Episode 5 of ‘MH17 Inquiry’ serie: It was a Mig!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At August 30 episode 5 of a serie on MH17 was published on a YouTube channel named ‘MH17 Inquiry’.  In previous episodes ‘MH17 Inquiry’ tries to convince the viewer unsuccesfully that Russia is not guilty on the shotdown of MH17. Even bushes are used to prove  a video showing a BUK transported in rebel controlled area is fake.



The production of MH17 Inquiry  is probably financed by Russian businessman Alexander Mikhailovich Volovik.

A tl;dr summary of this new episode lasting a long 37 minutes : complete nonsense!

My review on episodes 1,2 and 3 can be read here.

Episode 5 tries to convince the ignorant viewer that it was not a Su-25 which shot down MH17, but an Ukraine Airforce  Mig-29 using a R-27 air to air missile. MH17 Inquiry states the SU-25 theory was a false story promoted by the West to cover up a MiG-29 shot down MH17. This is one of the biggest nonsense I have ever heard from a Pro-Russia media station. Many Russian media, from Russia Today to newspapers, pushed the Su-25 theory.

At about 10 minutes into the video the presenter tells that “the probability of a BUK missile hitting a fighter and MH17 was flying at a speed close to that of a fighter, with one rocket is miniscule. For example, less than 1 percent. 0.95%”

This is really an incredible amount of nonsense. The BUK system was designed to down fighter jets and cruise missiles. The hit rate for a figher is almost 100%.

The episode continous with interviews of two eyewitness who saw one or two fighter jets. Using silhouettes the eyewitness say they are sure they saw a shape similar to a Mig-29 and not a Su-25.

The male eyewitness is be Alexey Nikolaevich Tanchik. Using FaceFind, a Russian face recogniztion tool, a vKontakte page of a man who looks similar to to eyewitness in the video was found and has the same name. Tanchik lives in Donetsk and went to school in Torez.  The photo on the left is a capture from the video. On the right Alexey Tanchik from a photo taken in 2013. Judging by the pictures on the vKontakte site, Tanchik. is a fan of Russian military equipment. The bullet shows the name of Striking force, the name and logo of a TV Zvezda/Channel 1 documents series on the latest Russian  weapons.

foto-Alexey Tanchik

Next a former general of the Russian army is interviewed. He tells a lot of clear lies. For example that the crashsite was shelled when there were still dead bodies around. That is not true. The crash site was indeed shelled. Unknown who did this. The shelling started after  the bodies were recovered. The general also states a BUK on its own cannot bring down an airplane. It requires support vehicles like for radar and loading missiles. Another lie as a BUK TELAR (the vehicle which launches the missiles) has an autonomous mode. It can operate standalone and bring down aircraft.

MH17 Inquiry states a Mig-29 equipped with R-27 missiles must have downed MH17. The programme however fails to explain the shape and number of fragments of that missile. Publically known the R-27 has a rod warhead. It is rumoured but never confirmed some exported R-27 missiles had fragmentation warheads. However there is no proof for that, let alone that size and shapes are known and if it has ready or pre-ready fragments.

The DSB report shows DSB did investigate the R-27 missile. However it has rods and no bow-tie shaped fragments.


The last person interviewed is a former SBU-employee who now seems to be living in Crimea. He states a smoke plume of a BUK missile after launch can be seen for an hour. He states that a BUK missile would completely destroy a Boeing 777. This is really a lot of rubbish. I have seen many videos of BUK missile launches. Most smoke plumes disappeared within a minute. Check these videos yourself.

To make it even worse: MH17 Inquiry promised the viewer a new episode is in the works.



Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

12 Comments on Episode 5 of ‘MH17 Inquiry’ serie: It was a Mig!

  1. Daniel Been // August 30, 2016 at 2:58 pm // Reply

    You don’t mention episode 4 though. Anyone reviewed that one?

    Could this be a social experiment of how much nonsense can be injected in the infotainment sphere and get some traction? I do wonder. Does anyone support these videos anywhere? Are we looking at a parody? Some elaborate advertisement for some edgy product?

    • I saw parts of the video on episode 4. Was not so interesting to write a review about it.
      This MH17 Inquiry is real. The videos hardly get any attention so not sure about the purpose. Even the Russian media and trolls do not refer to it. I believe I saw episode 1 mentioned on one pro Russia site only.

      • sotilaspassi // August 31, 2016 at 6:18 am // Reply

        A lot of known dis-informers retweet Episode5 as serious info. 😉

        • Yes, I noticed. If someone retweets this complete nonsense without a caution/remark then I regard this person as a troll.
          You cannot take this episode serious if you have genuine intentions to tell truth and facts.

    • So, what has this to do with the claim of MH17 Inquiry?

      • If indeed remains of an R-27 were found in the area, Kiev would surely claim it was fired by the Russian aircraft on July 16th.

        It is surprising how well-oiled the Western/Ukrainan propaganda machine swinged into action, compared with the clumsy efforts by the Russians

  2. Wikipedia cannot settle down on whether the R-27 uses Blast/Fragmentation or continuous warhead:

    If the warhead exploded outside the “continuous rod radius” (likely for a target with a huge Radar cross section), the rods would disintegrate into fragments anyway. See those impacts from a R-60 continuous rod warhead (ca. 10x smaller than R-27)

    As to the rest, I completely agree. The whole thing is probably a smokescreen, and maybe a lifeline to the Ukrainian SA-11 crews (paraded on the recent “independence” day parade, after Kiew staunchly denied even posessing any Buk systems)

    The truth is well known in Kiev, Washington, and Moscow. Only the public is not allowed to know it. Similar to Itavia flight 870

    • Wind Tunnel Man // August 30, 2016 at 11:22 pm // Reply

      I think there are many factors that favor a SAM 9M38 or 9M38M1 rather than an air-to-air missile for the targeting of MH17. I certainly have not considered the various air-to-air missiles that could have been used in that region of eastern Europe at that time (other than the brief summaries of alternative weapons mentioned in the DSB report) but I believe it’s fair to say that if it was a 9M38 or 9M38M1 missile that was involved then the detonation sequence of either a 9N314 or 9N314M warhead probably did conform to a design specification (as mentioned by Almaz Antey) i.e. the warhead detonated above the target and would have seriously disabled or destroyed a military aircraft, with a heavily armored underside, in the most sensitive and vulnerable areas of the upper surfaces including the cockpit.

  3. Daniel Been // August 31, 2016 at 2:10 pm // Reply

    The “Inquiry” part 5 is correct in pointing out that no official statement has ever been given by the Russian authorities about the Su-25 doing any shooting. But many people in the media and some governments still claim it’s some kind of formal Russian stance while all the MoD ever conveyed were questions based on their analysis of radar (unidentified returns as possible Su-25, why they were there) and satellite imagery (Ukrainian BUK), all of which were shown and could of course be debated on accuracy. But this doesn’t make it suddenly a claim about a Su-25 taking aim unless outlets like RT, the Russian equivalent of Fox News, are being interpreted as Kremlin mouthpieces, for which not that much hard evidence seems to exist. Instead these outlets run like e.g. the UK’s Daily News for clicks and sentiment, being indeed often nationalist and conspiracy focused. Every country has a few of these media companies. It proves little about what a government thinks or claims. Trial balloons, okay.

    But that seems to be the only reasonable element from that video though. While a Mig attack on an airlines surely is an theoretically more likely option than Su-25, there’s no convincing evidence supplied at all on the exact type of A2A missile which could cause the damage patterns om MH-17.

  4. sotilaspassi // August 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm // Reply


    “Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, purposed Su-25, moving upwards toward to the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between aircrafts was 3-5 kilometers.

    Su-25 can gain an altitude of 10000 meters for a short time. It is armed with air-to-air missile R-60 able to lock-on and destroy target at a distance of 12 kilometers, and destroy it definitely at a distance of 5 kilometers. What was the mission of the combat aircraft on the airway of civilian aircrafts…

    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.

    The detection of the aircraft turned out to be possible as the aircraft ascend it.

    The further aircraft flight variables changes on its route testified the fact that it is now flying in the area of Boeing crash and is monitoring the situation.”

    They point on the radar echo of forward fuselage debris of MH17 and say it’s a fighter jet.

  5. The same eyewitness Valentina: “Nobody saw any sushka through own eyes, but its sound couldn’t be confused with anything”.
    She meant no military aircraft was seen because of clouds.
    Plane identification procedure: http://uploads.ru/einbO.jpg

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.