Almaz Antey did not invite DSB researchers nor other experts nor journalists to observe their test

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

To show the effect of an explosion of a BUK missile and to prove DSB made incorrect conclusions Almaz Antey took an IL86 aircraft and had a BUK missile explode near it.

Almaz Antey did not invite press, independant experts nor members of the DSB lead investigation team to observe and validate the test.

Metabunk has some interesting comments about the test.

This is really strange. As the Russian Federation is accused of having delivered the BUK and likely operated the BUK, it would be logic to invite all the press to watch the test. This is quite a spectacular sight and would for sure generate a lot of attention in press.

The first time the results of the experiment were shown to the press and public was at the Almaz Antey pressconference at October 13 2015. Foreign press was invited a few days before to come over t attend the pressconference. Costs for travel and hotel were paid by Almaz Antey.

The image below shows the response of DSB to a letter of Rosaviatsiya. On the right column DSB explains why the results of the AA test  were not part of the DSB investigation. The full response can be seen here. 

The experiment can be seen here


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

72 Comments on Almaz Antey did not invite DSB researchers nor other experts nor journalists to observe their test

  1. Regarding the AA slides and the Metabunk discussion I find these informations provided by AA the most interesting:

    1 row contain 3 strike elements which save initial shape. But look how different they look with compare to almost untouched strike element from previous slide!
    2 row contain 7 strike elements which mis-shaped and cannot leave specific hole.
    Conclusion: 70% of heavy bow-tie strike elements lose their shape before hitting target!
    See images of #26 (

    This would explain that not as many originally shaped bowtie elements can be found, nor their impact holes. Of course we need to add the other differences as the spread-pattern of fragments might differ with a static model and with added velocities of a BUK and the plane.

    Also #29 is very interesting explaining the deformation of bowtie elements even before their impact due to the nature of the explosion and the fragment layer arrangement.

    • sotilaspassi // May 24, 2016 at 4:38 pm // Reply

      Only now read your post.
      Made same observation elsewhere.
      After 2mm aluminium only 30% of killing elemens have any bowtie shape left.

      • Please offer proof of your observations.

        AD: [And this manipulation!
        Look how slightly damaged bow-tie strike element after explosion and penetration. It happen because Almaz-Antey used specific engineering tool for study high speed penetrations called light-gas gun!
        Construction of this gun prevent damage to accelerated object (compared with warhead explosion) since explosion pressure and temperature received by rupture disk in high-pressure coupler.]

        Please offer proof of AA using the light gun.

        • It’s on the A-A slides. Showing shrapnel that was dug out from trap after going through 2mm of aluminium.

          (I wonder how Almaz-Antey is unable to write in english, most likely because they are interested only in russian propaganda and do not want the rest of the world to read what they write.)

          • I agree the A-A investigation must be done again on a Boeing-777 at the “Airplane Graveyard” at Mojave Airport in California. It must be controlled by independent scientists and as punishment it must be payed by the Dutch.

          • It’s unlikely that decommissioned 777s exist. The plane is relatively new. I am up for a repeat but I much doubt that it’ll ever happen. Because Almaz Antey are unlikely to have cheated. If they did Ukraine would already have reproduced the test explosion. They have hundreds of those warheads about to go out of date. They’d also find an Il-86 on their junkjards without problem.

          • at Eugene
            Futile and void experiment does not need to be repeated.

          • Eugene,

            I agree and also I do not think A-A has cheated, but it has to be confirmed internationally. Also their second aluminum plate test is methodologically wrong.

            Personally I am more interested in little SAM and A2A on Boeing-like planes, may be somewhat older ones. I wonder if cutting edge technology impaired the cockpit construction of Western planes. Meanwhile I have come to the conviction the cause of the break off of the cockpit must be the Boeing-777 itself.

          • sotilaspasdi, please do tell us did Almaz Antey photoshop the bowtie shaped holes or did they drill them on Il-86 before photographing?

          • sotilaspassi // May 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm //

            At eugene
            I will not repeat.

          • Here is s picture of an Il-86 in storage (museum) in Kiev. Ukraine could have used it for a test repeat. They could sacrifice the museum specimen for the sake of the truth. Especially now, when they are hastily getting rid of all historical evidence linking it to Russia.


            However, the easier way for Ukraine would be to take up Yan Novikov at his words and request a retest, bringing their own specialists and reporters. But that will not happen, and we know why.

            It’s yet safer for Ukraine to concentrate on a primitive media campaign targeting the poorly uneducated masses than getting involved in interpreting experimental results, which would be understood by the few.

            The fact that the test can be easily verified, tells me that Almaz Antey had not cheated. It would be stupid to give your adversary such an easy way to prove you lying. And you normally don’t lie while at the same time saying “I am going to repeat the test with external specialists present, if requested so”.

            The kill weapon was not a Buk.

  2. sotilaspassi // May 17, 2016 at 9:29 pm // Reply

    Because no independent observers were present, AA test is absolutely void / futile.

    We have no way knowing what kind of warhead they managed to fabricate for test.
    Kreml has lied everything so far vs MH17. AA is 100% Kreml controlled, they do not say/do anything without kreml approval.
    Definitely like butcher testing his own meat.

    result at least is totally different, MH17 heavy structure around cockpit was blown to pieces immediately at 10km, IL86 would have continued flying (without crew, though)

    • > “AA is 100% Kreml controlled …”

      I do not like these no-sense arguments.

      What do you think about:

      “General Motors is 100% White House controlled …”

      “Volkswagen is controlled by Angela Merkel …”

      I am sometimes under the impression that Angela Merkel is controlled by Volkswagen instead …

      Big companies have their own interests and closely co-operate with their governments. Everywhere in the world!

      • Almaz-Antey is run by RU government (the owner).
        GM and Volksvagen are privately owned, as far as I know.

        New/unfamiliar things for a Russian, I know.

        • Viktor Shevchuk // May 23, 2016 at 9:09 am // Reply

          What would be new to the Dutch then would be to conduct a test.
          Why didn’t the Dutch try to do a test.Are tests unfamiliar to them?

          • To do a test you need to:
            -fly several radio controlled Boeing777 planes to target area at 10km height and shoot it with normal BUK TELAR to get good amount of results to compare

            -Alternatively you could build a sled to move the missile 900m/s vs Boeing777 target and somehow arrange the BUK proximity fuse to operate normally (or detonate the warhead by best guess) Also this would need to be repeated a few times with different parameters.

            Detonating a non moving warhead beside non moving plane is not enough.

          • Viktor Shevchuk // May 24, 2016 at 9:26 am //

            Sotilaspossi…..Can you make up your mind. You just wrote (above) “Because no independent observers were present, AA test is absolutely void / futile.”
            So you claim the test is futile because DSB didn’t go.
            Now you say the test is futile because the plane wasn’t moving.
            Sorry , you have lost all credibility.

          • at Viktor

            1) No independent party could verify the test equipment (like the missile).
            2) Test setup had numerous errors why it is void (like non moving warhead/target, incorrect position)

  3. Liane Theuer // May 17, 2016 at 10:36 pm // Reply

    The Guardian on June 2/2015 :
    „A Russian defence conglomerate has suggested recreating the MH17 plane crash by shooting another Boeing 777 aircraft out of the sky using a Buk missile system.
    Almaz-Antey, which makes the Buk systems, said such an experiment would help prove its thesis of how the plane was shot down over eastern Ukraine in July last year.
    The company’s general director, Yan Novikov, said Almaz-Antey was prepared to stage a reconstruction of the crash, “despite the significant costs involved”, in order to prove the angles. He said the company could invite international observers could take part.“

    „… presentation made today (2nd June 2015) by the BUK missile system’s manufacturer Almaz-Antey.
    The presentation was made in connection with Almaz-Antey’s case in the European Court of Justice to have the sanctions imposed upon it lifted. The same findings presumably will also be made available to the two official inquiries investigating the MH17 tragedy. (..)
    I note Almaz-Antey’s offering help with physical tests and simulations. I will be interested to see if anyone takes up this offer.”

    So Almaz-Antey suggested recreating the MH17 plane crash since June 2015.
    But it seems neither DSB nor JIT nor ICAO were interested in it.
    Let alone that they had contributed to the cost. Why invite them under this circumstances ?

    Russia Today on October 13/2015 :
    „The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) both ignored Russian BUK missile producer Almaz-Antey’s results and failed to accept an invitation to Russia to study materials relating to the MH17 crash which had remained in the possession of the arms manufacturer, spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova said in a statement on Tuesday.
    She added that analytics provided by Rosaviatsiya (Russia’s aviation authority) and submitted to investigators were disregarded as well.
    “That is why serious doubts [exist over whether] … the investigation conducted in the Netherlands was aimed at establishing the real causes of the plane crash, rather than justifying the previously-made accusations,” she said.
    The Dutch report on the MH17 tragedy doesn’t have substantial evidence to claim the plane was downed from the area controlled by eastern Ukrainian militia, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said.
    “It’s a source of regret that, despite all Russia’s repeated and lengthy attempts to organise the investigation in such a way that it is comprehensive and unbiased, and for it to consider all the information we have … there is an obvious attempt to draw a biased conclusion, and carry out political orders,” Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.”

    I think as MH17 was shut down there were two suspects : Ukraine and the separatists (with or without help from Russia).
    An unbiased investigation should have never allow Ukraine to take part and on the other hand exclude Russia from the most important parts of the investigation.

    @sotilaspassi : Isn´t Ukraine as suspect “like butcher testing his own meat”, too ?

    • Indeed, AA announced after their first report issued at june 2nd 2015 they offered to do experiments. Obviously there was no respons from DSB.

      Should they have abandoned performing these experiments anyway? Or is it understandable they would go on with these anyway and take measures their message would come out through their own channels instead of DSB?

    • >Isn´t Ukraine as suspect “like butcher testing his own meat”, too ?

      Where is Ukraine testing “his own meat”?

      Crash cause investigation was handed over to DSB/ICAO/international team of investigators. They have done good job. Professionals around the world have so far pointed no serious issues/faults found on their work.

      • Both the DSB investigation as well as JIT has active participation of Ukraine. For the DSB investigation I can imagine.
        For the JIT criminal investigation you can ask yourself if it is a good thing to include for example the SBU in the JIT team.
        First Ukraine failed to close its airspace. Secondly Ukraine was aware of presence of BUKs long before MH17 was downed.
        Third there is a possibility Ukraine is responsible for downning of MH17. So SBU in JIT is not an ideal situation for justice and finding truth.

        • It might have been better if Ukraine/SBU would have been kept out of JIT.

          -But Russian military was operating on their soil.
          -DSB proved similarly as the rest of the world (except putinists) that BUK missile came from rebel area -> UA not suspected for shooting any more
          -To my understanding no-one has “veto” on JIT results
          -DSB already proved that UA did not close airspace like it should have closed
          -Unless I’m mistaken, JIT is trying to find out who shot the missile from rebel area and who gave orders. JIT is not investigating if UA did or did not close airspace.
          -Without Ukraine, what intelligence of rebel movements would be left out of reach of JIT?

          But most likely better if Ukraine would have been left outside of the JIT team.

      • JustThinking // May 23, 2016 at 9:08 pm // Reply

        Read this interview.
        Ex Major-general of Justice Vasili Vovk (SBU)
        Ex chief of the Central Investigation Department

        “The leading role in the investigation does not belong to the Netherlands”

        “Anyone who says that the leading role in the investigation belongs to the Netherlands or to someone else, is wrong. All the information – and it has accumulated a huge array, and it is even not yet fully worked out by us – is in the SBU, Ukraine. And no one will publish anything – until they are legalized materials that were obtained by secret operative actions. I mean wiretapping, interception of radio and so on.

        “International investigation team – just a communicator”
        “To be honest, the closest to the investigation are the Netherlands and Ukraine”
        “So when someone exclaims: “International investigation team is investigating” – it is necessary to understand that it doesn’t investigate. It is just the communicator, codifier, digester – whatever you want to call it”

  4. In the presentatopn the head of Almaz Antey Ian Novikov said that AA is more than prepared to invite journalists and repeat the test explosion, if a government of a country involved in the crash requests so. So, why wouldn’t Dutch president take up AA at their words? You can encourage him doing so by, for example, devoting a page to the extremely serious allegations about significant disagreement between the conclusions of the DSB report and the AA test, discussed in the r27 thread.

    • Its unthinkable official representatives of nations participating in JIT would attend these kinds of presentations.

      They would acknowledgde the Russian point of viw, which are diametrical opposed to their own research and which were rejected alltogether in the DSB final report.

      Like the Netherlands refused to do business with the “self declared” government of DNR because they would legitimize this government in that way.

  5. If someone is studying the density of impacts on MH17 vs IL86, one observation:
    To me it seems the most dense fragment impact area of MH17 seems so heavily affected that almost nothing remains of it. Mainly the edges of the impact area (low density) were covered.

  6. Masami Kuramoto // May 18, 2016 at 11:48 pm // Reply

    The headline is misleading. It should read:

    “DSB researchers did not invite Almaz-Antey nor other experts to validate TNO’s missile simulation”

    • Viktor Shevchuk // May 23, 2016 at 9:17 am // Reply

      Correct but I don’t think it’s intentional The author of this site is not a native English speaker and often words things poorly in my view.
      But I do commend him on his great work here

      • Correct but I don’t think it’s intentional(.) The author of this site is not a native English speaker and often words things (?) poorly in my view.
        But I do commend him on his great work here (.)

        • Viktor Shevchuk // May 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm // Reply

          It’s not a personal attack. Anyone reading this site in English will be misled regularly by the poor or ambiguous or contradictory wording

          • Yes, I should have been more polite, sorry, but in the Netherlands we already learn four languages at school and the seriousness of the case makes grammatical mistakes totally unimportant. But you are right, regularly I don’t understand my own ‘English’ 🙂

    • Yes indeed, where is the time journalists were no experts.

  7. Regarding metabunk discussion, important point is mentioned at the end of linked thread (from Appendix V of AA report):

    It appears that during the simulation no consideration was given to the specifics of the proximity fuse. The main feature of the proximity fuse of 9M38 and 9M38M1 rockets is that on receiving the required number of response impulses by the reception antenna, a functional delay is activated.
    The time of the functional delay is optimized on such condition that when firing at head-on courses the detonation point would be at least 3 to 5 meters from the front part of the aircraft in the direction of the tail unit.
    The delay may change only in case the response signal of the proximity fuse disappears. (when a target is flying on crossing courses). In this case an immediate detonation of the warhead occurs. The distribution of fragment spray is optimized with a functional delay. Given the summarized speeds of the rocket and the target in the range of 1000 – 1200 m/s, the spay of fragments will be directed perpendicularly to the rocket movement
    Thus, in the case of the encounter conditions between the aircraft and the rocket, described in section 3.7.4, the detonation point of the rocket warhead should have been 3-5 meters further from the front part of the aircraft towards the tail unit.

    This behaviour can be easily seen in many anti-air missiles, Russian or US, thus making the only possible point for detonation as observed to happen on crossing course (thus refuting forward point of Shnitze, and pointing to Zaroschenskoe).

    • IMO, the 3…5m extra delay would cause the missile to start missing some of it’s intended targets.

      And if launched from Zaroschenskoe the proximity fuse detects Boeing777 about 17 meters before fuselage. So it’s absolutely sure the shrapnel would hit from right to left if launched from there.

      • Sotilaspassi,

        No, absolutely not. Following the state of the art, that’s Eugene and me, the launch site was between Zaroshchenske and Snizhne. Then shrapnel hits the left side. I offer you these pictures 🙂

        • You think BUK proximity fuse look sideways 90%?

          Where have you got that idea?

          • Even with 50 degrees it works:

            [The delay may change only in case the response signal of the proximity fuse disappears. (when a target is flying on crossing courses). In this case an immediate detonation of the warhead occurs.]

            If the proximity fuse disappears it detonates too early just in front of the cockpit:


          • sotilaspassi // May 23, 2016 at 6:57 pm //

            My brain does not compute it the same way.

          • Most interesting discussion. But in my view the BUK-missile is semi-active homing and reacting on the radar impulse from BUK-TELAR. I suppose this is reflected by the nose of the target. So, the proximity fuse will not react on the right side of the cockpit. I do not think active homing cutting corners is involved.

          • Liane Theuer // May 23, 2016 at 10:42 pm //

            Basic wrote : ” But in my view the BUK-missile is semi-active homing and reacting on the radar impulse from BUK-TELAR.”

            This link provides a detailed picture of the Agat 9E420 digital CW dual plane monopulse semiactive radar homing seeker for the 9M317 :

            But note the sentence „Details of the missile proximity fuses and warheads, datalinks, autopilots and solid rocket motors have not been disclosed to date.“

            But as you can read in this link, all SARH can be upgraded with Active radar homing seekers :

            „The 9B-1103M-350 is a variant which is specifically designed as a replacement retrofit seeker for existing new build or legacy semi-active homing SAM seekers, with the 3M9/9M9 (SA-6) and 9M38 (SA-11/17) cited as specific targets for such upgrades.
            With an ‘AMRAAM-like’ seeker the missile can be launched in several modes:
            Active post launch, where the SAM goes active once off the launch rail and homes to impact. This mode is limited to short ranges.
            Inertial midcourse with active terminal homing, where the SAM flies out to a preprogrammed box and autonomously acquires the target.
            Inertial midcourse with datalink updates and active terminal homing, where the SAM flies out under datalink control and autonomously acquires the target.
            The latter two modes are also compatible with third party tracking where the engagement radar is not emitting search or track signals, launching and guiding the missiles against an aimpoint provided by another sensor such as an Emitter Locating System or other radar.“

            For a False Flag this upgrade would be the best option as it makes it more difficult to detect the launch site.

            P.S. : In the search for alternative missiles instead of Buk the S-125 Pechora comes into question.

          • Does anyone have further “intelligence” how BUK missile works when it approach a target:

          • Brendan // May 26, 2016 at 9:37 am //

            Liane, that page doesn’t say whether upgrading a missile with an active seeker could also increase the maximum altitude that the missile can strike, but I suspect that it could. Max altitude is not always limited by just the energy of the missile’s rocket and fuel supply, it could also be subject to the limitations of the radar homing system (such as SARH illuminated from a TELAR in the case of a standard BUK).

            Even an SARH-guided missile like the SA-6 can have its max altitude increased by improving the guidance system on the ground, according to this description:

            “The basic SA-6A has a minimum effective range of 3,000m. The minimum engagement height is 100m when using the 1S91 STRAIGHT FLUSH fire control radar and 80m when in the optical tracking mode, the maximum effective altitude is about 11,000m.”

            Improving the homing seeker inside the missile should therefore produce a similar result of increasing the maximum effective altitude.

            It has been stated many times that the BUK is the only type of missile system available in eastern Ukraine that could reach MH17’s altitude. That ignores the possibility of upgrading various types of missile with an active seeker. The Ukrainians claim that they are able to upgrade a 9M38 missile with a newer 9N314M warhead, even though Almaz-Antey say that those two parts do not belong together. So fitting a new homing seeker should not be any problem for the Ukrainians to do either.

  8. JustThinking // May 22, 2016 at 11:13 am // Reply

    “As a result, the concern offered to host the second phase of full-scale experiment in order to confirm or refute the version of the international commission, but the Dutch side refused to participate in the study, reported in the “Almaz-Anthea.” The experiment was conducted October 7, 2015 on their own concern experts. The results, indicated in the “Almaz-Anthea”, showed the failure of the international version of the Commission on the launch rockets from the area of ​​snow, which at that time controlled by the separatists, as well as on the type of warhead”

  9. Sergey Tokarev // May 23, 2016 at 11:57 pm // Reply

    You of course have heard about a nuisance law-suit of one Jerry Skinner against Russia, on behalf of relatives of Australian victims. You ignore it. However there are interesting post in Russia Insider article about this. Blogger Mikasa Ackermann gives a link to an article in globalresearch, which you probably know. Another link is an interesting analysis in Russian. The conclusion is that it was Israeli air-to-air missile Python. Maybe you know this too. The analysis isn’t amateurish at all.

  10. Fourth attempt to post this, now to the end of thread.

    Related to discussion of BUK approach in 50deg angle and

    TELAR “lights” the whole target with it’s radar, I’ve read at max range that is 180m area around the Boeing777. Missile sees the sum of reflected radar signal, in practice it means missile target the center of Boeing777 echo.

    When missile comes closer to target, it starts to focus on the strongest signal reflected from target.
    That can be the engine area or the nose of Boeing777, nose becoming more likely when coming closer to target in an angle.

    The guidance of missile proceeds like that until proximity fuse detonates the warhead.

    Proximity fuse use it’s own radar transmitter built in the missile. So, when any metal comes to it’s view and reflections are received, detonation process is started according to built in delay.

    Proximity fuse detection beam must be at least “long” enough to cover 17m kill range to the sides, this would mean minimum of some 20m+ signal forward in 30deg-60deg angle (depending on missile design), in practice the beam is not “limited” to 20m, it most likely detects targets up to 40m (to the side, 50m~in forward angle) or so, because warhead has capability to cause damage to that range.

    For missile to work reliable the logic needs to be very simple, more so with decades old missiles.

    BUK missile is designed to kill cruise missiles (<<10 meter long & 300m/s speed & 1000m/s collision speed) and maneuvering fighter jets (15 meters long & 1300m/s collision speed).

    If fuse delay is (up to) 7ms like DSB somewhere stated, it means missile travels 7 meters vs approaching target before it detonates. Against cruise missile 7ms delay cause BUK to be able to hit only the tail of the approaching missile. + Almaz-Antey delay, it would miss the target.
    Also against supersonic fighter jet 7ms delay + Almaz-Antey delay would cause the missile to miss the target or damage only the tail of the fighter jet.

    Detonating warhead after proximity fuse received signal is lost would seem to be too late. (emergency action by missile, hoping that some of the shrapnel from warhead tail would still hit the target while 95%+ of fragments miss the target)

    That's roughly what I've learned.
    I might be wrong, just waiting someone to dig facts to prove it if I'm wrong.
    (preferably in english)

    • Sotilaspassi,

      The missile already identified from TELAR ‘the sum of reflected radar signal, in practice it means missile target the center of Boeing777 echo’. It would be illogical if this information about ‘the center of target’ was neglected with the onset of the proximity fuse.

      [When missile comes closer to target, it starts to focus on the strongest signal reflected from target.
      That can be the engine area or the nose of Boeing777, nose becoming more likely when coming closer to target in an angle.]

      To avoid confusion the target of the proximity fuse will be brought in agreement with the earlier received radar center from TELAR. Only when TELAR stops emitting radar pulses then the proximity fuse has to choose its own center.

      Which all means the fuse might see the right wing, but it knows it must detonate on the nose. And now the horizontal course angle with the launch site becomes important, since below 50 degrees azimuth BUK-TELAR will aim at the nose of the plane.

      The delay story is indeed somewhat weird. I would say detonation starts when received pulses converge to their maximum rate at the target, that’s the nose.

      • Basic, to me that seems absolute nonsense.

        From my learnings, BUK proximity fuse use it’s own radar transmitter and is fully independent from TELAR sent signal.

        It reacts when it’s own signal is reflected from any surface on it’s view.

        Proximity fuse does not choose any center. It’s function is to detonate warhead when detects “metal”. (more so with decades old missiles)

        If TELAR radio guidance is lost, warhead detonates immediately.
        If TELAR sent radar signal receiving is temporarily blocked warhead should not detonate.
        If proximity fuse does not trigger the warhead, missile most likely continue flying on set track until it is out of TELAR guidance radio signal or hits ground and then detonates.

        But if documented better know-how appears, it’s welcome.

        • Sotilaspassi,

          Thanks, I think you’re right with the fuse detonator. Does this mean in your opinion the missile might have approached from the left side?

          • Basic Dimension,
            This sotilispassis discussion about fuse workings seems to be a bit amature. For example, he writes a lot but he doesn’t know that the impulse trigger slit antenna also measures distance, which is also taken into account while determining the detonation time. Secondly, the trigger beam may bounce off the body when touching at a shallow angle and need a relatively normal hit point, we don’t know. So overall, sotilaspassi’s arguments cannot be considered serious, but just another load of noise.

          • sotilaspassi // May 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm //

            No. Only possibility is from ahead. About 0… 30deg to the right of flight path.
            Navigation methode of BUK takes it to the other side of the plane’s nose before detonation, when target does not maneuver.

            Unless I find any hard proof stating otherwise.

          • Make no mistake: I am amateur.

            I have 12 month of training & practice on “wrong kind of” missile system (= NOT a BUK system). Training only helps me to better understand some logic of missile technology, I hope.

            The rest is just hobby study after RU MOD got me fooled with their press event after MH17 crash.

  11. Sergey Tokarev // May 24, 2016 at 8:22 pm // Reply

    So, as in many previous cases – as in case of ‘Yarosh name card’, the most laughed at version turns out to be true. I strongly believe that it was a pre-planned false flag – which is proven by a phone intercept forged in advance. SU-25 hit MH17 with air2air missile, probably Israeli Python, mistaking it for Russia’s Board #1. VK report is absolutely scientific, nothing amateurish in it – though I didn’t check it step by step. Let us challenge this version, looking for facts that can refute it. Let us try all other versions possible, and apparently discard them.

    • Insane conspiracy theory. Impossible because:
      SU-25 is not stealth (UA has no stealth aircraft) to hit on cockpit python should be launched from ahead of MH17, on roughly same altitude.
      There was no python missile equipped devices on the area.
      UA does not have python missile.
      etc etc etc.

    • What you’re calling the VK report is perhaps better known as the albert_lex report or the Albert Naryshkin report. If you check the document properties the author is “Uzzer” and the title is Министерство обороны Российской Федерации (Russian Ministry of Defense).

      The report’s string analysis and hole analysis have already been discussed. It probably would be more widely discussed if it was available in an accurate English translation.

      Even with its language limitation the report annoys Buk conspiracy trolls and forces questions to be asked such as “How could a 70 kg Buk warhead detonating 3-4 meters away produce the pattern of damage seen on the Boeing’s skin?” and “How could a Buk warhead detonating 3-4 meters away produce grazing marks that point to a detonation point about 1 meter away?”

      As for the credibility of the AA test, no amount of transparency would have removed all suspicions that it was a less than honest experiment. Questions would arise if the experiment was repeated with DSB/JIT experts on hand and broadcast live by all networks. Buk conspiracy theory trolls would ask, “How do we know AA didn’t tamper with the warhead?” and demand the impossible — for AA to prove a negative.

  12. “the most laughed at version”
    It was laughed at for a reason,because its nonsense
    Damage to MH17 does not match Python and/or R-27 warhead simply not big enough and frags do not match
    MH17 was downed by a BuK missile,anyone pretending they have proved otherwise is fooling himself and trying to fool others

  13. Ukraine, has done their own field test (and yes they did not invite journalists either). No pictures of the result are available yet, only the following:
    I look forward to see their holes.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.