Reconstructing the arrival of the separatists at the crash sites of Grabovo and Rozsypne

guest blog by Arnold Greidanus

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Summary
MH17 was downed at 16:20:03 on July 17th, 2014. Soon after separatists went out to the area where the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 had fallen. By combining video and written sources it is established the first separatist units arrived at Grabovo at approximately 16:50 EEST. These were men from the Oplot battalion, arriving from Shakhtarsk, expecting having “to fight the Ukrainian pilots” of an AN-26 freighter plane, but “instead stumbled across dead bodies of civilians”.
A little earlier some separatists coming from Nikishyne arrived at Rozsypne, but soon after they also headed to the main crash site at Grabovo.
From video footage made by separatists shortly after their arrival it becomes evident the story of a SU-25 having downed MH17 was made up by Donetsk ‘headquarters’ around 17:00.

This post has been transferred to Arnold Greidanus’ site.
For the full text go to: http://www.arnoldg.xyz/reconstructing-arrival-of-the-separatists/

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

75 Comments on Reconstructing the arrival of the separatists at the crash sites of Grabovo and Rozsypne

  1. “Oleg Vtulkin was in his hometown of Torez in eastern Ukraine on July 17 last year, when an unfamiliar noise caught his attention. ‘I heard a loud explosion and a hiss”.

    It’s the hissing I find here interesting. That’s how I’d expect someone to desruibe an actual missile launch in terms of sequence, loudness and frequency. It means he had to be quite close to the SAM launch site. The explosion of the warhead at 10 km altidue or the crashing plane parts way further near Hrabove might not have even been audible for him to the degree to check it out like he described.

    • Buk smoke plume would hint close to torez launch. (IMO)

      • I’ve no problem with that plume as launch evidence of some kind but a lot has been written about its properties. The thing standing out for me were the relatively low height and the surprisingly vertical orientation. That would only be the case with a separate booster stage, which the Buk missiles don’t have. Also it would not be the usual Buk attack pattern as described by the information so far, as for that particular distance and resulting angle at least. Upwards launches would be for targets overhead or at least an overhead attack, which is clearly not the case (unless it was launched at a lower flying jet (~6km) at 40-45km and somehow changed its lock at some point, something similar to the Ukrainian S-200 shooting Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001?).

        • Missile flew towards photographer & upwards.
          Unique “setup” for photograph. (IMO, correct shape of smoke in the photo)
          (but the photo has other “issues”, like smoke width and movement)

          BUK missile can not “change lock”.
          IIRC S-200 hitting Siberian airlines might be caused by the airliner happening to be at the end of missile flight curve & because missile failed to self detonate before.

          • sotilaspassi: “Sa-5 & SA-11 missiles do not change lock”

            That “lock” is simple passive-homing because of the target being illuminated by Firedome or other radar. But without that, while closing in, it will just look for any radar signal and flies towards it. Unless radio overrides, self-destruct kicks is (is it an option to select or radio signal to transmit?). It seems the whole TELAR might have been turned off after launch? Lost interest? The broken fuse? 😉

            This means we don’t need really the misidentification of a transport plane. Just a stupid crew blindly aiming at an attacking low flying jet but missile couldn’t get any lock using semi-active homing (probably because of counter-measures). Then it looks for any radar signal in its path to continue its flight, proportional guidance doing the rest. Presto!

            It might be a design problem with these homing system (as S-200 proved already). The only way is keeping radio guidance on and not allow it to seek its own way after a miss. Most modern missile systems (esp AAM) have better systems to make sure not the wrong jet is flied into.

            And no NCTR is only part of Snow Drift as far as I know, so there’s no friend-or-foe automated system here. It’s all about manual control and the inherent danger of shooting autonomously.

            This is course, just one scenario. But sadly realistic.

          • By the way, this would make possible a vertical launch scenario needed to have a BUK plume.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 16, 2016 at 9:42 pm //

            Hugh:

            There might be a problem with a vertical launch scenario, namely if that initial trajectory was maintained up to a certain altitude followed an unintended change in trajectory then the missile’s orientation relative to an unintended target, at the moment of warhead detonation, would probably be different to that expected from an intentional targeting scenario over the same down range distance and altitude.

          • To Hugh Eaven:
            For homing fire dome signal has to illuminate the target continuously. If the reflected signal is lost for more than 3 seconds the missile will self-destruct.
            So the scenario is different.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 17, 2016 at 2:41 am //

            Antidyatel:

            If defensive counter-measures were employed by a targeted aircraft could a BUK-M1 system inadvertently acquire a different target whilst the missile was in flight? If the reflected signal from an intended target was discontinued, due to counter-measures, and an unintended target was acquired in less than 3 seconds would the missile still self-destruct?

          • The new systems produced at least in 3 countries (USA, Israel, Belorussia) can be attached to a plane. They detect the incoming signal signature ( frequency, phase, modulation pattern) and re-emit signal that will redirect semi-active missile seeker towards a phantom plane. Even more advanced system was presented by Raethon in feb 2014 that is most likely candidate to be used in mh17 disaster. It’s use explains the disaster and all the strange inconsistencies in the story, including behaviour of both Russian and USA officials.

          • sotilaspassi // September 17, 2016 at 8:18 am //

            BUK missile rely guidance from TELAR to reach target. (Missile onboard computer is pretty simple.)

            If radio signal to TELAR is lost, missile seem to detonate in <1s. This can be seen happening in trainings.

          • In which video you have seen <1s? After 2 years you might have learned a bit more about BUK principles and not embarrass yourself so blatantly

          • Antidyatel “If the reflected signal is lost for more than 3 seconds the missile will self-destruct.”

            But it’s not lost, it’s displaced, as the active radar of MH-17 nose becoming the new source instantinously. I don’t believe the missile electronics would care for the sudden displacement of a few km.

            The BUK missiles are designed to do chase. They expect to change course within certain parameters. That’s why I think this scenario is believable but calls into question the behavior of the original target (Su-25 likely, which is at least the scenario the Russians keep pushing and Ukranians stearing away from, a strange game of cat and mouse).

          • Wind Tunnel Man: ” the missile’s orientation relative to an unintended target … would probably be different to that expected from an intentional targeting scenario”

            Yes, I thought about that to. But I’m not that sure it has to be the case. Depending at what stage the proportial navigation kicks in based on passive radar homing. But I’m sure it would have to happen be below the 5-6km mark somewhere. Perhaps already when the second mode kicks in after 3s at 600m/s which would be around 1km, which is by the way what Michael Knobs and others estimate as being the plume height. Second mode propulsion might not have the plume (and at that height it depends on atmospheric conditions if any contrail would show).

          • “If radio signal to TELAR is lost, missile seem to detonate in <1s"

            Hey, you just discovered an effective and cheap anti-SAM weapon! 🙂

          • sotilaspassi // September 17, 2016 at 11:19 am //

            There exist a video where one can see how two BUK missile detonate in mid flight at the same moment. To me it seems the radio link was cut off, perhaps from command vechicle.
            Closer to ground missile flew 30m before detonation =<1s.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 17, 2016 at 11:54 am //

            An interesting discussion – it will be interesting to hear if the Dutch prosecutor continues to hold the view that MH17 was the intended target, regardless of whether or not it was misidentified, whilst it was flying over a combat zone.

          • “Closer to ground missile flew 30m before detonation =<1s."
            Again you are claiming silly things. There is no radar guidance for semi-active missile in the first part of the flight. So detonations so close to the launch are not related to the loss of radar signal. Please read smth relevant on the topic.

          • To Hugh: “But it’s not lost, it’s displaced, as the active radar of MH-17 nose becoming the new source instantinously.”
            Buk missiles are fixed at start with a very narrow band frequency filter. Plus signal, although CW, is actually modulated. And finally missile has a receiver antenna at the lower part that provides reference signal for doppler calculation. Retargeting on the MH17 radar is impossible.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 17, 2016 at 4:21 pm //

            Antidyatel:

            Are you saying that counter-measures that create a phantom target may not be detected by a SAM crew and they would still believe the missile was heading for the intended target? And if a manual mechanism for the destruction of the weapon was available to the SAM crew they might not use it due to being deceived by such counter-measures?

          • To wind tunnel man: yes. The new Raytheon system, based on their promotional video is designed to perform such deception of enemy (read Russian) systems. In this case the target for deception was TAR on Russian side of the border. So Russians clearly seen on their radar that jet (likely with Su25 reflection signature) was approaching. TELAR crew is given the dirdction of launch and they perform launch. Till the last 1/3 of the flight they don’t need to switch on radar. Missile just follows the predicted coordinates by TAR. Then fire done is switched on, it last 6-10 seconds of flight. Crew doesn’t have time to think. They illuminate the target in designated sector. By that time only MH17 is present there. So the crew would be absolutely sure that they hit the target and based on data from Russians they will be sure that Ukrainian jet is hit. So they are proud. By this time Russians obviously know that wrong target is hit while original target just dissappeared from radar. That is why their story is so inconsistent and they were so adamant on that SU25. But I guess something webt wrong on USA plan as well, which prevented them to disclose ready satellite data. My guess is that the original missile direction was not precisely going towards mh17 and when fire dome was switched on the turn of the missile is obvious. While USA story heavily relying on straight projection of missile trajectory. In this scenario, all parties are guilty and would be lying through their teeth – and that is what we all observe from the involved parties.

            But there is also an option of Ukrainian jet with attached equipment for creating phantom. But then it should have been detected and presented by Russians.

          • Also important detail. For launching Raetheon device you need a transport plane and support by AWAKS. Coincidently these conditions were fulfilled by Trident military exercises in wester Ukraine.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm //

            Antidyatel:

            Thanks for your well articulated theories – however I’m still troubled with the relationship of the flight trajectory profile charts of 9M38M1 missiles as presented by Almaz-Antey, i.e. a missile’s pitch (elevation) at a given altitude over differing range distances, when one considers a phantom target scenario. I’m not sure whether the DSB provided similar profile data in their report/appendices (?) or whether they relied on Almaz-Antey’s profile data when they estimated a launch location area but if such trajectory profiles were used and the missile had deviated from a direct course to an intended interception position wouldn’t that invalidate any estimated launch sites based on those profiles?

          • Antidyatel:” Buk missiles are fixed at start with a very narrow band frequency filter. Plus signal, although CW, is actually modulated.”

            You’re describing just NCTR which is only part of the fancy Snowdrift radar. Not stand-alone TELAR. Please get your stuff straight.

            “And finally missile has a receiver antenna at the lower part that provides reference signal for doppler calculation”.

            There’s no complex computer logic in the missile to “decide” anything based on changing “doppler calcuations”. That simply works like some additional gain driving the proportional navigation circuitry. The missile will not care. It’s just not designed to be fired and then distinguish between some near by friend or foe all by itself. Without more external guidance it’s really pretty dumb and that’s a good thing as it should not rely fully on TELAR radio signals to finish what it began.

          • Antidyatel:” Buk missiles are fixed at start with a very narrow band frequency filter. Plus signal, although CW, is actually modulated.”

            In addition to my reaction above, the TELAR has only a very short window to have its radar on illumating its target with those carefully modulated signals of yours. Counter attacks would target their screaming radar within such relatively long time frame and it would be the end of the whole TELAR vehicle plus remaining missiles. Therefore radar is used for ID and initial lock. Guidance remains then optional.

          • sotilaspassi // September 17, 2016 at 9:00 pm //

            A lot of BUK missiles can be flying on the sky at the same time, all to different targets. So, every missile will aim to the radar echo that is “coded” for it.

            If TELAR radar signal is suddenly not reflected from target any more, missile does not pick up random radar emitter from the sky. It just detonates after 3s or immediately if TELAR guidance radio is switched off.

          • To Hugh:
            Please read the operation description fro BUK beforr commenting. It is available online. There you can learn about the segnificance of doppler signal in BUK missile targeting. http://bookini.ru/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-buk-raketa-9m38m1-ustrojstvo-i-funktsionirovanie/83/

          • To wind tunnel man: “had deviated from a direct course to an intended interception position wouldn’t that invalidate any estimated launch sites based on those profiles?”

            The whole official theory is heavily reliant on the assumption that ground projection of the missile trajectory is a straight line. BUK is designed to attack manuvouring targets. There is reason why BUK missile has a specification of sustaining turns with up to 9g (or 11 g, dont rememebre exact number) acceleration.So pre assumption of straight projection is not reasonable. Of course if you have a slow incoming target flying directly at BUK, this is what you get. And that is what USA expected to see on satellite imagery. But it is likely not so, and that stops them from revealing the data that Kerry was so excited about. Maybe TELAR was not exactly where they expected it to be. Or more likely there was another BUK that tried to intercept phantom, so there was a larger turn that they could fit into the story.

          • sotilaspassi: “A lot of BUK missiles can be flying on the sky at the same time”

            Yes with radio assisted navigation and Snow Drift radar present that’s possible. Without that all, it implies a steady lock on target and/or constant radio guidance.

            To imply these missiles simply detonate when TELAR switches off their radar signal is just beyond belief. But that’s what you are suggesting right? It’s also countered by the manual page 22.

          • sotilaspassi // September 19, 2016 at 6:52 am //

            Missile fly to the target that is painted by it’s TELAR. (theorethical target change would require TELAR to paint another target in the middle of missile flight / signalling to missile to look for some other radar signal)

            >To imply these missiles simply detonate when TELAR switches off their radar signal is just beyond belief. But that’s what you are suggesting right?

            From what I’ve read, missile detonate when there is no radio link to TELAR.
            Not so sure vs the loss off radar echo from target.

  2. Short summary of this lengthy article: the “separatists” had no clue what happened to MH17 that day, but tried to spin it into a “success”. Maybe being tricked by Kiev’s propaganda of attributing aircraft losses to Russian interventions the days prior (An-26 July 14th, Su-25 July 16th) to boast that “we did it”, even if they must have known it was impossible.

  3. Applause for the thoroughness and depth and time this research took.
    And the way it was wrote out.

    You all as a team would give some JIT investigators a run for their money, I imagine.

    I am impressed and in awe of what you collected, thank you.
    Well Done

    Fare thee well

  4. observations from video:
    -Tree bodies in cockpit area. (whole cockpit crew came down with cockpit)
    -Cargo is still intact (it was stolen during the next day, IIRC)
    -Cockpit area looks pretty different vs later images

    High-res version of the video would be very interesting to see, to try to find more bow-tie frag damage, perhaps even fragments remains could be spotted.

    • +interestingly cut video, for example cockpit floor is not shown

    • +if a pilot was seen crawling on a field, it was one from the team that was in rest shift when BUK detonated

      (would be interesting to know if rebels did anything to try to help the pilot)

  5. The first quoted transcript talks about missile/rocket. Seen from Grabovo? ???

    • Smoke plume might have been visible.
      BUK launch+flight sound arrived ~at the same time as BUK detonation sound. -> no-one should have seen BUK rising to the cloud, unless one was looking to SE from Hrabove already before launch.

      (not surprise if someone was looking, hectic fighting was in that direction?)

      • You cannot be serious? Plume from 20 km?
        More to this, they managed to identify that it was that particular rocket hittig mh17?
        If the interpretation is correct, then the only possibility might be easy for you to imagine but hard to acknowledge due to bias?

        • BUK rocket rarely flew on the area. They say the sound is special.

          • If rocket went from snezhnoe, as you claim using your brilliant calculations, tell us at which altitude would the rocket be the time it is in vicinity of Grabove? And then you can assess the possible visual and acoustic information available to people in Grabove.

          • sotilaspassi // September 16, 2016 at 9:18 am //

            at Anti

            I’m able to see TV mast tower’s red light from 20km distance. (looking from 20m high hill)
            I believe mast total height is less than 300m above ground level of the area.

            -> I imagine BUK rocket flame might be similarly visible against dark rain clouds, if someone was looking to that direction beforehand.

            (smoke plume visibility is possible in theory, but unlikely because low contrast vs background)

            Sometimes I can see TV mast body at 10km distance, not to 20km distance, that’s with naked eye.

          • “1:15 Man 1 – Ну, ракета пошла. / Well, a missile flew off.

            1:16 Man 2 – Ну, а то и разорвало его. / Well, that is what blew it up

            1:17 Man 1 – Да, пошла ракета и разорвала. / Yes, a missile flew off and blew (it) up.

            1:19 Woman (articulating like hearing-impaired) – Пошла большая ракета. / A big missile flew off.

            1:20 Man 3 – Ракета пошла […] / A missile flew off […]”

            Explain this statements from 20 km of launch location. It is funny, that you are the same person that denies the pilot an ability to notice the incoming missile, while he was directly looking at the launch location at that time. 😉

          • sotilaspassi // September 17, 2016 at 7:14 am //

            >Explain this statements from 20 km of launch location.
            -Someone was looking to SE, saw rise of the flame of rocket.

            Or

            Someone heard the sound of BUK + sound of detonation + no f.jet sound

            > pilot an ability to notice the incoming missile,
            -pilot can not hear it
            -harder to see 40cm diameter dark object vs cloud than rocket flame vs rain couds
            -launch was from below horizon and you do not know where pilot looked in last second when he theorethically could see BUK

            Etc…

          • You are wrong on so many grounds that no point of arguing. Do you even know the speed of sound? Which flame can you see from missile approaching towards you? Just watch any cockpit video from Boeing 777 to see where the horizon will be for yhe pilot.

          • sotilaspassi // September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm //

            -insane part cut off-
            >Which flame can you see from missile approaching towards you?
            -insane part cut off-

            The one that is not hidden behind 40cm diameter missile, LOL!
            Missile was going upwards if someone was looking from hrabove.

          • And this person calls me insane.
            “Someone was looking to SE, saw rise of the flame of rocket.Or Someone heard the sound of BUK + sound of detonation”
            It is a simlle calculation. Take 20000 meters, divide by speed of sound. You get time for buk launch sound to reach Grabove. Where the missile will be by that time you should know after 2 years of bickering on this forum.
            Then tell me which part of the missile trajectory they could see, before we continue deconstructing your fantasies

          • sotilaspassi // September 18, 2016 at 5:28 am //

            Someone could see the first People at Hrabove could have heard the sound of the missile + thunder of detonation.

            Simply.

          • sotilaspassi // September 18, 2016 at 5:38 am //

            Damn forum engine ate the reply.

            In short.
            BUK acceleration below clouds can be seen.
            Halo light effect can be seen when missile is in cloud.
            Some of the sound of 20s rocket engine burn is heard to hrabove.
            Mach 3.5 missile is not totally silent in idle I imagine.
            +detonation was heard.

          • sotilaspassi // September 18, 2016 at 6:23 am //

            60s for launch sound to come from Red October.
            30-45s for sound from the rocket burn end.
            30s for detonation

            0s launch
            3…6s BUK in cloud
            20s burn end
            33s BUK detonates
            60…s BUK sounds can be heard at Hrabove
            …63s Detonation is heard.

            Then The sound of dying rolls royce engine etc…

          • Good, so now we come to conclusion. People from Grabove could not see the missile/rocket. So it also brings us to conclusion that Arnold Greidanus spends too much time with BC crazies and he became incapable to notice inconsistencies in the text in front of him. Very sad.

          • sotilaspassi // September 18, 2016 at 8:41 am //

            People at Hrabove could see missile if they looked to SE when it launched.
            They should have heard it just fine + detonation.
            So those who were out knew BUK did it and some heard the direction of rocket sound.

            Difficult to see the launch plume but not impossible.

          • I should probably leave you with your tunnel vision outlook. But just last comment. Here is the topographic map of snezhnoe across which the missile had to fly towards mh17. Grabove and launch site that you are insisting on are on two sides of Snizhne elevation. http://www.floodmap.net/elevation/ElevationMap/?gi=693381
            So people of Grabove could bot possibly see the launch and probably first 200m of the flight.

          • sotilaspassi // September 18, 2016 at 10:38 am //

            So, someone could see only 700…2000m of flight below clouds. If was looking in right direction.

        • Arnold Greidanus // September 18, 2016 at 12:38 pm // Reply

          @Antidyatel, as to your remark (“Arnold Greidanus spends too much time with BC crazies and he became incapable to notice inconsistencies in the text in front of him”). First of all, I do my own research. If you don’t like it – your problem. Second, regarding the text cited from the AP video: did it occur to you that the people speaking may have reasoned that a missile flew off and hit the plane, but that they did not see it flying/hitting themselves?

          • No, I like that you summarise so much relevant data in one piece. But due to bad influence you are blind to your own data. Otherwise after quoting those phrases, you would remark yourself that inhabitants of Grabove could not see the missile launch from Snezne themselves. And if you thought about it longer you would start thinking how is it possible for them to claim those things. Few options immediately come to mind:
            1) they’ve seen the missile but it came not from Snezne but from location much closer to make it practical for them to see;
            2) AP fabricated the story the same way yhtey did with fairytale of sighting the BUK. So they trained those people on what to say.
            3) those people are purely gossiping
            Probably more options. While your text is structured to come to the knwpn conclusion before your research. Typical BC propaganda style. And this is frustrating to see.

          • Arnold Greidanus // September 18, 2016 at 4:21 pm //

            @Antidyatel – you wrote: “2) AP fabricated the story the same way yhtey did with fairytale of sighting the BUK. So they trained those people on what to say.”
            Please explain how to “fabricate” that video and “train” inhabitants of Grabovo saying the things they said? It also implies the main body of MH17 was planned to fall at (the entrance of) Grabovo?!
            I won’t waste any more words on you.

  6. “all of this is circumstantial evidence clearly pointing in one direction.”-
    By spending so much time with BCs, it’s seems like Arnold contacted their disease of making conclusions out before research and thus being blind to the consequence of the evidence he discovered.
    Ar least from what he collected it is clear that rebels didn’t intend to shoot MH17. Also they were sure that they hit Ukrainian jet or transport plane. From 2 years of looking into the problem everyone should come yo the conclusion that individual 9A310M1 (telar) is useless and will be easy pray for SU-24/25 after the first time it switches on the radar. For any practical use it had to be supported by TAR. and there was absolutely no technical problem for Russian TAR across the border to provide that support. Now the obvious question will be why did Russian TAR identified the approaching military plane which never existed? If you combine this question with question -Who benefited from the tragedy?-, you might start realising true circumstantial evidence. Of course I imply that no matter how biased towards Russia you can be, you will not assume that they would want to shoot the airliner.

    • note:
      -TAR-TELAR signalling would have been risk of becoming detected by SIGINT, so I doubt they did connect with RU TAR
      -evidence “hint” rebels used spotters
      -spotters are normal in air defence use

      We perhaps know more once actual murderers come forward.

      • What will sigint detection be useful for? Usa is refusing even to disclose simple satellite images that even brain dead Kerry could interpret. And here you wanr them to present a much more technical signal. You are humouring my slippers.
        It is illogical for rebels to use spotters when they can get a reliable information from across the border. Even if we accept your argument about sigint, Russians at TAR could use the same means for contacting TELAR as spotter would do – hand phone.
        So now the question is, why Russians were so sure that they gave coordinates to telar of a military jet. They even desperately tried to see su25 on civilian radar signal. How is it possible that their radar clearly seen the jet while in reality no jet was present? How is it that Ukraine and USA were sure about what happened within minutes of incident (based on some data even before incident) and it is still impossible for them to provide any concrete data is support of their original claims? Just think about it

        • It seems you still believe in clear RU lies and live in proRU fantasy world.

          I’ve no more time to waste for now.

          • You seem to have difficulty in reading. Which “RU lies” are you talking about? It is indeed hard to argue with people incapable of listening

          • sotilaspassi // September 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm //

            >What will sigint detection be useful for?
            Just more evidence of invasion.

            >Usa is refusing even to disclose simple satellite images that even brain dead Kerry could interpret.

            They released the image in 2014.

            >It is illogical for rebels to use spotters when they can get a reliable information from across the border.

            I say they would use spotters anyway.

            >Russians at TAR could use the same means for contacting TELAR as spotter would do – hand phone.

            True that. They could also call Rostov ATC and save all the fuzz.

            >So now the question is, why Russians were so sure that they gave coordinates to telar of a military jet.

            That is just your theory.

            >They even desperately tried to see su25 on civilian radar signal.

            No they did not try to see. They just tried to fool.

            They sent BUK in Ukraine to murder Ukrainians.
            They shot MH17. They desided to lie.
            They prepared 21Jul show with full of lies. Lies from the start to the very end.
            They hoped that it is enough that a lot of idiots believe that the debris indeed is SU25 that can not even attack vs MH17. etc etc.

            >How is it possible that their radar clearly seen the jet while in reality no jet was present?

            That is your fantasy/conspiracy.
            SSR show MH17 untill BUK hit. TAR would have detected it.

            >How is it that Ukraine and USA were sure about what happened within minutes of incident

            It is called ATC. SSR show to them how plane disappear.
            Rostov ATC saw that MH17 broke into pieces and told it to UA ATC. +then rebels report.
            No mystery what so ever.

          • “They released the image in 2014”. Seriously? It is indeed waste of time to discuss anything with you.
            You can continue boiling in pathetic story about spotters from Kiev. You seem to have peculiar filter in analysing lies from different parties.

          • sotilaspassi // September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am //

            US can plot the data on top of various pictures, that’s all. They will not release their RAW info of their military secrets to the public.

            Luckily SBIRS raw data is not needed, when the wreckage tell us where the killer was.

          • No the wreckage would be single line of evidence. That would not be convincing for any international court. And all based on some theoretical model of explosion, warhead composition and supersonic explosion and fragment distribution? While the BUK characteristics have been engineered and tuned after many years of field data. Not based only on pure “models”.

            Definite evidence of the launch spot is needed as well. And a third line, like witness, radar data. But all that still doesn’t say anything about who was there, under whose command. And that is the purpose of the criminal investigation. Not just to describe the murder itself in detail.

    • TELAR’s signals (war mode for hunting aircraft) Ukraine pilots catch all around Donbass while flying around. It was signals from Ukraine army too. Pilots do not known who is that and was scary. You can read rus translation and pilot’s radio records from that post: http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=419&p=19#p52053

      • The critical point is that the answer of what happened, has to account for the fact that rebels/ Russians were sure that they were shooting at military jet. So far most of discussion is avoiding that inconsistency brushing it off as inessential. While one thing is for sure, Russian army across the border was monitoring the skies in the area.

        • The fact is what Ukraine military forces was all around Danbass.
          The fact is what Ukraine military forces use BUKs and other anti-aircraft systems all around Donbass.
          The fact is what Ukraine military forces hunting for Russian aircrafts all around Donbass.

          But until you ignore that facts — your investigation will be nonsense.

          • Those facts are there. But something is still not adding up. The story on rebel BUK was prepared in advance, obviously. So the provocation required the launch by rebeles. Also Russian MOD is not just presenting unconvincing evidence, their evidence is tainted with fabrication, showing desperation. They do not know what happened. And they obviously thought that they had known that Ukrainian military jet was shot. There is no chance that Russian MOD military radar were not scanning Ukrainian airspace in that area. They’ve seen the SU25 next to airliner but it doesn’t exist. So one should think about scenario where such confusion is possible.

          • I agree that Russia might really “not know what happened” or at least during the first period of the aftermath.

            The BUK crew might have claimed, even sworn, that they targeted and even hit the Su-25. Then Russia could have gone initially with that especially since Ukraine denied having them even in the air. But why would the missile switch target? It might have seemed impossible. Not sure how well the airspace was monitored from Russia below 5km, which is where this all might have started.

            The exact trajectory of the supposed Su-25 would be key to intent or purpose in relation to the BUK and MH-17. At the same time the presence of a BUK makes Russia responsible for a large part. It’s also breaks a few laws to supply such lethal weapon. But Ukraine broke a few on its own if it’s shown that they KNEW and even targeted one without closing off air space or alerting any international partner. Putin already hinted on this by putting responsibility at the side who was pushing eastwards so eagerly in the first place. Including of course attacking a BUK installation.

            It seems like a complex chess board to me. Everyone is waiting on the proper timing to make the next move when it comes to supplying evidence.

  7. Ups… I´m on moderation now. Wonder why.

  8. May be a Russian drone was the original target of an Ukrainian BUK.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*