17, it would never react as childish, silly and stupid as they did but would have offered a clever defense.

          • Basic Dimension said : “Russia obviously has no motive and therefore is above suspicion”

            Yellow flag going up right there.

            Basic Dimension said ” If the official Russian government deliberately would have shot down MH17, it would never react as childish, silly and stupid as they did but would have offered a clever defense.”

            That is just a bad excuse for the way in which the Russian Defense Ministry, and the state controlled media, reacted to this crime over the past year.

          • Basic dimension: double red flag up right here.
            A shot down does not need a motive. An error is by far the most likey scenario. Remember the VS shot down an Iran Air A300 using all the intel and crew available. So chance on error was in that case far lower then MH17.

          • Comment on: Rob // August 26, 2015 at 10:06 am //

            Rob, I would like to see reasonable motives for the Russians to start with. In my opinion, if we first have logical foundations eventually then if needed we can modify the script and place accidental errors and fancies of subordinated. But starting with random errors as a base creates far too many illogical degrees of freedom, and probably will not converge to the true scenario.

            Rob said: ‘Basic Dimension said ” If the official Russian government deliberately would have shot down MH17, it would never react as childish, silly and stupid as they did but would have offered a clever defense.” That is just a bad excuse for the way in which the Russian Defense Ministry and the state controlled media, reacted to this crime over the past year.’

            No, the Russian reaction is quite understandable within the split model, but indeed, otherwise it is not.

            Comment on: Admin // August 26, 2015 at 10:18 am //

            Admin said: ‘Basic dimension: double red flag up right here.
            A shot down does not need a motive. An error is by far the most likey scenario. Remember the VS shot down an Iran Air A300 using all the intel and crew available. So chance on error was in that case far lower then MH17.’

            People can learn from their mistakes. If we deny this a priori probability we easily run into tunnel vision. Then, all kinds of terrorists could be given an alibi in advance, for deliberately committing war crimes. Hence we better start with a logical balanced scenario to begin with and only implement accidental errors and stupid acts of subordinates if needed in the second instance.

          • Russia nor the separatists had any motive to shot down a civil airliner. The conspiracy from Ukraine that an Aeroflot aircraft was targeted and crew mistook the name of village is too stupid to even consider.

            You say “people can learn from mistakes”
            ???
            The BUK crew most likely was for the first time in the field without an commander and radar systems. An error is by far the most likely cause.
            It is likely Ukraine increased the chances for this error (not closing airspace, double spy provinding false info)

          • admin // August 26, 2015 at 11:42 am //

            I think we might agree.

            Admin said: ‘Russia nor the separatists had any motive to shot down a civil airliner.’

            Well, I don’t know, I mean I can’t imagine any Russian motive unless by adding some degrees of freedom. But I can imagine the United States shooting down an Iranian airliner without an extra degree and I don’t trust their analyses.

            Admin said: ‘The conspiracy from Ukraine that an Aeroflot aircraft was targeted and crew mistook the name of village is too stupid to even consider.’

            Don’t remember to have said that. But indeed, without a motive I would try another scenario. That’s why I first made an inventory of all the motives of parties in conflict.

            Admin said: ‘The BUK crew most likely was for the first time in the field without an commander and radar systems. An error is by far the most likely cause.
            It is likely Ukraine increased the chances for this error (not closing airspace, double spy provinding false info)’

            Now you first said: neither Russia nor the separatists had any motive what seems plausible, so they had no reason at all to shoot on a civilian aircraft. But this is not a healthy scenario.

            But in the second instance you modified your theory and placed Ukraine at the beginning of the script. And indeed, Ukraine had some interesting motives. But now it has become a healthy scenario and in the rebound it is possible to change parameters and add some mistakes of the separatists. So we might agree a scenario needs a motive to shoot down a civil airliner.

            And because I am a conservative thinker I still insist on the deliberate kill of MH17.

            If we already start with an illogical random configuration of parameters (there was no motive) and try to find a minimum for that function, then some improved method of steepest descent will probably get stuck in local minima (separatists shot MH17 unintentionally JUST BECAUSE we went from that they had no motive). This outcome would be the result of circular reasoning giving terrorists an alibi.

            Hence, every scenario must start with a plausible theory with at least a motive. Then if we do not like the resulting alleged local minimum, in the rebound whatever random variation in human error can be introduced, hopefully to arrive at a lower and possibly real local minimum (the truth) of the function.

          • Basic, you really should not get off with a comment like –

            Russia obviously has no motive and therefore is above suspicion, but it does not apply to factions within the military who acted on their own and wanted to force a war with Ukraine:

            And – – But official Russian involvement seems excluded. Because it is totally unlikely Russia under Putin would send troops to Donetsk to take the risk to shoot a Western airliner under the command of the separatists and unaccompanied by Rostov radar or a BUK target acquisition radar vehicle (TAR).

            Russia under Vova has had two serious wars started under false pretenses and lies.
            And then lies through Kremlin sponsored media to support it to the Russian population.
            Both Chechen and Georgian, and other conflicts, were created by Kremlin insiders to become a peacekeeping mission, but what it was was actually an invasion force that split up those countries.

            The Kremlin is crazy like that under Vova, so no, if you can say that and believe it –
            – But in case of rebellious Russian officers, they may have given a solitary BUK TELAR to Russian mercenaries or separatists, only with the intention of shooting a Western civil airliner to rebel against their own government which they blame not to occupy Ukraine.

            Then Vova is just as capable.

            Fare thee well

        • SA-11 TELAR near Snizhne dont have way to connect with CP/TAR so dont receive any info about civilian flights. Also firing team dont receive info like NOTAMs. They receive only orders and guidance from CP/TAR. So TELAR commander have a lack of info and cannot make a right decision. It why SA-11 TELAR dont used in country air defense, only in point air defense (in cause of attack when war started) and army air defense (when no presence of civilians).
          TELAR dont make decision for attack target by precision alt on screen. All what operator saying to commander (or TELAR commander to unit commander) is difficulty of target – high-alt, low-alt or ballistic, hover, plane. group target. Such info need for correct algorythm of attack (curve trajectory of flight, detonation delay etc).
          TELAR crew even dont see a certain alt of target till it locked because alt is result of calculation by Argon-15 computer for locked target.

    • Rob:

      Can you provide any evidence at all of Russian BUK units at Kuybyshevo on July 17?

        • Admin:

          Regarding the Ukraine@War post, the source @finriswolf is a prevaricating liar and deception artist – and as you should know this is very harsh language for me to use.

          First of all, his location provided 47.811891, 38.959433 is 43 km from the Hrabove crash site, not the 30 km he claims. It is also 47 km from the supposed intercept point of the last FDR position depicted by the DSB. This is also not some innocent mistake on his part where he meant to write “miles” and instead wrote “kilometers” as if he does not know how to measure in Google Earth or confuses imperial and metric measuring systems. He is trying to imply this battery is in place and available to shootdown MH17 or at least link up to the rebel “lone-BUK”, which it is not.

          Secondly, his images are not from “June to December of 2014” as he claims. You can check an August 8, 2014 image on Terraserver.com and see that there have not been any BUK’s in the field he locates as there are no tracks, no field tents, and no vehicles at that time. You can also see September 14, 2014 images on Terraserver and Google Earth and note no BUK’s there at the time. In fact, his imagery of BUK’s in a field is from OCTOBER 6, 2014 (!) as can be clearly seen on Terraserver’s preview viewer. In other words, it has less than zero relation to any pretended presence of Russian BUK’s in the area on July 17, 2014 and no relation at all even to fighting across the border as the Minsk-1 ceasefire was technically in effect at that time. Is is also 3 months AFTER (!) the shootdown.

          The entire presentation is a fairy tale.

          But disregarding all of that, lets think this idea through.

          Assume Russia has a BUK battery at Kuybyshevo on July 16. This battery is less than 15 km from Saur Mogila so it obviously can control effectively the airspace around the location of the rebel offensive. Lets grant that Russia is already firing artillery across the border and is also shooting down planes at high altitudes from Russia and so is responsible for the AN-26 and SU-25M1 downings. So there are no feelings of compunction about shooting down a Ukrainian airplane by Russia. Lets also grant that Russia has moved artillery briefly across the border and fired on Ukraine from Ukrainian territory, so there is not a concern about violating Ukrainian sovereignty.

          What advantage is gained by shoving a BUK across the border near Krasnodon 150 km away from here, taking it on a 400 km tour of the Donbass via Donetsk only to put it in separatist control 15 km further forward from its original location? Wouldn’t the Russian side be better served by simply continuing to fire on Ukrainian planes from Russia? And if the purpose was to intentionally down MH17 or another passenger liner, why not just have the Russian BUK creep over the border on a rural road, fire from Ukrainian controlled territory, and retreat back instead of going to all the trouble of locating it in rebel territory where they would both look guilty?

          Have you ever heard of such a crazy cockamamie scheme driving a BUK around over 1000 km total round trip to accomplish something that could have been done from where it started its journey? And to what end?

          • Good find Andrew! See my new blogpost on that
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/it-is-very-unlikely-russian-buks-were-stationed-near-kuybyshevo-in-mid-july-2014/

            It is likely Russia started to deploy BUKs at the earliest in October 2014.

            There is a flaw in your thinking about the BUK though. As it seems very likely there were NO Russian BUKs at Kuybyshevo around 16/17 July, there is also no detour required and there is also not such ‘original location.

            There were many BUKs transported from the base in Kursk to the Ukraine-Russian border. No detour needed for that
            The most likely reasons for the detour from Luhansk to Donetsk and then making the U-turn toward Snizne are:
            -the motorway E40 connecting Luhansk with Donetsk was under control of the separatists. This was the safest way to get to Snizhne
            -other smaller roads might have low bridges etc which were impossible to have the lowloader drive under
            -pretend the BUK was stolen from a Ukraine base north of Donetsk. The start in daylight from Donetsk towards the East makes sense.

          • Andrew said : “He is trying to imply this battery is in place and available to shootdown MH17 or at least link up to the rebel “lone-BUK”, which it is not.”

            That location is 24 km from the launch site at Snizhne.
            Why do you believe that a unit at that location is not able to link up to the “rebel” “lone=BUK” ?

  31. sotilaspassi // August 25, 2015 at 10:18 am // Reply

    “dive to bomb and climb and hit behind a passenger plane again.”
    + It should climb and hide behind another passenger plane coming from the opposite direction. Otherwise the UA ground support aircraft would end up in Rostov. 😉

  32. sotilaspassi // August 25, 2015 at 12:31 pm // Reply

    It seems wind was blowing from north-east near the ground but debris fell to north … north-west from last FDR position.
    (I assume clouds were also travelling north)

    But how many degree angle changes the wind at 10km can cause to the BUK missile and Boeing777 ?

  33. A variety of articles worth reading and contemplating in this and the next post –
    Evidence a Russian jet may have been crossing the border before mid July.
    https://youtu.be/egPPMUWBQbI
    and
    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-unofficial-russian-no-fly-zone-over.html

    And a statement also there of – ‘Confirmed Air Defense unit A-1402 taken by Army Novorossiya. Condition of air defense missile systems and related targeting and control systems unknown 07:10. Additional ordinance supply for systems unknown in quantity or quality.’

    on page – http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/ceasefire-over-short-sitrep-from-juan.html

    quote and info about Maryinka – ’16:28 – July 15, 2014 – Commentary from Igor Strelkov

    Igor Strelkov: We are hearing rumours here that today the Militia allegedly left Karlovka and Maryinka (a suburb of Donetsk). They say that I ordered the retreat. ‘
    And interestingly enough later in that section it states – ‘ There were no aircraft.’ trying to land at the airport.
    And regarding a shootdown – ’19:03 – July 15, 2014 – Briefing from Alexey Mozgovoi

    Over the past little while, the fighters of our units eliminated: 1 tank, 2 BMP APCs, 3 BTR APCs, 3 mortar units, 1 anti-aircraft system, 2 machine gun units, 6 snipers, and approximately 100 personnel. As well in the course of the air assault on Loskutovka, a ground attack craft of the Ukrainian air forces was shot down (the pilot catapulted over the occupied territory, which is where the airplane also fell).

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/igor-strelkov-and-militia-briefings.html

    Fare thee well

  34. -The others are also from there.

    16:18 – July 3, 2014 – Commentary from Igor Strelkov

    What it means is that there will be several million refugees and the “glorious victory” of the Ukiestan. We no longer have the ability to hold without direct military intervention from Russia. While there is hope for Russian support, the Militia will continue to fight. If this hope disappears – that will be the end.

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/strelkov-berezin-and-militia-briefings.html

    – July 5th statement a critism of vova and we know he hates that, especially from his fanboys – In political terms, the fall of Slaviansk is a disaster for Novorussia and even Russia.

    If Slaviank had been taken weeks ago after a couple of days of fighting, it would have been a no big deal loss. But Slaviansk resisted for weeks and in the course of these weeks it became a symbol of resistance. Now that it has fallen, however, Slaviansk has become the symbol of Russian inaction. Purely military arguments simply don’t matter here and perceptions become everything. And the perception is clearly that Putin failed to deliver on his promise to protect Novorussia and that the defenders of Slaviansk fought and died in vain. Furthermore, now that Slaviansk, Kramatorsk and Konstantinovka have fallen (or are in the process of being overrun by the Ukies), there is no way to avoid the worst kind of combats: Donetsk, Gorlovka and Lugansk are next.

    This cannot continue any further: Russia must react in a determined and effective way.

    What exactly that way must be is for Putin and his Security Council to decide. But what is certain is that action must be taken now to clearly and visibly stop the Ukie assault. And if the only way is to bring in the Russian military, then I say “do it!”.

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-fall-of-slaviansk-its-meaning-and.html

    – And then comes the meetings in Moscow with the Little Russia leadership.

    Whatever may be the case, Alexander Borodai settled the dispute when he reported that his consultations in Moscow were “very successful, and I am very much counting on the assistance of the Russian Federation in the nearest possible future. As it is, the Russian people, at present, are already providing colossal assistance to us, both in terms of volunteers and in terms of humanitarian aid. I expect that this assistance will continue to grow”. Clearly, some kind of deal has been struck between the Novorussia leaders and the Kremlin, though of course the details will remain secret and the assistance presented as one of the “Russian people” as opposed to the Russian government (-: though one could, of course, wonder why Borodai needed consultations in Moscow to get assistance from the Russian people 🙂

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/july-11th-ukraine-sitrep-important.html

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/subtitled-video-of-press-conference-of.html

    – And then finally, and interesting blurb about a SU25 in DNR hands that attacks and an interesting map just shortly before MH17 was attacked.

    Finally, the Resistance also said that it had used a captured Su-25 close air support aircraft to attack Ukie positions and that this Su-25 had taken off from the Lugansk airport (FYI – the Su-25 does not need a runway to take off, it could even do that from a grass field).

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/crucial-combat-operation-are-possibly.html

    – And finally an article with a little about the allegations that a SAM missile might have downed an AN26 July 13 or 14.

    http://www.newstalk.com/Ukrainian-plane-likely-shot-down-from-Russia

    Fare thee well

  35. Back the basics, there are only two scenarios by which MH17 was shot down :

    1) The BUK was informed by a “spotter”

    There is actual evidence for this scenario, in the call from Naimanets to Bezler :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emfVpkBKoow

    2) The BUK was informed by a command “radar”

    This is where the BUK crew receives its commands from outside (typically via a data link with a BUK command vehicle), located in the area (including the Kuybyshevo area).

    If this (radar command) was the case, the Bezler call above must be faked, or a deliberate set-up.

    Can we discuss these two options ?

    • There are no satelite photos showing Russian radar vehicles near the border which could feed the BUK with info on the sitution in the airspace.
      If would be very unlikely scenario Russia was aware of the target being a civil aircraft and shot it down deliberately.

      By far more likely is a spotter. The BUK crew wanted to prevent detection by keeping the radar off. It seems the target was already planned. Separatists knew a target was approaching at a certain time. However the question from Bezler: “reconnaissance or big one” is weird.

      The spotter must have been informed by phone that an military aircraft departed and was heading east.

      If less than two minutes are sufficient to call the BUK crew and have them switch on radar, search, lock and launch missile I do not know.

      • admin said : “The spotter must have been informed by phone that an military aircraft departed and was heading east.”

        Why do you believe that ?
        Couldn’t Naimanets in Horlivka simply have seen a spot moving across the sky ?

      • like he said that he did.

    • Hector Reban // August 26, 2015 at 6:52 pm // Reply

      Thats evidence only for Believers, Rob. You only believe the impressions added to the Bezler tapes because the SBU timestamped it on 16:18 EEST. The lines spoken could be on topic for every other plane ever spotted in the area.

      The spotter story is obviously invented to fit the narrative, just like much of the other evidence Ukrainians got in their sleeves to put up on social media withing hours after the crash. Very suspicious.

      Read my lips: the Ukies did it.

      • Hector: while I agree the “evidence” on social media is not very convincing (at least to me) that does not automatically mean Ukraine did it.

        Ukraine wants to avoid that the world will know they already knew about BUKs long before July 17. So they presented all evidence as made on the 17th.

        Can you explain a bit what your indication/clues/evidence is what makes you believe that Ukraine is responsible? And why would Russia present so many lies instead of telling the truth? And why did Russia used its veto? It you have nothing to fear and 100% evidence there is no problem to have a tribunal, right?

        • admin // August 26, 2015 at 7:38 pm // Reply

          Admin said: ‘And why would Russia present so many lies instead of telling the truth? And why did Russia used its veto? It you have nothing to fear and 100% evidence there is no problem to have a tribunal, right?

          This could be ex post facto reasoning caused by lack of knowledge of the Russians. Remember if Ukraine was the culprit Russia had no foreknowledge of the attack and their ex post facto reasoning would be understandable. They obviously would develop wild theories just as we do, for they would have no facts. And Russian veto is completely understandable because they do not trust the “100% evidence” of JIT and Safety Board. If you have 100% evidence you normally go to court, otherwise you better look for political condemnation by the UN.

          In contrast with Russia, Ukraine shared a priori facts with the public by releasing statements from (probably) real time tapped phone calls. These calls demonstrate ruthless foreknowledge and raise the question why Ukraine did not intervene to warn the airlines. A priori facts, which should have encouraged Ukraine to prevent the attack. As an example Ukraine timely ‘knew’ of the transport of BUK in Donetsk the 17e of July. The pinnacle was probably the real time registered “Birdie comes to you ‘, without alerting immediately all civilian planes over Donetsk. This is inexcusable and Ukraine will be accused of inciting war crimes by conditional intent with probability consciousness.

        • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 6:23 am // Reply

          Already explained that.

          For starters: They had motive, weapon and opportunity;

          The Russian Roulette scenario is incredible, so a fatal mistake narrative is not likely. Maybe the fatal mistake scenario was considered by the Ukrainians in advance, as their dissemination of the proven fake vid with “confessions” attached to the suggestive rumours about the Strelkov_info post was so swiftly after the crash, planning and preparation should be considered.

          Ukrainian officials and SBU seem to have disseminated evidence *in advance* to cook up a BUK trail to imply the separatists. That suggests premeditation and planning.

          Whereas you claim Russian behaviour looks suspicious because they issued allegedly false evidence (after at least 4 days preparation), other people might suggest its a lot more suspicious when you are pooring out fake evidence within hours after the crash.

          The same goes for the seized BUK narrative. Ukie officials claimed the separatists seized a broken BUK but issued contrasting statements about possession according to political need. Nevertheless possession already was suggested and useful to put blame on separatists after the MH17 crash. Remember that the seized BUK narrative was leading scenario up til the Kursk scenario gained importance peddled by Bellingcat.

          The Ukies didn’t give full account of their weapon inventory.

          • Hector: again you are jumping to conclusion based on your opinion about the West and Ukraine. I rather stick to facts and possibilities from a unbiased viewpoint.

            Yes, the evidence presented has some suspicious aspects. Michael Kobs did some investigation and I am sure he did not mention all strange aspects.
            That does not mean the BUK was not there somewhere near Snizhne at July 17. And it does not mean the BUK could not have shot.

            The damage patterns plus social media accounts all indicate a missile was launched near Snizhne. As Snizhne was the HQ for the separatists it is very unlikely a Ukraine BUK was positioned here.

            The evidence like photos presented so quickly for me indicates Ukraine kind of provoked the Russian BUK crew to launch a missile. It was a set up.

            You write: The Ukies didn’t give full account of their weapon inventory.
            These are the statements I really dislike. Provide me a trustfull source which confirms your statement please.

          • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 7:00 am //

            I’m not jumping to conclusion more than you do. I am stating facts here, based on investigation. I am turning around 180 degrees your own very speculative scenarios.

            There is always some conjecture and subjectivity involved, but I think mine is far more less based on personal affinities than your own.

          • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 7:02 am //

            By the way, when did you stop being wrong about the possibility of a site west from Snizhne, i.e. Zaroshchenskoye, as written in an earlier blog?

          • You turn aroud my words like you did in one of your latest Tweets. I write that Zaroshchenskoye cannot be ruled out. That is something else than saying “Zaroshchenskoye is likely”.
            I have seen no other additional indirect evidence which indicates Zaroshchenskoye as a likely launch location. Sat. photos by Russia are fake. There was a separatist roadblock nearby. Journalists spoke to people living in the area and heard nothing.

            So why do you think Zaroshchenskoye is likely as launch location?

          • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:38 am //

            Its you twist my words. It didn´t say you claimed Zaroshchenksoye was likely, I asked why did you stop being wrong about Zaroshchenskoye as POSSIBILITY – as you seem to promote your speculative account of the Snizhne site to fact. Far worse, from your words we can conclude now ONLY Snizhne can be a true launch site. WHY is that??

            Furthermore you twist logic. My assessment the Ukies didn´t give full insight into their inventory could be established by the fact alone there is NO evidence to support they have.

            When something isn´t there, there is no other way to support this ¨clue¨, as you name these kind of leads when your own speculations are concerned. So if you think despite the lack of news about an official audit, is has happened nonetheless, YOU should give evidence that they have done so. And by whom. And why it didn´t reach the news, as an official audit team would issue statements about these kind of things.

            Maybe Andrew can give more insights too, as he has claimed this in various postings on this site, not contested by you by the way.

            I really dislike your way of attacking, which seem to decay into some same sort of double think people like Rob display too. Your hunches and clues are facts, other stories come from Russian trolls or pro-Russian propaganda outlets. In this way you seem to evade the clear facts I am grounding my suspicions on – though I have no direct evidence. But there is a very strong smell of planning and premeditation when we follow the trace of the Ukrainian evidence build-up.

            There is social media evidence about weapon possession, opportunity and motive from the Ukrainians, so if that is your bottomline, why do you discard it when obviously the wrong party is accused?

            There is more information about the Zaroshchenskoye pocket – a bulge in the frontline under controle and/or trespassed by the Ukrainians on the 17th. That supports opportunity. Someone I know is working on this case, so I can´t tell the details right now.

            Furthermore, as I said, your speculations can easily turned around. This is based on another interpretation of the facts involved and cannot be discarded as some kind of evil propaganda.

            I gave you an account the Ukrainians could have used their partly corroborated claims the rebels seized a BUK, to create cover for their own planning.

            So even when the rebels had a BUK, this is not evidence they shot with it.

            Again, I established this with reason by pointing out to you the spotter and doubleagent scenarios are speculative, unfounded and only supported by dubious claims made by a party we cannot trust (the SBU timestanmped spotter taps).

            So what do you need more? Should we all raise and shout Putin did it?

          • Hector:
            Your Tweet https://twitter.com/Jetagodi/status/636048459422912512 saying
            Zaroshchenskoye BUK likely linking to my article with title ‘Damage of MH17 does not rule out a launch from Zaroshens’kye’ does not add to your credibility.
            Many of your other Tweets are also biased. My piece of advise: try to be professional and unbiased if you want to make your point. To me you look like a EU/VS hater.

            You seem to suffer from a tunnelvision like others which I will not mention the names of. There is no reasonable way of discussing. Russia could not have done it in your opinion.

            This is again twisting my words. You write: Far worse, from your words we can conclude now ONLY Snizhne can be a true launch site. WHY is that??
            I did not write Zaroshchenskoye is impossible. See my blogpost. I only write there is no additional evidence for Zaroshchenskoye to be a likely launch location.
            Or did I miss anything? So Zaroshchenskoye is very unlikely.

            And this statement is another weak argument of yours: My assessment the Ukies didn´t give full insight into their inventory could be established by the fact alone there is NO evidence to support they have

            So basically someone is guilty because that someone did not prove to the public he is not guilty. How are you so sure Ukraine did not provide an full overview of their inventory?

            I stop wasting my time on you. Make sure to add arguments/sources/links to your statements in comments. Otherwise I will ban you from futher comments.

          • Hector you state –
            ‘Again, I established this with reason by pointing out to you the spotter and doubleagent scenarios are speculative, unfounded and only supported by dubious claims made by a party we cannot trust (the SBU timestanmped spotter taps).’

            And to that I say, all you have IS speculation that Ukraine did it.
            And it is repeating various Kremlin sponsored media theories thrown out there, that are known to be dubious, with dubious evidence they provide.

            Speculation is all you have for a launch site, no evidence, AA has been discounted in many arenas.

            And you further state,
            ‘ So even when the rebels had a BUK, this is not evidence they shot with it.’

            Even though UA had BUK’s in the area, that is not evidence they shot a missile.
            So we can discount that evidence now, is that what I hear you saying?

            Your a crafty one that uses various logic arguments when they fit your comment, and dismiss others that use the same argument against you.
            To me that makes you dubious in anything you present.

            Fare thee well

          • I could not have said this better.
            To Hector: I appreciate all opinions in comments. If those opinions looks like propaganda/a hidden agenda (by placing statements with no proof etc) I suggest to post your comments on a different forum.

      • No proof or even half solid claim that Ukraine downed MH17 stands up to even mild scrutiny,all that is and can be argued is there “might” have been SU-25s in the area which clearly did not down MH17,rebels themselves clearly believed they launched at something and nothing else was downed despite their claims
        Dismissing the spotter claim can not be done without some solid proof not just a feeling,tried and true technique that helped the Serbs down a stealth US F-117 at night in poor weather

        • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 6:33 am // Reply

          There is no proof whatsoever rebels believed they targeted or launched at something. Its a false assumption emanating from the manipulation of the deleted Strelkov_info posting.

          And the spotter claim is so ludicrous, its kind of weird people even started to think about its possible trustworthyness. A double agent, right. There are more credible conspiracy theories than this one.

          But I guess for pro-Kiev people the feeling the incompetent spotter must have been there because the SBU claimed he was, is strong enough.

          • Hector: just by saying a theory is nonsense is not an argument. It is very well likely a BUK uses human eyes to spot targets. The simple reason it that as soon as the radar of a BUK is switched on, it can be detected by the enemy. And thus can be destroyed.
            Now tell me why a spotter telephone call is nonsense.

          • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 6:55 am //

            Logic works the other way around, admin. Just by claiming something has occured doesn”t make it true. The only thing remaining in that case is saying so. So if you can’t find an argument, you should turn to R2B in the first place.

            Second argument (sic!): its not credible because it entails the assumption the spotter must be incompetent or that he get false information by a (fictitious) double agent. I already wrote that too by the way.

            Now logic and reason compels you or R2B to give some support to this very incredible conspiracy theories. Not that you shift the burden of proof onto me.

          • Second request to explain your statement below:
            You write: The Ukies didn’t give full account of their weapon inventory.
            These are the statements I really dislike. Provide me a trustfull source which confirms your statement please.

            Unless you work for JIT it is impossible to confirm this statement. So looking forward to your sources.

          • Hector: as non-insiders in the investigation we hardly have facts. So we need to search for clues. And prevent nonsense and discredit statements just because these do not fit the agenda.

            So I repeat my question. I explained my view on why a spotter could be likely (not claiming it is a fact)

            Explain to me your statement:
            “And the spotter claim is so ludicrous, its kind of weird people even started to think about its possible trustworthyness. A double agent, right. There are more credible conspiracy theories than this one.”

          • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:54 am //

            Like I said:

            The spotter scenario is not credible because it entails the (non-supported) assumption the spotter must be totally incompetent (ie. can´t differentiate between planes) or that he get false information by a(fictitious) double agent.

            So who proves the spotter was competent any way and the double agent existed in reality?

          • denying the spotter’s existence just because he is incompetent is a fallacy,armed conflicts abound with blue on blue,mis-targets and errors,nothing new here

          • Comment on: Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:54 am //

            Hector said:
            ‘Like I said: The spotter scenario is not credible because it entails the (non-supported) assumption the spotter must be totally incompetent (ie. can´t differentiate between planes) or that he get false information by a(fictitious) double agent. So who proves the spotter was competent any way and the double agent existed in reality?’

            We only have logical reasoning:

            A spotter can be postulated to inform the operator of the BUK about incoming military planes of Ukraine. He is the logical link in the chain. But of course, the operator can decide on other grounds to fire a BUK missile. Numerous options are available ranging from complete madness to a phone call from Moscow. But a spotter is most obvious.

            Then, a set of requirements is established which the spotter must meet. These are personal characteristics but more important are the means at his disposal. From scratch and by logical reasoning we set boundaries for the spotter.

            First of all separatists usually were not using Flightradar, otherwise they would have timely identified MH17. But this must be a fallacy in reasoning, because this would be incredible. We only proceed after finding a good reason why the spotter did not use Flightradar: Flightradar is senseless with military planes with their ASD-B responder off.

            This means the spotter always needed inside information from the base of which military planes departed. He was a trustful spy of the separatists but has been unmasked by Ukraine because spotters make use of their telephone and are easily identified by the SBU. Now he was fighting for his life as a double agent.

            Now, the operator of the BUK trusted his good old spotter blindly. And the double agent – with a gun against his head – said he needed not look at Flight Radar because that AN-26 or IL-76 had his ASD-B transponder turned off. And there were no civilians on that track, so don’t worry.

            Normally spotters would be double checked but the separatists had not enough spotters available at July 17:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2rmN7jeX8A

            (5,17/5,29)

            Hmuryi: You see, we’ve got a GRAD, but no spotter. However we’re waiting for Russia to shelter them from the other side.

            Published on Jul 18, 2014
            Source: SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) Youtube channel
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygdqd
            Subtitled by EuromaidanPR

          • basic dimension: military aircraft like Antonov 26 and IL76 do not have ADS-B. Some IL76 used by civil companies transporting cargo into western countries have ADS-B

          • Admin:

            “The simple reason it that as soon as the radar of a BUK is switched on, it can be detected by the enemy. And thus can be destroyed. Now tell me why a spotter telephone call is nonsense.”

            If the spotter call is at 16:18:XX and the BUK radar is not even turned on, but the missile is fired by 16:19:28-30, with at least a 24 second launch sequence, then a go-to-launch command is spoken around 16:19:01-05.

            We are getting down to mere seconds to fire up the radar and find the target. How realistic is that?

            The only way this works is if the rebel crew has also been pre-fed a flight plan which would make them immediately find MH17 because they already knew where to look. Otherwise, in searching for an AN-26 flying slowly at 7 km they wouldn’t find MH17 at 10 km and flying much faster.

            This implies a Ukrainian double-cross via the supposed spy at Dnipropetrovsk and the deliberate shootdown of the civilian plane through the agency of manipulation of the targetting by the rebels to make them think MH17 was a military transport.

          • Andrew said “If the spotter call is at 16:18:XX and the BUK radar is not even turned on, but the missile is fired by 16:19:28-30, with at least a 24 second launch sequence, then a go-to-launch command is spoken around 16:19:01-05.

            We are getting down to mere seconds to fire up the radar and find the target. ”

            About 30 sec actually. And 30 sec for Bezzler to contact the crew after the phone call (see my timeline below).

            This does not give much space for hasitation, but it is realistic, if and only if Bezler was actually the commander of the BUK crew.

            Which I doubt….

      • Hector Reban said (regarding the Naimanets to Bezler call 2 minutes before MH17 was shot down) :

        “Thats evidence only for Believers, Rob. ”

        Not so fast Reban.
        It IS evidence that a “spotter” was used.
        If you want to discard this evidence, you need to show that it either :
        1) was not taken at that time/date, or :
        2) that the entire call is fabricated.

        Without any counter evidence, this call stands.

        The bigger question is : If this call was real, made 2 min before MH17 went down, then Bezler must have been the commander who instructed the BUK crew.

        After all, with a 30 missile flight time, and a 30 second time to switch on the radar, aquire target, lock in, and fire the missile, and a 20 second duration of the call, and a 10 sec lap for Naimanets to pick up the phone and dial and make a connection, that leaves Bezler only 30 seconds after the call to notify the crew. And Naimanets did NOT have enough time to call somebody else.

        • Rob: you are going a bit too fast as well. Anything can be presented as evidence. We know both sides presented false evidence.
          So the basic in our thinking should be: anything is false untill proven as a fact or is quite likely to have happened.

          • admin said “So the basic in our thinking should be: anything is false untill proven as a fact or is quite likely to have happened.”

            With all due respect, admin, but this kind of gets back to basic reasoning :

            The scientific method cannot prove ANY true statement to be true. It can only prove a false statement to be false, if there is enough evidence.

            In this case, we have a piece of evidence. The “Naimanets to Bezler call”, claimed to be taken 2 minutes before MH17 was shot down.

            Even if you don’t like to discuss it, we need to deal with that tape.

          • admin said “We know both sides presented false evidence.”

            We know that Russia presented false evidence, by the buckets, but which false evidence did Ukraine produce ?
            I’m not taking about statements that are questionable, or provably wrong, made by one or another individual.

            I’m taking about false evidence, as in your statement “”We know both sides presented false evidence.”.

        • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:45 am // Reply

          Do you really think this is how it works in a fair legal system, Rob? An accusation is made and we should trust the inquisitors on their trustworthy Kievian eyes alone?

          • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 9:01 am //

            By the way Rob, do you still think the other Bezler taps – in which is said they shot down a plane near Enakievo from Chernukino, far away from Grabovo, and discovered it was civilian – is a true piece of evidence?

            Do you think the Khmuryi taps, which show Khumryi was at the same time in Donetsk AND in Marinovka, are clear examples of SBU credibility?

            Do you think that the taps are true evidence, in which is said a ¨car¨ is brought to Russia, and a ¨car¨ is the same as a large transport of a truck, a lowloader and a BUK (or several BUks according to some officials)?

            So do you think there is a great urge to believe this people just because they say some spotter incompetently picked a plane on 16:18 EEST?

          • Hector said “the Khmuryi taps, which show Khumryi was at the same time in Donetsk AND in Marinovka, ”

            Which tape was that exactly ?

          • Hector said “we should trust the inquisitors on their trustworthy Kievian eyes alone?”

            No Hector.
            I already pointed out EXACTLY what you should do :

            If you want to discard this evidence, you need to show that it either :
            1) was not taken at that time/date, or :
            2) that the entire call is fabricated.

      • And consider the alternative :

        If the BUK that downed MH17 was NOT informed by a “spotter” then it must have been informed by a radar/command post. Which drastically reduces the odds that this was an “accident”. See my post above about the “deliberate” scenario.

        • Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:48 am // Reply

          In logic this kind of fallacy is called the fallacy of the false dilemma. It leaves other possibilities out if they don´t support a preconceived narrative. Its higly unscientific too. Of course your preconceptions are obvious here.

          Admin: this is reasoning, so should not be mixed-up with subjective thinking. (Its sad I have to mention this explicitly)

          • Hector, the BUK crew was either informed by a “spotter” or by a “radar”.
            Which other methods would you suggest ? ESP ?

          • Hector Reban // August 31, 2015 at 5:53 am //

            deleted by admin. No attacks on personal opinions please

          • Hector decided not to post anymore on this website because the Admin is too much biased! As said before: there is room for any opinion as long as there are reasonable arguments given. Nonsense comments on causes like bombs and SU-25 theories are not accepted. If someone believes that is bias: fine with me.

  36. AD: you mentioned 48.026818, 38.693527 (with some deviation) as the launch location.
    Can you provide your arguments you have for that location?
    Thanks in advance!

    • AD: Me and Arnold requested to 4 times now to answer this question. Why did you suggest 48.026818, 38.693527 as a possible launch location?

  37. What exactly is the source for the Dnipropetrovsk´s spy story?

    • It appears to have originated from somebody called “Andrew”, in this post :

      http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-6922

      where out of thin air he states, it as if it is know to be a fact : “The spy/double agent at Dnipropetrovsk has been …”…

      • There was a report in Ukraine press that someone who worked at the airport in Dnipropetrovsk informed the separatists about military aircraft movements. I will try to find that report which was in a newspaper. I believe the person worked for an airline.

        • A spy accuses the separatists and double-spy points to Ukraine in the first place. A spy easily leads to the accusation of committing an intentional and witting assault on civilians by the separatists. A double spy places the motive to shoot down a civilian airliner wittingly and intentionally by Ukraine or some Ukrainian renegade faction.

  38. admin, above you posted this scenario :
    http://www.buran.ru/MH17/980_80percent_256c_02t.gif

    Now that it is clear that MH17 was not shot down by any (Ukrainian) fighter jet, this scenario (where the BUK fires a missile at a jet that flies below the radar and in between the BUK and MH17) is the ONLY scenario left over where a (Ukrainian) fighter plane may have been involved.

    That sole remaining scenario is where then the BUK fired a missile at a fighter at low altitude, which then missed, and then by being in the radar beam, found MH17 as a new target,

    I’d like to discuss that scenario.
    First of all, we also determined that the Ust-Donetsk ATC radar can see targets flying as low as 1500-2000 meter over the target area in Eastern Ukraine.
    Which means that in the scenario you present here, the Ukrainian jet must have been flying below that radar detection limit (1500 meters to be sure) to NOT show up on the Russian Defense Ministry’s radar images presented on July 21.

    Next, for this scenario to work, the missile must lock onto MH17 after it lost its lock on the jet.
    I’m not sure if that is even possible with a BUK radar lock system, but assuming it is, both planes would AT LEAST have to stay in the radar beam for the duration of the flight of the missile.
    Otherwise the radar would no longer illuminate MH17, which would make a downing impossible.

    To stay in the radar beam for the duration of the missile flight, the jet would have to be moving along the same azimuth angle as MH17, and at a velocity that is proportional to the altitude difference between the two planes. That altitude difference is 1500/10000 = 0.15, so the velocity of the jet would have to be 250(velocity of MH17)*0.15 =37.5 m/sec. That is 135 km/hour.

    Can a SU25 stay aloft at 135 km/hours ?

    • And not to mention that the missile would reach the jet (at 1500 meters altitude and 25*0.15=3.75 km distance) at about 0.15*30=4.5 sec.
      Which means that the BUK crew has 25 sec to figure out that the jet was not downed, and thus they should switch off the radar or force the missile to self-destruct.

      Pretty slim line of events to make that scenario happen….

      • Missile cannot intercpet B777 after miss Su-25. Seeker dont have redirect option and missile energy will be exhausted on wrong trajectory.

        • AD:
          so your conclusion is the BUK crew could impossibly confuse a SU-25 with MH17. So they shot down MH17 deliberately?

          • I agree AD, and the big problem I have with SU25 story is that.

            Let’s say you have two planes coming at you and one is shadowing, the low altitude shadowing plane is the one you target.
            The high altitude plane is zooming by at twice the speed of the lower plane at you.
            Now imagine what the flight path that the missile would be to play catch up to the higher target that is going the opposite direction of the missiles original flight path.
            The whole time it is playing catch up, the civilian plane is travelling happily going normal cruise speed.
            Now imagine what would the SU25 pilot do if he had missiles, wouldn’t he attack the BUK?
            Also, were would have that missiles proximity fuse have detonated in a chasing situation.

            Okay, that is for a head on targeting.
            Look at the missiles flight path for a 90 degree vector, and you will see that more then likely then too it would all of its energy in a miss and retarget situation.

            NOW, if we take the plume photo as credible.
            IF the BUK crew were targeting a SU25 in the 500 m to 5000 m altitude, what would that plume path look like?
            We would see a dropping curve plume in the plume image.
            It would not appear to be travelling almost straight up to reach a high altitude target.
            The plume shows a high altitude targeting, not a low altitude, I do not think.
            From 90 degrees or head on, the plume trail would not appear like this image targeting a low altitude SU25.

            Fare thee well

          • admin said “so your conclusion is the BUK crew could impossibly confuse a SU-25 with MH17. So they shot down MH17 deliberately?”

            admin, he did not say that.
            He only said that a BUK missile cannot “redirect” to a second target if it missed the first one.

            Which means that IF there were TWO targets in the BUK’s radar beam, as in your ‘shadow’ scenario here :
            http://www.buran.ru/MH17/980_80percent_256c_02t.gif
            that the BUK could not have hit MH17 after it missed a low-flying fighter.

        • AD said “Missile cannot intercpet B777 after miss Su-25. Seeker dont have redirect option ”

          Thanks AD. I did not think so either. But just in case, WHAT happens if a BUK missile misses its target ? Does it loop around for another attack ? Or does it self-destruct ? Or simply flies on without aim ?

    • Rob // August 29, 2015 at 7:03 am // Reply

      It’s not my profession but I’m hopelessly intrigued by this issue. I think radial speed is also dependent on the varying ground tracks of the planes. The farther the airplanes are moving away from the radar, the more their slant ranges will equalize. But in the zenith of the BUK they converge to the real altitudes of the airplanes. Hence, varying ground tracks have repercussions for the cosine of alpha and radial speed will differ to the zenith of the BUK. Don’t blame me for this immature article:

      How to kill BUK-TELAR

      http://sexualreligion.blogspot.nl/2015/08/how-to-kill-buk-telar.html

      • It is very good to further investigate the possibility the BUK crew believed they targeted a SU-25 but instead it was MH17.
        We do need several people and opinions to discuss this.

        • What difference if separatists think they targetted Su-25 but shot down MH17? Do you think this knowledge revive 298 civilians? How about continuous lie about ukrainian Su-25, ukrainian BUK, bomb on board? Ii it all happen because terrorists targetted Su-25?

          • AD:

            What continuous lie about Su-25’s? Numerous eyewitnesses think they saw SU-25’s, and the American’s have point blank refused to deny there was one in the air. Read through the Marie Harf Q&A session I posted a couple of days ago.

            Same for Ukrainian BUK’s. There were Ukrainian BUK’s deployed into the Donbass. Ukraine (and America) refuses to clarify where these BUK’s were or provide any evidence regarding them.

          • Numerous eyewitness dont run to Netherlands with their evidence. If you take interview from babushka in Rostov then you will hear how Obama drop nuclear bomb on Voronezh.
            Donbass people count they in state of war with USA? Ukraine and NATO. Same pronounced each day from all russian TV? papers and radio. So people will lie with proud about any evidence which can harm to western people. How they said about shot downed MH17? Citation – AND THIS IS GOOD!
            Ukrainian BUKs dont have enough range for kill MH17. Also direction of missile from Snizhne, despite on Almaz-Antey lie.
            If you want to talk about myths and fairytales then goto mh17 webtalk.

        • To that I ask, is the Optical targeting sensor integrated with the firedome radar.
          IF they are combined, that makes it all that much harder to make a wrong identification.
          If it goes dormant once the lock on target is called before launch, then there is more of a possibility of it being an accident.
          I do not imagine it does though go dormant, because it
          1) helps prevent civilian airplane disasters if a BUK member was watching that display.
          2) helps track other potential targets since the BUK has four missiles and the ability to track different targets.
          3) It would give the crew on training missions a way to record a video of a drone being hit as opposed to having a second high power camera tracking the event.

          I am not sure how the Optical Sensors would have been affected by clouds though, from what I have read some have different light filters that allow them to see through clouds.
          Some I have read say that there primary usage is in identifying targets by the IR signature of the engines.
          How sensitive they are to seeing through clouds would help identify whether or not seeing two objects in BUK targeting is possible, ie if they saw two targets shadowing, and fired or if they saw one target.
          IF they saw two targets, wouldn’t they have gone through the trouble of identifying the higher altitude target and be prepared to self destruct the missile?

          If they saw two targets, wouldn’t they have launched a second one at a SU25 if the first missed?
          And from what I have read, it is almost an automatic kill if you fire two missiles on a tank buster aircraft.
          And if they launched a second one, don’t you think the pilot would have reported something?
          I just do not honestly see a SU25 being the target and a BUK missile missing or not detonating near it and then it being directed by the BUK radar tracking up 6000 – 10000 meters to MH17.
          And the crew not recognizing it and self destructing the missile.
          Unprofessional, short staffed BUK crew, possible.
          But I doubt they would have put these in a BUK.

          Fare thee well

      • Thanks Basic Dimension.
        I know that the math may be confusing, but it all comes down to basic trigonometry.

        If the plane comes from head-on, the relation is easy (as you can see in Marcel’s animation here) :
        http://www.buran.ru/MH17/980_80percent_256c_02t.gif
        The low flying plane has to fly at a speed that is the same fraction as the altitude difference between the planes. If MH17 moves at 250 m/sec at 10000 meters, a plane at 5000 meters in the same BUK radar beam would have to move at 125 m/sec.

        It may be surprising, but the same speed/altitude fraction (as the head-on approach above) holds regardless of the direction of the high flying plane. Even if there is an offset (not head-on approach) ! You can verify that yourself with basic trigonometry.

        So NO MATTER which approach, the speed of the low flying plane HAS TO BE the altitude fraction of the speed of the high flying plane.

        Since the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images did not see any plane flying over Donbass the altitude of the low flying fighter must have been less that 1500-2000 meters, the fraction thus 1500/10000=0.15, and thus the speed of the low flying fighter must have been 250*0.15=37.5 m/sec and thus a sustained 135 km/hour.

        Since (AFAIK) it is physically impossible for a jet (like SU25) to stay aloft at 135 km/hour, it is therefore physically IMPOSSIBLE for the BUK to have had TWO targets in its radar beam for the duration of the missile flight.

        Thus, the “shadow” scenario is debunked and the BUK at Snizhne saw only ONE target.

    • The BUK TELAR gives a numeric scale read-out of target altitude and speed once it is acquired on radar. See picture displays at end of this article.

      http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm

      Mixing up a fast and a slow plane or a high and low plane seems far fetched. The mistake would need to occur from being pre-fed the flight plan of MH17 as where to look for the target.

      I don’t find it credible that someone would confuse 5 km and 10 km.

      • Andrew // August 29, 2015 at 2:21 pm // Reply

        Andrew thanks, this is an amazing lot of information. I learned about separatist spies at Ukrainian Airbases, but more important as RB2 already indicated: Old stand alone BUK-TELAR is able to read altitudes of aircraft. But that settles the matter. Now I will have to make up my mind again.

      • Thanks for the site Andrew, I always was curious what happened to the Russian space shuttle program.
        The author makes a lot of points in his article and the postscripts.
        The four pages are a wealth of information, and an analysis of misinformation about MH17.
        Well worth anyone’s time to look at.

        I tend to disagree with him on what the Optical TV Sensor could see and identify.
        I do not think clouds were heavy enough at that point that they would have not used that first or partially in plane identification before launch.
        And what I have seen there are filters that minimize clouds.
        Also I believe many BUKs with more advanced ‘aftermarket’ sensors also have laser range finders used.
        IF it was flying at 5k, it would have been near the cloud base that is the lowest I have seen in many of the images that day.

        The other item I would have expected him to discuss would be the identification on turboprop versus jet engine engine noise detected when discussing the AN26 misidentification theory.

        From what I have read, that is a clear indicator that a BUK operator utilizes when he focuses on his target for identification as well as the optics before launch.

        Still an article well worth reading through all of it if you have the time.

        Fare thee well

        • addendum – The only thing I am not sure of from reading those other articles about a BUK is whether or not the engine noise indicator of a target is in a Command Center only or if it is inside also the standalone launcher.

          Fare thee well

          • addendum two
            It is kind of interesting that a Russian with such a distinguished career with military aviation in the RF and can understand the difference between patriotism and hero worship of the government, and is willing to speak out against the government with what he believes.

            Kudos and respect to Vadim Lukashevich, he wrote a report that sums up a lot of what is known all in one place, and gives a pretty accurate analysis.

            I still believe the targeting was deliberate, which he does not.
            BUT, it is a site that is well worth going to for the wealth of information all in one place.
            It does have a toggle on the upper right for switching between English and Russian.

            We shall see if he is right in the near future I think.

            Admin, I like the captcha, thank you.

            Fare thee well

  39. An article from a couple days ago that has some tidbits in it that should be read is at –

    http://www.segodnya.ua/ukraine/general-sbu-za-sbityy-boing-nado-predyavit-podozrenie-minimum-shesterym-644336.html

    It discusses some things that a Ukrainian military leaders and a guy who worked with DSB and he explains what he knows up until mid June when he was released.
    In it it states that 3 Ukrainians and 3 Russians are already being discussed as far as arrests for those responsible.
    And a few other items of interest.

    Fare thee well

  40. Be careful with that article. You wouldn’t want to buy a used car from the “guy who worked with DSB”. He is Major-General Vasily Vovk, former chief of the Investigation Division of the SBU and former co-chairman of the JIT.

    He was dismissed 6/19/15 by Poroshenko. This happened in the context of a complete leadership change at the SBU in the wake of a scandalous fire at Kiev that killed 6 people and cost a bloody fortune in wasted energy. I could not find any evidence that the dismissal had anything to do with the MH17 investigation.

    The man is either clueless or a liar, take your pick. He has said that he is not aware of any far right groups, organizations or political parties in the Ukraine. Seriously. Even Wikipedia has heard of Right Sektor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector. And he has said that on 7/17/14 Ukraine had no Buks defending the unfriendly skies of eastern Ukraine against Russian military aircraft. I kid you not. Tomorrow I can provide links proving all of the above for nonbelievers. I’m too busy right now with other things.

    As for his comments about MH17 and the investigation, there is no way to know if any of it is true. Be careful.

    • Caution noted and warranted IsThatSo.
      I just posted it as a potential idea of what is going on with the investigation.
      With all info presented around MH17, there is sometimes facts intermixed with false info so be cautious what you take from an article.
      Just some interesting statements and worthy of consideration.

      Fare thee well

  41. Rob, thanks for the information and indeed at 1500 meters it will not work for SU-25. That’s why I have taken 5000 meters and then of course a SU-25 stays aloft at 250(velocity of MH17)*0.50 =125 m/sec = 450 km/hours = radial speed 170 km/h.

    That’s not meant for this specific case with side condition of 1500 meters Russian radar elevation lower limit, but in general I think it works if SU-25 wants to attack villages not knowing if there is a BUK.

    But now next problem: Members of BUK tried to shoot a SU-25 at 1500 meters but may be this range is too short because the rocket still is in its first mode?

    ‘The 9M38M1 surface-to-air missile utilizes a two-mode solid fuel rocket engine with total burn time of about 15 seconds, the combustion chamber is reinforced by metal.’

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/sa-11.htm

    ‘The Mach 3 semi-active homing 9M28M1 missile has a maximum slant range of 28 km and a minimum range of 3 km.

    I think this must be 9M38M1, but does this mean a low flying SU-25 at 1500 meters cannot be attacked by BUK within 3 km from the BUK? Because 9M38M1 is still in its first stage? Then it possibly could have taken MH17 in the second instance. Then SU-25 could have intentionally threatened BUK below 3000 meters and challenged to shoot a missile knowing they flew under MH17.

    And nowhere can I find proof of BUK-TELAR’s ability to estimate target height. What kind of apparatus is needed and do they have that?

    ‘The SNOW DRIFT warning and acquisition radar provides target height, bearing and range data.’

    • Basic, these sites might offer some clues to technical names of BUK parts.
      Remember there is a difference between acquisition and tracking radars.
      And the abilities of passive tracking of the optical sensors and laser ranger finders.

      I have seen a site with many algorithms but cannot remember which characteristics they did or did not show.
      It may have been the wiki knock off acloserlookatsyria who got it from somewhere else, I am not sure.

      Anyways, these sites might guide you a little about the capabilities of a standalone or offline BUK.

      http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/buk_missile_system

      http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Support-Vehicles.html

      http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html

      http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/20/inside-buk-telar-images/

      Fare thee well

      • Boggled, thanks for the information and I found this:

        http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/buk_missile_system

        The 9S35 radar of the original Buk TELAR uses mechanical scan of Cassegrain antenna reflector. Buk-M2 TELAR design used a PESA for tracking and missile guidance.

        (9S35 (note – without M1 modification)= Radar of SA-11 (9A38).; BD). 9S35M1: Modernized Radar .

        http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Support-Vehicles.html

        Belarus systems integrator GNPO Agat displayed the 9K37MB Buk MB system at the Milex 2005 exhibition. The Buk MB is a digital systems retrofit performed on the 9K37-1/9K37M1 / SA-11 Gadfly, replacing the 1980s technology systems in the 9S470 command post, the 9A39 TEL/TL and 9A310 TELAR, and relifing other system components.

        http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/20/inside-buk-telar-images/

        ossie rx

        It certainly would need a highly trained crew to manage it with just a TELAR.

        “The 9S35 Fire Dome [BUK-TELAR; BD] provides a limited search and acquisition capability, a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance of the semi-active homing SAM seekers. It incorporates an IFF interrogator, optical tracker, datalink, and is powered by the TELAR’s gas turbine generator. A shared antenna is employed for two X-band transmit/receive channels. These respectively provide a pulsed mode for search and track functions, with linear chirp for compression, and a CW mode for illumination. Monopulse angle tracking is employed for jam resistance. For target tracking the antenna and feed system provide a mainlobe with 2.5° width in azimuth and 1.3° in elevation. For CW illumination the antenna and feed system provide a mainlobe with 1.4° width in azimuth and 2.65° in elevation.

        Operating autonomously, the 9S35 will take 4 seconds to sweep a 120° sector, with an elevation of 6° to 7°. When cued to acquire and track, with will take 2 seconds to sweep a 10° x 7° az/elev solid angle. Average power output in pulsed tracking modes varies between 0.5 and 1 kiloWatt, with CW illumination at 2 kiloWatts. The search and monopulse angle tracking receivers are both rated at a Noise Figure of NF=10 dB. The range error is cited at 175 metres, the angular error at less than 1°. The radar can switch from standby mode to combat operation in twenty seconds.”

        IFF is a closely guarded military secret, particular to the country/alliance using it. US/NATO mode 5 is still being deployed – an ’80ies SU SAM system wouldn’t have it.
        Doubtful that even the acquisition radar would have the equipment to send and interpret civilian transponder squawks. That would be reserved for higher echelons, which would also give the order to fire.

        • Russia dont had american IFF or transponders in own IFF. You can easy to find IFF block on SA-11 TELAR. Its dont have any sign of transponder modes. Only interrogation of soviet/russian Kremniy-Parol and mark as friendly. So russian IFF on SA-11 TELAR can separate own military planes from enemy and cannot military from civilians.

  42. I am not sure if you saw this article or not.

    http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/buk.htm

    It states a lot of interesting things.
    One a fact not relevant to MH17, I think, but I believe it reads for naval targets, a wire is changed from powering up the proximity fuze and powers a contact fuse or fuze.

    ‘The concealment of SPM operation has been improved owing to the introduction of a laser range finder which together with the TV optical sight ensures passive direction finding of overland and waterborne targets.

    The modified software of the digital computer system ensures the optimal angles of missile flight to a target, thereby minimizing the effect of the underlying surface on the missile homing head.

    To increase the effectiveness of the missile warhead in engaging waterborne (overland) targets, the radio fuze is disconnected and the contact fuze is connected instead.’

    The other one was a question for the readers or admin here, I was wondering that in this image
    http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-SV/9A317-Stations-TELAR-MiroslavGyurosi-3S.jpg

    If that to the right is the Optical Imaging screen and controls, if that is what it is like in a standalone BUK, or is that an image from a Command Center?

    It comes from the third link in my comment above and it states it is a 9A317 TELAR station.
    That makes it a M1-2 or M2 or later model right?

    This Ukrainian site give some info and says they were working closely with RF to upgrade the BUKs.
    Does that mean it could even upgrade M1’s to modern equipment?
    At the end of the article, it describes upgrading the M1 to M1-2 capabilities, but not necessarily an equal to a M1-2.
    It was last copyrighted 2012, so I guess it is an older article, but not sure.

    http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/tehnika-pvo/75-zenitniy-raketniy-kompleks-buk

    Thanks for help in understanding this LETHAL weapon that just might have been supplied by someone who said he is not supplying weapons to Eastern Ukraine.
    His record on public statements is not that good though, we all remember the little green men that were not his, but a little while later, he admits, yes they were RF soldiers.

    Fare thee well

  43. Basic Dimension said : “But now next problem: Members of BUK tried to shoot a SU-25 at 1500 meters but may be this range is too short because the rocket still is in its first mode?”

    That’s still the same problem.
    Let me summarize again :

    1) If ANY SU25 (or other fighter) was flying, it must have been flying below 1500-2000 meter, or else it would have shown up on the Russian Defense Ministry’s radar images.

    2) For that SU25 to have ANYTHING to do with MH17, both planes must have been in the same radar beam for the duration of the missile flight (some 30 sec). Otherwise even a missile that misses the SU25 cannot have been illuminated by the BUK radar.

    This means (because of basic trigonometry, that the SU25 must have been flying at 135 km/hr or slower.

    Since that is physically impossible, the conclusion is clear :
    There was NO SU25 or other jet involved when MH17 was shot down.

    MH17 was the ONLY target on the BUK radar.

  44. Rob, I agree if 1500 meters really is the elevation lower bound of Russian primary surveillance radar it seems very hard Ukraine would try to mix the angular velocities of movement, the rate of change of elevation of MH17 mixed with that of SU-25 .

    Then possibly confusion might be left over as tactic whereby inexperienced members of the BUK panicked and fired a missile. In which case we have to relax the qualities of BUK-TELAR and their crew. We must relax the requirements of keeping the radar beam and the illumination by BUK-TELAR, since we have no objective record of these qualities of a stand alone.

    • Basic Dimensions said “Then possibly confusion might be left over as tactic whereby inexperienced members of the BUK panicked and fired a missile.”

      Still does not work, Basic Dimensions.

      Even if the BUK crew panicked for some reason, their radar beam would have to mysteriously illuminate MH17 instead of the target SU25, and the missile would have to have missed the SU25 target, and for some mysterious reason (which some experts state is impossible) would have to have re-locked onto MH17.

      Which is really hard to do if you are panicking.

      • The radar beam would also have to follow and guide the BUK missile to MH17.
        Unlikely if the target was originally a SU25.
        If they had two targets, wouldn’t they have launched two missiles as soon as they identified a second target?

        And for that, if they did recognize two targets or more, wouldn’t they have launched all missiles in an attempt at protecting themselves?
        We can clearly identify there are three missiles on the BUK video.
        One is missing, and it is difficult to identify the third missile precisely, could be long chord or could be short.
        As AD stated, common procedure for a near head on object is one missile, for a sideways target two missiles.
        If the BUK was up and running and identified a second target SU25 magically appearing after targeting the ‘AN26’ they would have attempted to destroy it as it was attempting to leave the engagement zone or attacking them.
        The BUK was not destroyed by a SU25, and a SU25 was not attacked by a BUK on July 17th.
        One target, one missile, one kill, all textbook for an incoming target your planning on.

        Fare thee well

        • We cannot make conclusions based on a suspicious video taken in Luhansk. As with all photos the date taken has not been established.
          Throwing out a photo/video claiming it was taken at a date without any way to verify is not proof. Yes, it cannot be debunked but that does not make the evidence genuine.

          That video of a BUK missing one missile could have been made on any date.

          • You are correct.
            A missile could have been off loaded in a short period of time and the BUK reloaded on the trailer and driving off down the roads on the same hijacked trailer and semi truck.

            Doubtful, but correct. A 20 foot long 1500 lb missile 15-20 feet off the ground is not easily off loaded though.

            We do agree that all of the images have the nose cones and TELAR unit facing the rear, correct?
            None have the white nose cone facing forward, and it would have only been that way to fire at its planned target.

            I am not sure of the chassis of the tank.
            Does it have a self leveling ‘air shock’ type system?
            Does the pilot’s cabin have to be level to fire?
            Or can it be at any angle to target and launch a missile?
            I have not come across it in my reading yet.
            I imagine it would have to have some type to get positioning and targeting correct.
            Not that it is that easy to shift around a 35 ton BUK.
            Is that a part of its settling in after it gets to the location it will defend?
            Just ask because of the various PS claims against the PM images.
            And maybe a self leveling method was used for transport also.

            Fare thee well

          • admin said “suspicious video taken in Luhansk”.

            The only think “suspicious” about the video taken in Luhansk is that the Russian Defense Ministry lied about it.

        • boggled said “The radar beam would also have to follow and guide the BUK missile to MH17.
          Unlikely if the target was originally a SU25.”

          Not just unlikely, but physically impossible, unless a SU25 can stay aloft at 135 km/hr or less.
          http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-7751

          So there is no question about it :
          No matter how many SU25’s were flying around at the time (even though there is NO evidence ANY SU25’s were flying over Donbass that day),

          MH17 was a SINGLE target in the BUK radar.

          The only question remaining is : If MH17 was not taken out deliberately, then HOW could the BUK crew have “accidentally” mistaken a Boeing 777 flying at FL330 for a Ukrainian fighter jet.

        • And which information (“spotter” or “radar”) the commander of that BUK was using to instruct the BUK crew to fire a missile….

          • And that goes to the heart of the matter.
            How many flights of the military were in the higher altitudes?
            Higher then 8 km?
            If there were very few, why would a BUK crew target and not go to great lengths to identify civilian versus military at the 10km and higher measurements?
            Airplanes at 900 kmh?
            They thought it was a MiG or SU24 with such a larger than normal radar signature?

            The only thing I think would be possible would be IL76, but they would have made sure of identification wouldn’t they?

            Considering the amount of Russian traffic and International traffic, they would have attempted some type of civilian aircraft.
            It is not like an IL76 would be dropping bombs or launching missiles at targets that they would be hard pressed to shoot first and question the target later.

            I am hard pressed to think of a reason the would target and launch without full confirmation at that height and speed.
            An IL76 is a four engine plane, that is not a Boeing 777 two engine.
            An AN26 is a twin propeller plane, completely different.

            I have a slight problem with the Aeroflot ‘accident’ scenario in that the IFF would have identified Boeing as not an Aeroflot plane, and if they would have been looking for an Aeroflot they would have had a different flight path to identify the target, and the IFF transponder codes.

            A SU24 or MiG29 are about the only thing that comes close that I could think of, but it is definitely a smaller radar fingerprint and I doubt a crew would mistake those.
            Especially with a plane flying a straight path and very little deviation.
            I imagine with either of the two locations of possible launch, there was enough time to identify a fighter jet versus a much larger civilian plane.
            It could have been a identification with either of those that made it an accident, but highly doubtful.

            Which leaves an intentional targeting of an international flight.
            And that leaves the question that does not make sense.
            What purpose would it serve?
            And I cannot find one unless Russia was going to try to pin (frame) the downing on Ukraine and prepared to give enough proof to begin a peacekeeping mission while things were sorted out.
            They would have been able to control the crime scene initially and then manufacture other evidence as they needed.
            Which to me sounds horrendous for a nation with a lot of nukes to intend to do and carry out, and also not get challenged, stopped, or exposed inside that government structure.

            Except Ukraine was first showing a BUK travelling through Eastern Ukraine and and one a video of one missing a missile and that foiled their plans of justifying a peacekeeping action.

            Still there is no concrete proof we have seen that Ukraine did NOT do it.
            And there is only a small amount of circumstantial proof they did do it.

            We need more evidence still, hopefully DSB and discussing it here will give us that little extra we can eliminate some of these possibilities.

            Fare thee well

          • An IL-76 has the same capabilities in speed and altitude as a commercial airliner. Its plausible to think a 10 km target could be an IL-76 if you were previously told there would be a military target at that altitude.

            There is no need to posit a deliberate shootdown by the Militia until you can falsify that option.

          • Andrew: you know a lot. Do you know the Youtube video which is refered to?

            Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.

            source: http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html

          • Admin:

            “Do you know the Youtube video which is refered to?”

            Just hazarding a guess, it would have to be the General Petrovsky tapes referencing receiving a BUK-M “this morning” and using it to shootdown an SU-25, which would not be July 17.

          • Andrew as you stated in your other post, a person on the ground should be able to identify an aircraft in the 4-7 km range with just their bare eyes.
            So a spotter with binoculars in a region with clear skies, or a optical sensor on a BUK with clear skies and the filters it needs should have been able to.
            And then lets not forget about the identification of a 4 jet engine plane’s signature (IL76) versus a 2 engine turbo prop (AN26) or a 2 LARGE jet engines of a 777.

            They can and do identify that radio frequency.
            Just the similar way the older car mechanics oscilloscope had ways of identifying the number of cylinders.

            There would have been a higher likelihood of civilian plane at that altitude than any UA military plane.
            All the more reason to get as much identification as possible or not shoot since it is only a transport aircraft if you cannot identify it.
            A bomber could be a direct threat, a transport, however, is not something you want to make a mistake on when you have an average of 30 civilian airliners flying overhead every day.

            admin, one video of the conversation can be found at

            http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/conversations-between-russian.html

            The first one is what I think you are asking about.

            Some others while browsing back through there that might be new to some or hold some relevance are –

            a few precrash tweets – http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/reconstruction-of-whereabouts-of-buk.html

            Strelkov begging for additional Moscow help July 5th 2014 before he and friends run off to Moscow and have a Powwow.
            http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/did-strelkov-unintentionally-admit-that.html

            evidence of a statement from Ukraine that 3 Russian regular troops were working the BUK released July 18th 2014.
            Final video on the page is interesting, how many could miss seeing a BUK plume from that view?
            http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-that-shot-down.html

            And finally the analysis and shootdown of the AN26.
            The tight turns of the following missile are interesting.
            Also the final video of the page shows a BUK missile making a 90 degree turn, but I have yet to see a BUK missile that acts what was in the AN26 video and snapshots.
            http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/likely-area-determined-of-russian-sam.html

            Fare thee well

  45. Russian Rostov radar has given quite remarkable interpretations of the alleged attack of SU-25 on MH17, which has been easily debunked as falling debris. In addition, Russia changed its theories regarding the cause of the attack continuously. Also Russia made an ‘understandable’ error where it changed 5000 feet into 5000 meters lower limit elevation angle. And indeed Rostov radar did not report SU-25s below 5 km.

    [But we can be wrong because sometimes Russian radars are working in standby mode which means detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude. Then the plane simply is too far from radar to see below 5 km.]

    Observations of Rostov radar should be interpreted with caution and may not be used as facts that Ukrainian SU-25 have not flown between 2000 and 5000 meters. Hence, the theory in which SU-25s confused and distracted the members of BUK, so they accidentally fired a BUK missile on MH17, cannot be debunked solely on the base of the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images.

    Another reason this theory cannot be easily debunked is the unreliability of reports concerning the exact operation of BUK-TELAR. As an example we have no reliable information that a BUK missile cannot “redirect” to a second target if it missed the first one. So far debunking is based on speculation and not on controllable facts.

    Especially ergonomics of BUK-TELAR to handle different aircraft at different speed and varying elevation angle is questionable:

    http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm

    Precisely I mean the rate of change of elevation target (MH17) combined with that of SU-25 over the horizon (angular velocity of movement) [angular velocity = radial speed]:

    http://www.buran.ru/MH17/980_80percent_256c_02t.gif

    On the basis of our knowledge of the working of BUK we are not in the position to exclude errors in human decision making. Hence, if angular velocities [radial speed] do not coincide because elevation angles differ, logically it might be impossible to confuse different aircraft but ergonomically confusion might be quite understandable. For, at the psychological level confusion is dictated by the complexity of the situation in the first place, as the BUK-environment is not designed to make such critical assessments with that silly radar screen.

    Radar measures slant range and BUK-TELAR also registers elevation angle, so the height of the plane and its ground track can be inferred. But all these measures are recoded and given digitally to the crew in the cabin. Ergonomically this looks irresponsible and in panic it might be much too difficult for the human mind to keep the overview.

    Google translate of http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm at

    http://sexualreligion.blogspot.nl/2015/08/scenario-mh17-hidden-behind-su-25.html

    [- Firstly, the target speed is not measured by conventional kilometers per hour, in meters per second, and its value is given to the digital two-digit (!) Indicator value x10; In other words, the speed of the Boeing 777, 900 km / h as the operator sees the “25”, and the speed of AN-26 is 450 km / h – as “13”; It is interesting, right? It is convenient for the purposes of the primary selection by type, for example – is less than “33” means the subsonic airplane, helicopter or a cruise missile, a value greater than “33” – a supersonic (ie uniquely military) aircraft, and in some cases more than “70” – it is flying missile, with the possible anti-radiation, i.e. released by someone at the SDA. In a sense, it is not so much the identification of the target as a signal operator – how fast he has to act, make decisions on missile launching; as you know, and Boeing, and the An-26 “sit” in a range of subsonic;- Secondly, the dial gauge in the bottom left corner of the photo shows the height of the target, but again on a scale of x10, ie height for the An-26 will be on this device as “0.5”, while Boeing-777 – “1”.]

    Further it is madness to think that setting strict standards regarding the use of BUK can avoid predictable human errors. And, a standalone BUK leads in advance to disasters. Therefore it is quite unlikely that Russia would have authorized to send a standalone BUK to Donetsk. This must have been decided by a renegade faction within the Russian army.

    BUK is a technologically very advanced lethal killer, but it can be a very unreliable murder weapon too. We have no scientific information, no international standards and no reports of how it really works. Far too little experience has been recorded in objective reports. That it can kill, we know, but we know nothing about checks and balances. And before we get this information we conservatively assume that from BUK everything can be expected. Hence we exclude no fatal interactions of human failure with BUK-failure.

    Scenario 3:

    The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target. The missile found a new target being MH17.

    Scenario 5:

    SU-25s were flying very close to passenger aircraft to use as a human shield. On the 18th of June, one month before this disaster, Elena Kolenkina, a Russian separatist in Sloviansk and the wife of rebel commander Arsen Pavlov reported that the Ukrainian Air Force were tailing civilian planes over Eastern Ukraine. The claims, if proven true, indicate that the Ukraine were using civilian aircraft as human shields.

    Merging scenario 3 and 5.

    (p = 1.0): Civilians in the neighborhood of the disaster said to have seen one or two SU-25.

    (p = .5): There was one or two SU-25 of Ukraine at the disaster with MH17.

    (p = .8): Russian government was not well informed about the cause of the disaster.

    (p = .01): Rostov radar noticed a SU-25 near MH17 at 10 km altitude.

    (p = .9): Because the crew of the BUK also did not quite understand what happened the Russian government decided window dressing of the detrimental effects of SU-25 for the separatists.

    (p = .9): In this scenario Russia knows from Rostov radar – and the public – that SU-25’s were there, so this could not be denied. But their altitude would make an enormous moral difference. High altitude would accuse Ukraine of wittingly committing war crime; low altitude accuses Ukraine of instigation of war crimes by separatists, which would therefore be morally condemned as Russia.

    (p = .9) Because the Russians clearly have lied and again came up with different scenarios they lost all credibility. And that means that Ukrainian SU-25 may well have flown between 1500 meters and 5000 meters. It would be absurd to debunk the confusion and distraction theory of SU-25 with MH17 under acceptance of the entirely unreliable reporting of the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images and poor understanding of real qualities and shortcomings of BUK-TELAR in technical and ergonomic sense.

  46. All here went to useless discussion about mythical ukrainian Su-25 present in area. There is double useless since facts:
    1. No Su-25 NEAR MH17 on radars. So zero probability for wrong hitted plane.
    2. Any Su-25 FAR AWAY from MH17 cannot be mixed with B777 and cannot be reason for shot down MH17. So it again zero probability.
    Trolls flood this site with unconfirmed information about presence (or possible flights in unidentified time) of ukrainian Su-25 and went off in absolutely false direction – trying inject idead about collision of two targets for radars or idea about non-crime action of terrorists against civilian plane which count as military. And it is all false and lie. Very good for Putin and his terrorists.

  47. Thirteen months later the US is backing away from John Kerry’s statements made 7/20/14. The shift was subtle. I didn’t notice it at first. Kerry was on all five Sunday talk shows. Here are some of John Kerry’s statements on that day from each talk show. As you read, pay attention to Kerry’s certainty about what he said.

    “Russia has armed the separatists. Russia has supported the separatists. Russia has trained the separatists.” “We track – we, ourselves, tracked the imagery of the launch of this surface-to-air missile, of the disappearance of the aircraft from the radar at that time. We know that this comports with an SA-11 system because it hit an aircraft at the altitude of 33,000 feet.”
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229506.htm

    “We know that from our own imagery, we see that an SA-11, which is what we have assessed this to be the type of surface-to-air missile because of the altitude – the plane was at 33,000 feet. We know they had an SA-11 right in the vicinity hours before this shoot.” “And we know that – we have a video now of a transporter removing an SA-11 system back into Russia, and it shows a missing missile or so.” “So there’s enormous amount of evidence, even more evidence than I just documented, that points to the involvement of Russia in providing these systems, training the people on them.”
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229509.htm

    “We know for certain that the separatists have a proficiency that they’ve gained by training from Russians as to how to use these sophisticated SA-11 systems. We know they have the system. We know that they had this system to a certainty on Monday the 14th beforehand, because the social media was reporting it and tracking it.” “We know because we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shoot-down, we detected a launch from that area and our trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft.” “And now we have a video showing the – a launcher moving back through a particular area there out into Russia with a missing – at least one missing missile on it.” “Well, it basically – it’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia in the hands of separatists. We know with confidence – with confidence – that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time.”
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229508.htm

    “We know to a certainty that we saw the launch from this area of what we deem to be an SA-11 because of the altitude – 33,000 feet – and because of the trajectory. We have the trajectory recorded. We know that it occurred at the very moment that this aircraft disappeared from the radar screen.”
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229505.htm

    “We know that they had an SA-11 system in the vicinity literally hours before the shoot-down took place.” “But even more importantly, we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing, and it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229507.htm

    All the above details are stated as facts. The language is not tentative. The Secretary of State says “we know” “we see” “we track” “we detected” “we know with confidence” “we know to a certainty”. His language is not remotely uncertain.

    John Kerry stayed on message for a while. Three weeks later he said, “But there is no question – and we’ve said this publicly previously, but that this type of weapon and all the evidence of it was seen on our imagery. We saw the takeoff. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this airplane disappear from the radar screen. So there’s really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.”
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/08/230525.htm

    To paraphrase Kerry, there is no question about what happened and there is no mystery about the source of the Buk. No doubt whatsoever.

    The shift from this posture of absolute confidence began 12/17/14 with Victoria Nuland’s statement during a question and answer session at the American Enterprise Institute. She said, “Andrei, first to your point with regard to US intelligence at the time of the Malaysian airliner’s tragic shoot down, first, just to say to you that – just to remind you that Secretary Kerry on I believe it was July 21st, it was the Saturday after
    the shoot down, gave a very detailed discussion of what we knew from our own assets, including providing considerable detail with regard to the trajectory of the firing, et cetera. And he made clear at that time that we believed it was shot down by a Buk missile from separatist-held territory. We stand by that. We have given all of our information, including our classified information, to the Dutch, who are the investigators, and to ICAO.”
    http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2014/dec/235495.htm

    Nuland got the day and date wrong (it was Sunday, 7/20/14), and she said that “we believed it was shot down by a Buk missile from separatist-held territory.” Note the shift. No longer does the US “know” what happened. The US now “believes”. The problem with belief is that it is mixed with doubt. For readers who do not speak English natively, belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

    Nuland’s statement wasn’t a fluke. John Kerry also switched to the same uncertain language. On 7/16/15 Kerry said, “As I first said on July 20th last year, we believe that MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine.” http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/kerry-mh17-07162015.html

    John Kerry misquoted himself. On 7/20/14 he did not say “we believe”. Not even once. What Kerry said and what he didn’t say on 7/20/14 is known because the State Dept. has provided an index. http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/index.htm

    Kerry’s 7/20/14 statements were more certain than “we believe”. The new spin is not an accident. High ranking US officials know exactly what they are saying. They know what evidence the US has, and they know what the DSB and JIT know. Now they’re spinning what John Kerry said 3 days after the crash.

    The media have done their part. Everything Kerry said on 7/20/14 has been repeated endlessly. The claims are all dutifully repeated. You would have to live under a rock to not know the claims that the rebels had Buks, that they were trained by the Russians, that they were seen on 7/17/14 transporting Buks at locations within range of MH17, that the US by various means saw the launch from rebel controlled territory, saw the trajectory of the missile in flight, saw the strike and later saw a launch vehicle heading for Russia with one or more missing Buk missiles.

    But where are the headlines saying that Kerry today is not so sure? Where are the headlines saying Kerry has changed from “knowing” to “believing” what he said?

    The signs should be clear to all who have felt confident that MH-17 was shot down by a Buk, nothing more and nothing less, which was launched from rebel-controlled territory. US and Dutch officials who are better informed are now saying that this claim is what they believe rather than facts that they know beyond a doubt. We will know why soon.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*