New video found showing BUK travelling eastwards on Volvo + lowloader

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Update: At May 13 Stratfor published a Digital Globe satellite photo showing what looks like a BUK TELAR transported by a white truck.  See the details in this blogpost.

Update May 15: first car in convoy is a Peugeot 3008

———————————————–

At May 12 2016 a new video was discovered on Youtube showing the BUK TELAR on a lowloader pulled by the famous Volvo truck on a road near Donetsk travelling eastwards. The video was made using a dashcam in a moving vehicle most likely at July 17 2014.

Bellingcat reports that the fuel prices shown in the video are the same as those published on an archived webpage of the fuelstation company dated July 18, 2014. The price listed on the sign first had the displayed value at July 11 as seen in the webarchive. At July 21 afternoon the prices were changed.

The video was made on the same road as  this video made at July 15 2014. This video shows various military vehicles like tanks heading towards Donetsk.

Why this video after almost two years?

It is remarkable this video was uploaded almost two years after the shot down. What could be the reason?

A theory is that someone who initially had sympathies for the separatists, now felt the situation in Eastern Ukraine was worse than in 2014 when Kiev had control. So he or she decided to upload the video.

Another theory is that someone sent the video in 2014 to the JIT. Someone working for JIT leaked the video and uploaded it to Youtube. Maybe to prepare the public for the release of information in July 2016 by JIT. Remember censor.net published some leaked photos earlier.

Speed of convoy

Michael Kobs calculated the speed of the truck as 37 km/h to 40,7 km/h

Remarkable no tank tracks marks on road to be seen

At the July 15 video the track marks made by a tank can clearly been seen at around 44 seconds into the video in front of the petrol station. The newly discovered video does not show these tracks. The video however is clear enough to show the fuelprices on the sign right of the road.

These two videos (here and here)  (thanks Ole for mentioning ) show the damage done by tanks of the same type. The road is clearly marked with tracks.

This could indicate the video was made before July 15.

Another observation is the quality of the video. It has been modified using the CropiPic software as seen by the watermark in the video.

The BUK appears to have 4 missiles loaded.

The video was made here  48.018095°, 37.984661° on Avtotransportna Street.

The video must have been made at at a time after the Paris Match photos in Donetsk were made and before the Zuhres video.

The timing is interesting. Based on shadows the video was made around 11:10 local time. The distance to the location of the Zuhres video is 27,5 km. Google estimates a driving time of about 30 minutes for a regular car. The Zuhres video was made at 11:40 according the person who was first to publish the video. So the convoy must have driven at a speed of over 50 km/h to reach Zuhres at 11:40. Which is quite fast as the Zuhres video shows a speed of about 30 km/h. However the road at Zuhres heading to Torez is more or less up hill.

Made by same dashcam/ car?

Could this video have been made from the same dashcam as the screenshots published by Paris Match? It is not sure if the PM photos were screenshots of a dashcam or made handheld by someone in the car.

It seems the windscreen wipers do not match in shape.  This image clearly shows the righthand wiper of the car from where the PM photos/screenshots were made.

The first image below shows the wiper of the May 12 discovered video. The connection between the moving arm and the wiper seems different than that of the car of the PM photos.

Paris Match car below

Weather at time of video

The video seems to resemble the weather as observed by weather satellites. The yellow circle shows the clouds which are shown in the screenshot taken from the dashcam. They seem to match.

This picture was taken by the DigitalGlobe satellite at 11:08 local Ukraine time. The red dot on the right is the location where the May 12 video was made. It shows clear weather over the area where the video was made.

The video shows some clouds and blue area’s. It is hard to determine if the weather on the video matches that of the satellite picture. I believe it could be.

The convoy

We see a convoy of 5 to 6 vehicles.

The vehicles seen in this video match the vehicles seen in a military transport by the  separatists on July 15 2014 travelling from Luhansk to Donetsk. Bellingcat has a blogpost about the July 15 convoy here.

The first vehicle in the convoy has the alarm lights flashing. It is a Peugeot 3008 model 2014. The type was identified on a German webforum.

The second car in the convoy has the alarm lights on as well. It is a Toyota RAV4.

This is an animation of a Toyota RAV4 escorting another separatists convoy.

The third car in the convoy is the Volvo known from the Paris Match photos and various other videos. It carries a BUK TELAR on a lowloader. The BUK has some netting over it.

The fouth car in the convoy is a UAZ-469 jeep .

The fifth car is a Volkswagen Transporter type van with a flashlight on its roof positioned above the driverseat. The Transporter seems to be of a type used by Ukraine banks to transport money.

The Volkswagen could be the same vehicle as described here but then named a dark blue Hyundai van with tinted windows. The eyewitness reported a convoy seeing heading towards Donetsk in the morning of July 17. The photo below shows the VW Transporter part of the July 15 convoy.

I am not sure if the sixth car is part of the convoy and what type it is.

The May 12 discovered video

The video was published at YouTube at May 6, 2016 by a user account named Іван Оліфіренко. The video is the only video on this Youtube channel.

Based on the shadows the video was made at around 11:00 to 11:30 local time. Ukraine@war estimates a local time of 11:10

The video was first reported on Twitter by someone using the Twitterhandle @AmishJihadi. He notified Aric Toler and Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.

It is remarkable this video was published almost two years after the shot down of MH17.

The route of the convoy was heading north/ northeastwards towards the H21 major road connecting Donetsk to Torez.

The image below was published by Putin@war on Twitter

The BUK convoy is probably not seen on the DigitalGlobe satellite photo which was purchased by Bellingcat. Because of license restrictions Bellingcat can not publish the high resolution photo it purchased. Below is a photo showing the area covered by the DigitalGlobe photo.

The photo was made at 11:08 local time at July 17 2014.

Area not covered by Bellingcat purchased photo

The photo above shows the complete area which was photographed by the Digital Globe satellite at July 17. Bellingcat purchased only a small portion of the photo. Aric Toler showed the photo purchased on Twitter. It is shown below. The blue line is the route of the BUK transport as we know it now based on the newly discovered video of May 12.

Eliot Higgins on Twitter stated Bellingcat will now purchase the photo showing the area south of the photo purchased earlier. (original Tweeted picture here)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

137 Comments on New video found showing BUK travelling eastwards on Volvo + lowloader

  1. If the satellite image you posted here, admin, and suncalc would prove the vid is taken between 11:10 – 11:30, then the truck with Buk should have been seen on the 17.7.2014 satellite image from Digital Globe.

    The Buk stayed on the road from the time the Paris Match picture allegedly was taken (10:45) until above mentioned time (11:10-11:30) within vision of the satellite at 11:08. It drove somewhere between the these two spot fixed by visual material.

    Higgins has some explaining to do.

  2. How much would it cost to get the DG sat images openly to web?
    I could donate 200€ for such task.

  3. Following the histogram of albert_lex we can forget about the old BUK-warhead 9N314 because category 6 (33) is missing:

    http://tinyurl.com/jv22t82
    http://tinyurl.com/h2vg9f3

    Statistically, if a square has lowest width of 5 mm (n=3), we do not expect most of the scores pile on category 6 (n=33). Though some change of the value 5 over 6 into the direction of the hypotenuse (9.4) is possible by rotation.

    So, shrapnel is falsified if a certain width observed in transverse measures does not happen for a certain square. This apart from pitting. Furthermore, we just sharpened the criteria for width of squares:

    http://tinyurl.com/jlgsz9k

    This all means, warhead 9N314 absolutely is not used in the shooting down of the MH17. Only the combination of 9N314M (bowties) placed on missile 9M38 (the Buk 3×2, the Buk-M1 missile launcher that “is widely believed to have downed MH17”) might be used.

    But Almaz-Antey denies this possibility, which has no other purpose than to combine bowties with the old BUK-missile 9M38 from Bellingcat. And why would Ukraine place 9N314M warheads on very old 9M38 missiles, being left with hundreds of newer missiles 9M38M1?

    That’s why Bellingcat must be falsified. Would this be the right conclusion then we have lost a lot of energy chasing old Ukrainian or alleged old Russian 9M38 BUK-missiles with warhead 9N314 in Donetsk and Russia.

    As Admin said earlier, there might be transport of a BUK through Donetsk but this does not prove it is used against the MH17.

    Only the profile of 9N314M passes the requirement of conditional probability, not warhead 9N314M itself, because there are more warheads with the same profile:

    http://tinyurl.com/jbhtfau

    So we are left only with kinds of squares and a foreign (rocket) part passing conditional probability. A further condition might be a much lighter SAM. And because we don’t fall for tunnelvision and don’t trust any radar information, we must accept alle kinds of A2A missiles from fighter jets with only squares. After inventoried all possibilities we can inspect scenarios again.

  4. The weather on this video allegedly from July 17th matches the Zuhres video, though the wind is much less on this newly surfaced video. The clouds clearly mismatch the sky visible on the Torez foto.

    On the video from the evening of the 15th the chains of the tanks leave track marks in the asphalt paving. I fail to perceive those track marks in the video allegedly from July 17th.

    Taking into account the southern winds on the Zuhres video, the absence of a TELAR on the Bellingcat DG images, and the absence of track marks in this new video, it is hard to believe the BUK trail not to have happened before the 17th.

  5. Well spotted. The track marks that are made at 00:40 to 00:42 in the video uploaded on 15 July cannot be seen at the same place at 00:56 to 00:57 in the BUK video that was supposedly shot on 17 July.

  6. Sorry for nit-picking, but it’s more accurate to say it was travelling east-northeast.

  7. These two videos show what that July 15th convoy did to the pavement of the roads:
    https://youtu.be/oQYvZRyeFFE?t=257
    https://youtu.be/krunRbQeSbk?t=43

  8. Bellingcat point out that by looking at the fuel prices at the filling station, “The time of the video can be confirmed to be in mid-July 2014 as well.”

    To be more precise, they can be dated by the Wayback Machine to some time between the 4th and 21nd of July.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20140718070445*/http://parallel.ua/

    Late morning, 4 July – http://web.archive.org/web/20140704093942/http://parallel.ua/

    12 July (prices have changed to those in the video) – http://web.archive.org/web/20140711235805/http://parallel.ua/

    Early on 21 July (same prices as the video, since the 12th at the latest) – http://web.archive.org/web/20140721042859/http://parallel.ua/

    Afternoon 21 July (prices have changed again) – http://web.archive.org/web/20140721110948/http://parallel.ua/

  9. Liane Theuer // May 12, 2016 at 4:19 pm // Reply

    Is anybody here able to figure out how often the fuel prices change ?
    What were the fuel prices from July 10 to July 15 ?

    Would Bellingcat be able to find the convoy in their DigitalGlobe image ?

  10. Another manipulated video?

    If I pause at 0:46 and click forward slowly, the cabin’s roof suddenly disappears for a short time!

  11. So the parsimonious explanation of all the video/photo/social media evidence on the transport remains that a captured rebel BUK from base A-1428 with missiles from base A-1428 was moved on July 14 from Donetsk to Snizhne and put to use on July 16.

    What is truly remarkable about this video is documentary proof of just how many cars were on the road in mid-July, 2014 in Donbass. Literally thousands if not tens of thousands of people must have seen the BUK being moved.

    I would like Ukraine to explain where BUK 131 from the 156th Regiment is right now. Has anyone seen a photo or video of it at any time since July 2014? It never appears in the all the photos from Sergey Paschenko’s VKontakte and it is not shown in a video being transported west in March 2014, and it does not appear on the base destroyed like 132, 133, and 113.

    • “parsimonious” wow, I learn new word every now and then.

      “Literally thousands if not tens of thousands of people must have seen the BUK being moved.”
      It would seem so, at the time of the event, mainly pro-russia people were on the area? But still I believe there might be a lot more material coming…

      “I would like Ukraine to explain where BUK 131 from the 156th Regiment is right now.”
      +1
      Would be clear if they provide locations of all of their BUK HW units on 17Jul. We could then check them from satellite images.

      • Me: “I would like Ukraine to explain where BUK 131 from the 156th Regiment is right now.”

        Soltil: “Would be clear if they provide locations of all of their BUK HW units on 17Jul. We could then check them from satellite images.”

        I think you are missing my point. I believe this rebel BUK is possibly BUK 131.

  12. why were deleted the day and the time from the dash cam?

  13. Liane Theuer // May 13, 2016 at 9:32 am // Reply

    My thoughts on the new video :
    1. The CropiPic software was used to delete all traces of the date the video was made.
    2. The vehicles seen in this video match the vehicles seen in a military transport by the separatists on July 15 2014 travelling from Luhansk to Donetsk. That’s why the Buk transport did not happen on July 15.
    3. As the newly discovered video does not show the tank tracks of the July 15 convoy, the video was made before July 15.
    4. The fuel prices shown in the video indicate the video was shot after July 11.

    Conclusion : The newly discovered video was made between July 11 and July 14.
    This suggests that the whole Buk-transport Donetsk-Zuhres-Torez-Snizhne
    happend between July 11 and July 14.

    Now my speculation :
    SBU and interior ministry collected evidence of the Buk-transport.
    They forged the plan to use this evidence for a false flag operation.

    Ouestion : Why did Kiev insist the Buk-transport happened on July 17 ?
    Possible answers :
    1. The Buk was not in Snizhne on July 17 anymore.
    2. They did not want to disclose that they knew about the Buk-transport. It was better to leak the evidence by social media on the day MH17 was shot down. That made it easier to cover up a false flag.
    3. Had become known that Kiev has evidence the separatists were holding a Buk, they would have had to close the airspace.

    But there are a lot more questions to be answered…

    • This is a likely scenario! The BUK convoy must be visible on a satellite photo. Many satellite passed the area on July 17. The fact that there has not been a photo of this concoy is remarkable.

    • “2. The vehicles seen in this video match the vehicles seen in a military transport by the separatists on July 15 2014 travelling from Luhansk to Donetsk. That’s why the Buk transport did not happen on July 15.”

      Do we know the time of day the convoy reached Donetsk?

      “4. The fuel prices shown in the video indicate the video was shot after July 11.”

      Those fuel prices were first archived on the internet on July 11 but they could have been the same for a week before that. They were probably archived by somebody interested in fuel prices and not by the fuel company itself. We only know that the prices were different in the early morning of 4 July, so they could have been changed any time between then and 11 July.

      • By “Those fuel prices”, I mean the prices that are displayed in the video.

        And the last bit should say late morning (09:39 UTC) of 4 July, not early morning.

      • Brendan: The 15 july convoy arrived in Donetsk on the 15th also. Many video’s have been made when it stood next to the Donbass soccer stadium entering Donetsk.

        Strange thing is Micha and others couldn’t find its origin, but Bellingcat managed to dig up two accounts (from the same obscure source. Both very short articles received only 160-200 views a day after Bcat had published their links) this convoy was seen in Luhansk and Krasnodon.

        Neither could we find where it went – including the 3 Gvozdikaz Khmuryi is talking about in the intercepted “Motel” calls – after Donbass stadium. There was a convoy though in the night of 15/16 towards Shakhtarsk, as can be read in Andrew’s report.

        • Brendan, exact time of arrival is unknown to me, but you could try to extract metadata of uploaded videos to get some idea. Micha’s report Haunt the Buk has links to these dashcam vids.

          • Just check the positions of cars in this video against Google Earth Sat Img for July 17. In particular two white cars. It’s July 17.

    • JustThinking // May 13, 2016 at 1:34 pm // Reply

      You will need translation
      18.07.2014
      https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=529735520488441&id=100003559926167
      Just think carefully what he said..

      • Liane Theuer // May 13, 2016 at 3:22 pm // Reply

        In fact, Dmitry Tymchuk enumerates all reasons that Kiev had for a false flag :

        1. Imposing sanctions on Russia.
        “German Chancellor Merkel rushed to have the Kremlin gramophone playing an old song : “There’s no reason for sanctions against Russia.”
        One gets the impression that Berlin can not choose between mouth-watering bonus from Gazprom and democratic values.”

        Here he says it very clearly :
        https://halldor2.wordpress.com/tag/dmitry-tymchuk/

        2. Blaming Russia for another attack as done before (AN-26 on July 14 and SU-25 on July 16).
        “The National Security Council today presented ample evidence that the Ukrainian Su-25, the day before yesterday, 16 July, was brought down by a Russian MiG-29 from the 19th Fighter Wing.”

        Where is this „ample evidence” ?

        3. Compel Russia to discontinue support for the separatists.
        “We predict that Russia will withdraw its troops ( “little green men”) in the territory of Ukraine – there are reasons to believe so. I think some day our intelligence tells about how close we were to the mass introduction of Russian troops in Ukraine yesterday, 17 July.
        Today, the threat is not completely gone, but clearly receded. If the international community does not take measures of pressure on Russia, the threat will be back.”

        4. Liberation of Ukrainian soldiers who were trapped on the Russian border.

    • Liane: Have you ever read this blog I wrote a year ago? 🙂

      https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/an-alternative-track-trail-another-buk-on-another-day/

      11 july and 14 july both match the weather on the Zuhres video and the gasprices on the display of the new Makeevka vid.

      Andrew thinks the seized BUK might be #131 from airforce base A-1428 instead of a broken Buk from A-1402.

  14. As MPEG video does not show “still images” like camera photos do, this video is SUPERB advancement vs PM screenshots of paused video.

    I only wish the original data becomes released as well.
    Then the data can be properly analyzed.

    MPEG forms the visible frame by calculating/summing data with previous/following frames.
    This often generates weird issues and pixelation in paused video.
    Every decode-encode cycle loose more and more of the original RAW data.

    So it helps when original compression algorithms can be detected and original raw data analyzed.
    It gives indication if the material is fabricated.

    After going through the video only some ~10 times, I would say it is authentic.
    But the original raw data is at least double…triple processed when we see it as live playback.

    • sotilaspassi // May 13, 2016 at 7:31 pm // Reply

      Convoy & location now also confirmed by first satellite image.

    • Charles Wood // May 15, 2016 at 11:18 pm // Reply

      The video was certainly not MPEG. It was likely H.264. I mean the original video of course. The YT copy has been processed multiple times and had format changes / re-encoding. My version is H.264 codec with 1280 x 720 resolution.

      The video has been serious degraded by multiple re-encodings and appears to have been edited including cropping and resizing back to 1280 x 720.

      It is reasonable to believe that was done to remove identifying information on the original video. However, why it is so degraded is a mystery. Possibly it was done to prevent any accurate image analysis? i.e. analysis that could give accurate dates and times and also accurate identification of vehicles and the Buk. That of course implies malevolence by the people who released the video.

      A second and/or alternative is it was done to ‘feed the chooks’ i.e. give just enough information to get people excited and keep arguing about it for years and keep the whole topic alive.

  15. JustThinking // May 13, 2016 at 1:46 pm // Reply

    “The windscreen whiper and the ventilation shown in the video are very similar or maybe even the same as observed in the Paris Match photos. These photos could have been screenshots from a dashcam as well”

    1. If I’ve got it right PM photo is a frame from dashcam? In that case WHY full video was never published?
    2. If both videos from the same dashcam = same car then does it mean this car was driving all the way along with this convoy? PM photo: driving the same direction, *new* video – in opposite direction.
    If that’s the case why do we have so little coverage (so few detail) of convoy movememt? Main question: why this *new* video has emerged just now?
    It seems to me there are remarkable similarities in all videos including Torez video made by “agents of Ukrainian Ministry of Interior”

  16. No tank tracks visible on the road! Really?

    The guy of this blog (https://kosmologelei.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/guck-auf-die-strasse/) also believed it first and I doubted that you could see them in such a compressed video while moving. But looking closer to the shadowed parts on the road seems to show something very similar to parallel tracks possible made by tanks. If these are indeed tank tracks, then your thoughts on a pre 15th record date are unfounded and also claims about a fake getting more and more absurd because who would think of all such details? For me this video is real. The new sat. picture still raises some questions regarding the other vehicles, but lets wait for a better resolution.

    Seems the Bellingcat narrative wasn’t so wrong as many here thought and tried to prove. But I don’t deny that it is always good to have many people looking at the same evidence more than twice.

    • The place where the tank made the tracks in the 15 July video is not the same place that’s seen at 00:19 in the BUK video. The tracks were made on the road in front of the petrol station, which doesn’t appear until 00:56 in the BUK video (the cars in the two videos were travelling in opposite directions). It therefore doesn’t matter what the marks are further back on the road.

      • Welcome to the internet H.L.! If “someone” posts of truck cabins suddenly disappearing (also interpreted by sane people as being darkened by a shadow) and seeming to be driven by a political agenda to refute Bellingcat, then “other” people tend to take this person less serious.

        The author of kosmologelei first had doubts – same as you – regarding the tank tracks, so I would say he definitely is a very sceptical person. Maybe also with a good portion of humor and a very direct tongue…sometimes a bit too direct but it seldomly affects people who did not deserve it 😉

    • Off topic:

      I have looked a little bit closer into this German blog “Kosmogogelei” today and found that my postings from this and other blogs are cited there. The author calls me:

      “Clown”
      “Irrer”
      “Kremlratte”
      “Grenzdebiler”
      “Geistesgestörter”

      I am not amused …

      • H.L. seems to be a frequent poster on propagandaschau (Probably known to some here) and we can also read what he wrote to the author of kosmologelei (https://kosmologelei.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/mut-hat-er-ja/).

        Sorry H.L. but the victims of MH17 did not deserve their tragic death being subject of arm chair hobby detectives logging in to the internet to get their “Weltbild” approved by other wingnuts. It is called “echo-chamber” where you seem to live in and your list of facts clearly shows your one-sided world of view.

        It is also funny that you call the truck videos being fabricated a proven fact. Indeed their are certain details one can doubt, and it is OK to collaborative look at those. But nothing has been proven yet, doubted yes. And seems to be already enough – you got your opinion echoed and your world view approved.

        I don’t like people like you!

        • Liane Theuer // May 14, 2016 at 8:28 pm // Reply

          Oliver, auf dieser sehr geschätzten Seite wollen wir uns gemeinsam mit einer kritischen Betrachtung des MH17 Abschusses beschäftigen.
          Persönliche Anfeindungen und verlinken mit Klarnamen und Mailadresse gehören NICHT dazu !
          Bemühe Dich bitte künftig um Sachlichkeit !

          • Aus diesem Grund habe ich ja auch den interessanten Link zu den evtl. Kettenspuren auf dem Video gepostet. Dass H.L. auch anderenorts mit seinen “gewagten” Mutmaßungen in Leere greift und deshalb nicht ganz ernst genommen wird, dafür kann ja ich nichts und ich habe auch nur auf sein dortiges Posting verlinkt, nachdem er hier selber von seinen Titelierungen berichtet hat.

            Übrigens: Ich finde es schon wissenswert, wenn sich jemand auf Hetz-Seiten wie Propagandaschau als Dauerposter mit eindeutiger politischer Motivation herumtreibt und man dann hier absurderweise kritische Beiträge von ihm erwartet.

    • >>The guy of this blog (https://kosmologelei….

      The image in the blog post of that guy shows the remnants of a zebra crossing, which can be seen on google earth as well. The “parallele Zackenspuren” he points to seem more like mpeg artifacts. If you draw a perpendicular line to those “parallele Zackenspuren” that perpendicular line isn’t parallel to the road, but points to the right of the road. At the same time those “Zackenspuren” are exactly parallel to the video lines, what makes them likely to be artifacts.

      The July 15th convoy should have left the most intense track marks in the roundabout following the gas station. That is where the tanks had to steer by breaking one thread, inducing slippage and thus chewing up the pavement. No sign of track marks there.

  17. The 17 million reward paid to someone providing information on the coverup show that big money is at stake. The new video certainly looks genuine, but one does not have to remember that fakes of such quality are not expensive to produce either. It’s almost two years have passed – they had plenty of time to work on fakes too.

    The kill weapon was not Buk, even thought rebels might have transported Buks a lot. We have to remember that at war time decoys can play important roles. If I was an army commander and had a broken Buk, I’d still put in on a trailer and publicly transport it around during day time through populated places. Just to pass the message to the enemy pilots.

    It’s interesting that the source of the new information is likely to be related to SBU or Atlantic Council. But they’ll be very wary not to provide evidence that SBU knew all along about availability of the missile system, never closing the airspace. Ukraine publicly calls the rebels ‘terrorists’. Having knowledge that terrorists possess weapons to shoot planes and not doing anything about it will not look nice in courts, will it?

    • > If I was an army commander and had a broken Buk, I’d still put in on a trailer and publicly transport it around during day time through populated places

      On the other hand, if I was Russia wanting to shoot a plane over Ukraine, I’d transport a Buk covertly at night time, which I could do knowing the position of all Earth observing satellites.

    • It was not a BUK, because you say so? Aha. Please tell us a bit more about the very very old SU25 story (***Or pick one of the endless alternative russian narratives***) which has been certainly 100% proven already by the Russian MoD, RT and other state media outlets…

      But you are right! Yes indeed, proving that rebels/Russians had a BUK exactly that day at the spot does not prove it actually shot down MH17. And even when it did so, we still do not have the direct proof a (pro-)russian soldier pushed the button as we probably will never ever get that ultimate last video proof of the command-chain sequence. Maybe a cat being chased out of the BUK cabin accidentally jumped on a button or a spilled bottle of beer triggered a tragic chain reaction…who the hell knows. It gets boring to discuss the obvious with people who just discuss along their political view on the world.

      It is just nearly 300 dead which are dead for certain and people like you who bounce back like a tumbler with the same old stuff getting each time less and less believable. All it takes is the evidence you dislike hardening with each new source to reanimate you coming to this forum.

      PS: This German detective Resch is a good storyteller in retirement who is selling a book (about himself) and I doubt that any party involved (being in Russians, USA or Ukraine) need the help of such an old man to know what actually happened.

      • I don’t enjoy arguing with people whose comments contain that little rational substance.

        The DSB report was rigged to make it look like a Buk went off. It would take too many videos of a Buk being transported before I:
        – start seeing bowtie shaped holes on the pictures of the wreckage
        – start believing that the stringing method cannot be used because “the lines are not straight”. The method with specific errors of sub-cm range was abandoned in favour of a dubious unspecified method with the accuracy of over metres.
        – stop noticing how the DSB attempted to move the launch location to a given position. This picture explans it: http://uploads.ru/kC1dN.gif

        • So instead of a BUK it was? …

          And bowtie-shaped fragement always hit the target in the same angle?
          A small experiment: You fill a bowl with bowtie-shaped cornflakes. Will you find them all arranged in the same angle together in the bowl smiling at you with their bowtie-shape? 🙂

          Please tell us now definitely what it was instead of a S2A missile with a fragmentation warhead? The audience is waiiiiiiting!

          • It was an R27 missile (fragmentation based) shot likely from a Su-27, that was hovering at a medium altitude (~3km, above clouds but below reach of Russian radars) somewhere between Torez and Zaroschenske.

            There were Ukrainian Su-25’s in the area near crash, but they had nothing to do with the crash, they likely did not even know what’s was going on. The theories that the plane was shot by a Su25 gun were abandoned weeks after the crash by sensible researchers. It’s only people like you or solispassi keep mentioning it nowadays.

            Question for you? Russia would know that there are Ukrainian military radars capable of detecting a Buk launch, and still decided to shoot the airliner. You think this is plausible? Or is it more likely that Ukraine claims they switched off the radars because they don’t want to show recordings proving their planes were still flying?

          • > And bowtie-shaped fragement always hit the target in the same angle?
            A small experiment: You fill a bowl with bowtie-shaped cornflakes. Will you find them all arranged in the same angle together in the bowl smiling at you with their bowtie-shape?

            To spare you doing thought experiments. The density of the bowtie shaped holes on the Mh17 wreckage should be the same as the density in the AA test. Of 300+ documented holes on 777 there should be dozens of bowtie holes. There is not a single one.

          • “The theories that the plane was shot by a Su25 gun were abandoned weeks after the crash by sensible researchers. It’s only people like you or solispassi keep mentioning it nowadays.”

            I don’t even mention it nowhere…but *still laughing* this is funny of how the SU25 nonsense suddenly becomes “our problem”.

            And you probably mean the SU27 which we all saw on that glory picture live while shooting on a Boing copied from the web? You make my evening…better than watching a commedy. And guess what: The Ukrainians with their magic super powers even made the rebel-puppets brag over their victory on the internet and somehow manipulated the Russian TV to report about shot down plane by….the separatists. I mean unbelievable, don’t you think so? The UKROPs, real masterminds of false flag operations …Yes! Even make their opponents admit the crime at first hand.

            I believe the weapon for that was the super-secret *TalkBullshit-XZ3x2*-rocket provided by Uncle Sam, delivered by a 100 SU27 squadron constantly firring over the border into some russian brains…

          • PS: Eugene, good night. Did not come here to start discussions with people who resist sane thinking. Please continue to live in your world “where everyone just likes to blame Russia” and you, little hero of your country bravely fights against false flag operations and defend Putin’s lousy little war in Ukraine which had far more than just the 298 innocent victims.

            I mean, when does the day come that Russians understand, that it is a bad strategy to have “frozen conflicts” all along their border as a means of foreign policy towards their neighbours.

            Maybe the next generation of Russians is a bit less blind. Get your country on track and become a modern state. The rest of Europe would gasp of relief and your neighbors would be happy to have a strong partner back, and not a Mafia state riding on a powerful military machine.

          • Oliver, you comments are full of unsubstantial rubbish. It’s the frequent retreat type I encounter while presenting arguments impossible to counter rationally.

          • “It was an R27 missile (fragmentation based) shot likely from a Su-27”

            So this is a prove, fact or an opinion?
            Please take the step to the front and enlight us with your evidence.

            Or do you mean your “If I were an army commander or Russia…” mind-game

          • > So this is a prove, fact or an opinion?
            Please take the step to the front and enlight us with your evidence.

            This is an opinion. This is my current thinking, to which I know of no contradicting facts. I look forward if you present some. It is possible that it is wrong, and the missile was some other type, but it was not a a Buk with bowties. Must be something smaller.

            If you’ve followed my posts, you’d know that there were very few facts that I’ve ever been convinced about by pro-Russian side. This, nevertheless, makes me quite sure that the report has been rigged to justify the Buk warhead.

          • Hello Eugene, yes I’m also aware of the AA test which added interesting observations. Of course this test does not reproduce the exact conditions of the MH17 event as the additional forward speed of fragements + the relative counter-movement of MH17 are totally neglected.

            Thus it becomes a bit easy to claim the results should be identical. Another mind-game: Take a pink-pong ball and hit it straight with the maximum of your movements’s force-vector. Now take the ball again and hit it with a tangential force-vector (give it a “spin”). Will you observe different behaviors of the ball when touching the surface? So much to your argumentation. Some more concerns regarding the test can be found here:

            https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/#post-167282

            I find this argumentation makes sense. While a static warhead will probably leave a higher amount of bowtie shapes due to the parallel position of fragments towards the plane makes sense, this might change in a live situation when you need to add the velocities of moving objects.

            Also some more questions:

            1) Wouldn’t it be possible for the separatist to manipulate holes on the wreckage and collect self-incrimminating evidence? A lot of time passed until the wreckage was picked up. Ok, we have early photographs of some parts but was that the whole picture we got?

            2) Do some higher-res pictures exist of the AA test fragment pattern than in the slides above? I would be interested to look at

          • Oliver, you are obviously new, as you are bringing questions discussed here before.

            > Of course this test does not reproduce the exact conditions of the MH17 event as the additional forward speed of fragements + the relative counter-movement of MH17 are totally neglected.

            The increased fragment speed in the real situation, if anything, should only make the hole boundaries cleaner and more distinguished, making holes resembling projectile shape better (compare pictures of low energy holes and high energy holes yourself). And, anyway, the increase in speed would still be small – only 6% for Zaroschenskoe launch modelled by AA (sqrt(2400^2 + (600+250)^2)/2400 = 1.06)

            > […] I find this argumentation makes sense.

            I see that you are in a state of getting your head around. I suggest trying finding my posts here dealing with the issues and read on. Metabunk was a good platform, but unfortunately was full of halfwits, also trying to get their head around the issues as they were going like yourself.

            > 1) Wouldn’t it be possible for the separatist to manipulate holes on the wreckage and collect self-incrimminating evidence? A lot of time passed until the wreckage was picked up. Ok, we have early photographs of some parts but was that the whole picture we got?

            Separatists could take fragments away, but they could not change the pictures uploaded to the internet the very first days. By the way, the reason the DSB showed extreme hesitation with collecting the wreckage (only got there in Novemeber!) I explain by them realizing that the more holes they’d pick of the wreckage the harder their job of stitching a Buk bowtie warhead to the case would be. The DSB hoped that some evidence would disappear and their job would be simpler. The DSB also were not trying hard to bring other parts too, as, for example, they only brought to the hangar the “Separatist scorpion” piece only after RT issued a report on them ignoring the evidence with the bit mentioned.

            > 2) Do some higher-res pictures exist of the AA test fragment pattern than in the slides above? I would be interested to look at

            Unfortunately no very high res. Here are a couple of better pictures someone has posted recently http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=261&p=4#p45829

            Take, for example, this bit on Il86: http://storage1.static.itmages.ru/i/16/0430/h_1462031196_4880170_a570c841a5.jpg
            It has comparable area (smaller actually) and location to this bit of Mh17:
            https://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/1adc94a3bcfeb61c5a0f6a70670006b9.jpg

            And yet, you manage to see more than one bowtie hole on a smaller piece of skin in the AA test than in the pictures of the Mh17 wreckage.

          • > Take, for example, this bit on Il86: http://storage1.static.itmages.ru/i/16/0430/h_1462031196_4880170_a570c841a5.jpg
            It has comparable area (smaller actually) and location to this bit of Mh17:
            https://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/1adc94a3bcfeb61c5a0f6a70670006b9.jpg
            And yet, you manage to see more than one bowtie hole on a smaller piece of skin in the AA test than in the pictures of the Mh17 wreckage.
            (http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=261&p=4#p45829)

            Comparing those two bits located at the same place on the plane is very interesting from another point of view. Please, go and estimate the hole density yourself, by looking at those pictures. To me it seems that the Il86 piece has still higher hole density than the Mh17 piece. Do you agree with me?

            We know that the DSB had placed the detonation point too far away. The likely reason was to equalize the observed hole density to the hole density of a Buk warhead, if it was placed at the detonation point. But the higher observed hole density on Il86 tells us that they were not very successfully at the task, and the detonation point needs to be moved even further away to match Buk (while the stringing method and the damage cover area tell us the the detonation point needs to be moved 2-3x closer).

            In a nutshell, if calculations were done thoroughly and honestly, they’d show that the kill weapon warhead contained a lot fewer number of fragments than a Buk warhead. One can almost see the DSB’s hard job of balancing between various BADs to justify a Buk warhead as a kill weapon.

          • Lets assume it was not a BUK. Other options include a different type of SAM or an A2A missile.
            Suppose it was an A2A missile, what type? What type has the characteristics which can make the damage as we see on MH17?
            I have not found any weapon capable. What do we know of fragments shapes and sizes of A2A weapens? Not a lot.

          • > Suppose it was an A2A missile, what type? What type has the characteristics which can make the damage as we see on MH17?

            I kept saying this before, my current thinking is that it was a fragmentation based R-27 (~half-Buk), with a passive seeker capable of homing onto the weather radar – that’s increases the probability of missile hitting the cockpit, obviously. My weak point is that the information about fragmentation based R-27s is a bit sketchy. The missile was designed to be equipped with the fragmentation warhead (as well as a rod based), this follows from an article in a specialized Russian magazine whose authors were some of the missile designers. This is by the way the basis why English wikipedia lists the missile (last time I checked) as having a fragmentation warhead.
            The rumor from insiders at the Kiev factory producing the missile was that India specifically requested the missile to be equipped with a fragmentation warhead. So in 1999 and 2003 the factory shipped two big batches to India (there are also rumors that some missiles were returned). Anyway, there must be only a few people in Ukraine who know the details. Such false flag operations cannot be performed by large organizations, such as Ukraine army.

          • By Marcel, do the hole density on Il86 look greater to you than that on 777 by looking at those two pictures?

            I really like others to tell their opinion.

          • admin // May 15, 2016 at 2:52 pm //

            There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which shows a BUK is not likely. But this is not common knowledge and in the public debate it has no status. It is also too complicated. Therefore, it is important to reformulate all arguments in a simple way so that people will understand. Most importantly, we must make a statement just at this moment of the MH17 investigation. It must be before JIT comes in summer with all kinds of allegations concerning the use of BUK. If we succeed to relativize or even refute the role of BUK then whistle blowers likely will give us the right types of SAM or A2A sooner or later. That is not our task, not at this moment of time.

          • I’ve superimposed similar areas for visual density comparison. Could anyone, please, be helpful and tell your opinion?

            Does the 777 look to you as having fewer holes on the same area than the Il-86?
            http://savepic.ru/9716597.gif

          • Eugene // April 17, 2016 at 1:29 pm // Reply

            The damage in the AA test does look to be smaller than the observed on the Mh-17 wreckage.

            http://savepic.ru/8334698.png

          • Thanks, the holes do look to be different in character, true. I am amazed at how little people are interested in this issue!

            Almaz Antay had placed their warhead a lot further from the plane than the one that has detonated next to the Mh-17 in real life. We can tell this either by using a stringing method or just by looking at the damage cover areas. And yet the plane in the Almaz Antey test was sprayed with shrapnel in a lot denser fashion than the Mh-17 plane. Is this too difficult a subject for people to grasp? So that they can infer that the kill weapon needed to have fewer fragments than the warhead used in the field test of Almaz Antey (namely a Buk warhead). Seems so. I am quite speechless…

          • > The damage in the AA test does look to be smaller than the observed on the Mh-17 wreckage. http://savepic.ru/8334698.png

            Yes, this is another simple indication that the DSB had placed the detonation point too far (my pic actually).

            I reiterate, placing the detonation point too far should result in observed hole density in the test with a real Buk warhead to be smaller. But we see it being greater. The differences do seem to be very noticeable too.

            And given the above we are not making any inferences?

          • “It was an R27 missile (fragmentation based) shot likely from a Su-27, that was hovering at a medium altitude (~3km, above clouds but below reach of Russian radars) somewhere between Torez and Zaroschenske.”

            Interesting idea.

            July 17 – VKontakte Overheard in Torez

            https://vk.com/wall-70279965_83544
            Ini Yani – уже 14-50 – already 14:50
            Nikita Torezsky – самолёт летить!!! – the plane is flying!!!
            Ini Yani – гдеееее!?)) – where!?
            Nikita Torezsky – в небе! – in the sky!
            Ini Yani – с какой стороны? – which direction?
            Ini Yani – понятное дело что не поземле ползет – it is clear it is not crawling on the ground
            Nikita Torezsky – со стороны донецка! – from the direction of Donetsk
            Ini Yani – ты его слышишь? – can you hear it?
            Ini Yani – а че сирену не включают? – why is the air raid siren not sounded?
            Nikita Torezsky –Да – yes
            Ini Yani – один хоть летит? – at least one is flying?
            Nikita Torezsky – кароче полетел в сторону снежного – in short it flies in the direction of Snizhne
            Asya Lazarenko replied to Nikita Torezsky – Никита, военный? – Nikita, military?
            Ini Yani – я его точно услышу – I hear him clearly
            Nikita Torezsky replied to Ini Yani – истребитель да – fighter, yes
            Natalya Gridasova – Это пассажир был – this was a passenger plane
            Nikita Torezsky replied to Ini Yani – я видел истребитель – I saw the fighter
            Ini Yani – человек сказал что истребитель – people say that is a fighter
            Asya Lazarenko – слышно бы было – it was audible
            Ini Yani – две минуты до сирены хи – 2 minutes until the air raid siren [14:58 pm]
            Ruslana Priz – Ну и где серена? – So when is the siren?
            Mayya Valieva – 15 00

            Twitter @ystirya – July 17, 2014, 4:55 pm
            https://twitter.com/ystriya/status/489770391406403584
            Terrorists shot down Ukrainian plane near Thorez; locals say it was shot at from around Shakhtersk town.

            Vkontakte Overheard in Shakhtersk – July 17, 2014, 5:12 pm
            https://vk.com/wall-63034346_45847?offset=0
            Подслушано Шахтерск: В районе шахты “Прогресс” (Торез) упал самолет. Предположительно АН-26. – A plane fell in the area of “Progess” Mine (Torez). Presumably an AN-26.

            Valentin Ryapolov: Я думаю, что все это слышали. 2 выстрела а потом грохот. – I think I heard all of it, 2 shots and then the roar.

            Подслушано Шахтерск replied to Valentin Ryapolov: Валентин, сначала пилот скинул снаряды, что-бы ударной волной не задело их а потом отлетели и катапультировались – Valentin, first the pilot fired off his ordinance so that they wouldn’t be hit by a blast wave, then they flew off and ejected.

            Nikolay Zubchenko: Сначало самолет скинул снаряды а через 20 сек его сбили он упал возле шахты 4.9 – First the plane fired off his ordinance and then it was shot down after 20 seconds and fell near Mine 4.9.

          • Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 2:40 am //

            http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

            We must understand to be manipulated by the ever during Bellingcat narrative, which only purpose is to send the public astray.

            We better show precisely where BUKs are not confirmed and what Buk-warheads are disconfirmed or even falsified.

            We must start with the corpus delicti, the wreckage with the impact holes, and not let us be distracted by false tracks that are placed on the internet by Bellingcat.

            We must understand even if Bellingcat is right with his Buk through Donetsk, then the connection with the downing of the MH17 is not confirmed or already falsified. We must not disqualify his BUK narrative, but he must prove separatists or Russians have put a relatively modern warhead 9N314M on the very old BUK-missile 9M38. So, we must change our strategy.

            – Which BUK-warhead might pass the requirements for conditional probability of passing the hull of the MH17? This we conclude from the histogram of albert_lex. Then only warhead 9N314M meets this standard; 9N314 is falsified and 9N318 is not confirmed.

            Remember this histogram only confirms the profile of warhead 9N314M and not the warhead itself, for more warheads can have the same profile. I think about small SAM or A2A. But not A2A with squares and rods.

            Some conclusions:

            – Old warhead 9N314 in combination with the very outdated missile 9M38 is falsified completely by the histogram, missing category 6.
            – Then, what is the likelihood the separatists had engineers available to put the relatively new 9N314M on the very old 9M38? And for what reason? This is a completely unconfirmed scenario, a complete nonsense scenario; it might possibly work for Ukraine but not for separatists or Russians. This, Bellingcat has to prove in the first place.
            – Because BUK-missile 9M38 with warhead 9N314M used by separatists or Russians is extremely unlikely, this line of research of Bellingcat has no connection with the alleged bowties of DSB.
            – By the way bowties allegedly found in the bodies of the crew are not confirmed, the bowtie of RTL is almost completely falsified by Admin.
            – If bowties are falsified and it still must be warhead 9N314, because it has to be a BUK, then this is already falsified by albert_lex, missing category 6.
            – Then it must be the modern Russian 9N318 on BUK-missile 9M317, which is very unlikely and almost falsified by the histogram of albert_lex, because the width of 8x8x6.5 mm is not structural in the sample. Albert_lex found 8x8x6 mm +/- 0.5 mm. If squares of 8x8x6.5 were found categorically then we would not expect lots of width 6, because a rib cannot be smaller than 6.5. Then albert_lex would have spoken about squares of 8x8x6.5 mm. I agree we are not fully informed about the raw data of albert_lex. We need all the raw data available.
            – What I want to say is we must work from the wreckage to the scenario and let Bellingcat try the other way around. But in the end he always has to disprove above impossibilities.

            And this is just one element of the long list of unconfirmed and falsified BUK results.

          • Basic Dimension // May 16, 2016 at 11:38 am //

            In case warhead 9N314M (bowties) was used by separatists or Russians in combination with more modern BUK-missile 9M38M1, this must be proven in the first place. Then, if proven, remains a hurdle to prove the profile of 9N314M (bowties) in the MH17.

            This is one of the problems for bowties in the albert_lex histogram:

            Because of 0.00075 seconds flying time, fragments in the albert_lex histogram are determined by translations and quarter-rotations. Translations make 8×8 mm impacts of squares most probable. Quarter rotations make 8×6 mm side impacts likely:

            http://tinyurl.com/hn25huv

            Quarter rotations are disadvantageous for bowties with their rounded angles because they are not fully corrected by this proposed principle working for squares with right angles:

            http://tinyurl.com/jlgsz9k

            They might easily land on their vertices and do not come on their quarter side (13×8.2 mm), because this causes an additional rotation in the hole:

            http://tinyurl.com/zht48cb

            So, for bowties quarter rotations force unpredictable additional rotations:

            http://tinyurl.com/hanjk82

            This makes bowties are normally distributed around categorie 13 at the expense of score 13.

            Explanation:

            1,000 revolutions per minute is 1000/60=17 revolutions per second. Then a revolution would take 1/17=.06 seconds (from 8×8 front side to 8×8 mm front side). But we only have 0.00075 seconds. In this time a square can make .00075/.06=.0125 revolutions.

            Half a revolution (from 8×8 mm front side to 8×8 mm rear side) would take 0.03 seconds. A quarter of a revolution (from 8×8 front side to the 8×6 side needs 0.06/4=.015 seconds. Sigh, that’s good news. Now, we can conclude squares have about sufficient time to rotate to their 8×6 mm side in a natural way. This means for categories 6 (33) and 8 (64) to be possible (in relation to rectangle 6×8 mm) we only have to relax somewhat the no rotation assumption.

          • sotilaspassi // May 16, 2016 at 4:10 pm //

            +heavy and light fragments also hit different areas when warhead moves vs target

        • Wind Tunnel Man // May 16, 2016 at 4:53 pm // Reply

          Eugene:

          “The method with specific errors of sub-cm range was abandoned in favour of a dubious unspecified method with the accuracy of over metres.”

          Stringing is relatively straight forward when dealing with a static target, less straight forward when dealing with a moving target and very complex when dealing with a moving target where the projectiles are of differing sizes and shapes moving away from the point of detonation at various velocities within a hypothetical fragmentation spread.

          If we consider the claimed fragmentation spread characteristics of a 9N314M warhead that detonated being carried by a 9M38M1 missile with a forward speed of 600 m/s intercepting a target traveling at 252 m/s please explain how “the method with specific errors of sub-cm range” can be used to determine the orientation and position of the warhead relative to the target at the moment of detonation.

          Please elaborate before claiming that “a dubious unspecified method with the accuracy of over metres” was used.

          • WTM, your physics understanding is pretty poor, which I attribute to your stubborn character. Under Galilean transformation trajectories get curved only by accelerations, and not by relative velocities.

            The positional error of stringing method due to the trajectory curving was estimated to be well under 0.8 cm. I was presenting derivations on this site somewhere.

          • Eugene: lets keep it all polite here. No personal attacks

          • Can you eloborate on this please? I can imagine the correctness of stringing depends on:
            1. speed of target
            2. speed of missile
            3. speed of fragments pushed out by the explosion
            4. distance between target and missile
            5, angle of attack of missile

            If there is a small fraction of a millisecond between missile explosion and fragments hitting the target, how accurate is stringing?
            In other words, what is movement of target and missile in timeframe between explosion and hitting the target?

          • admin, it pointless asking him for details, I did this a lot in the past. His brain is such a chaos, that the only thing he’s capable of is presenting poorly coherent vague statements.

          • As a side note: I have not read a single article anywhere in the MSM about stringing. Nor any other mentioning on the quality and completness of the DSB report.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // May 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm //

            Admin:

            The A-A live demonstration reorientated and repositioned the warhead relative to the target in order to show the increased spread of hits longitudinally on the fuselage. With an actual moving target, heading towards the warhead’s detonation position, stringing from resultant hits over long and short ranges will not point to a definite detonation location. Calculations based on such stringing is needed to determine the detonation point when the the speeds of the target and the individual projectiles are taken into account – this being similar to a reversal of the calculations used by A-A for their reorientation and repositioning.

          • Brendan // May 16, 2016 at 7:14 pm //

            If the velocities of the fragments and the target are assumed to be constant, the stringing method will not be affected by any of those factors that you mention. Straight lines on a static diagram can then represent the path of each fragment back to where it was fired from.

            The path lines will only be curved where there is acceleration or deceleration. The fragments do accelerate for some time at the start of their trajectory when the explosive propels them from the warhead. However that’s only for a fraction of a millisecond, which is much less than the total travel duration of several milliseconds towards the marks found on MH17.

            At one time I thought that all the different speeds, directions and distances of the different fragments, and also of the aircraft, might cause the grazing marks to point to different locations of the detonation. I’ve figured out now that it’s much simpler than that and that the stringing method is very accurate.

            I’m sure that some textbook somewhere proves what I’m thinking about the stringing method being unaffected by the speed or path that is travelled. Unfortunately it would be hard for me to explain it clearly in a post.

          • Brendan, thank you for jumping on the topic and nicely wording what I quite tersely fit into one sentence “Under Galilean transformation trajectories get curved only by accelerations, and not by relative velocities.” Would you also be so kind, to say what you think on the hole density problem discussed here:
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/how-likely-is-it-mh17-was-shot-down-by-a-r-27-missile/#comment-17548?

          • Wind Tunnel Man // May 16, 2016 at 7:52 pm //

            Brendan:

            “If the velocities of the fragments and the target are assumed to be constant, the stringing method will not be affected by any of those factors that you mention. Straight lines on a static diagram can then represent the path of each fragment back to where it was fired from.”

            That is true, such as firing a shotgun at a thick static target and each pellet penetration can be traced back exactly to the firing position using stringing. But now imagine tilting the target in either the horizontal or vertical planes and it moving toward the gun at high speed. Would stringing all the penetrations still point exactly to the firing position?

          • Brendan // May 16, 2016 at 9:26 pm //

            I might have caused confusion by mixing two separate ideas in the one message. The (real but small) curvature of the trajectory due to acceleration/deceleration has nothing to do with the (mistaken) idea that speeds/directions/distances influence the results of the stringing method. I know, it’s still confusing, which is why I didn’t try to explain it in more detail.

          • Brendan // May 16, 2016 at 9:33 pm //

            WTM: Yes, that’s why I included the target when I said “If the velocities of the fragments and the target are assumed to be constant (…)”. Target, as well as fragments, can be moving in any direction, but each one is moving at a constant velocity.

      • Liane Theuer // May 14, 2016 at 8:51 pm // Reply

        Oliver: You spin a yarn about a cat jumping on a button and and you try to ridicule Josef Resch.
        Do you have other than polemics to contribute ? Something substantial ?
        It looks like YOU are the one discussing along his political view on the world.

        • To all: please stop now the personal attacks/blaiming and lets get back to discussion what might have happened to MH17!
          thanks.

          • So the question is now if we could get a better resolution of the Stratfor sat image to clear the questions with the accompanying vehicles. Regarding the tracks on the road – I would say the video quality is too bad to be 100% sure, but certain patterns on the road (visible in shadowed parts) could indeed be tank tracks which would ensure the video is post 15th.

            As long as we do not have better SAT resources of this area, it doesn’t make sense to further claim this is per se again a fake (I’m not sure, but I read this a lot here – is that qualified input to the discussion here?).

            On the contrary – I would say that the amount of similar footage tends towards a manifestation of the Bellingcat narrative. We still should try finding proves for the exact date which would add more credibility to eye witnesses and social media posts related to the convoy on July 17th.

          • I hope someone buys the DigitalGlobe photo showing the truck. I expect Bellingcat to do this, but they might have an excuse to not buy it.
            The sat photo could shed some light on shadows on the road, the escorting vehicles.

        • Certain things were meant ironically. I thought that was obvious to notice.

    • Hi Eugene, had been mentally offline for some time …

      >>It’s interesting that the source of the new information is likely to be related to SBU or Atlantic Council.

      My first thought was that this video was handed in to JIT as a result of the infamous call for witnesses by the JIT:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olQNpTxSnTo

      And now a member of the JIT is leaking stuff to frame the right preconceptions for the upcoming JIT report, for example trying to establish a preconception for the date of the BUK transport.

      Those dashcams normally write to circular buffer on the flash card that gets overwritten after few hours. So the owner of the dashcam decided to save the scene to his computer shortly after filming it, and at the same time he decided not to publish it. Nevertheless two years later it gets published through obscure channels …

      If you do a google image search for the stratfor sat pic you will notice that it is mainly picked up by Ukrainian media outlets, western media outlets seem to ignore it. That might be a hint which general public is targeted by the framing …

      • Ole
        I had the same thought. Maybe JIT received this video a long time ago. Someone able to copy this video (maybe an Ukraine SBU agent as SBU takes part in JIT) placed it on the internet to influence the public opinion for what is presented by JIT in July.

        It is very strange the video has not been posted long before. Also the quality is weird as well as the editing.

      • This must have been mentioned by someone already, but dashcams very often write a timestamp on the footage (because the whole point is to use the footage in a court room), which was probably cropped out. A lot of cars in the area have dashcams – I’d estimate from 1/5 to 1/3 of all cars. It’s a local feature.

        • Indeed. I did a quick look at a couple of Ukraine dashcams. I estimate about 80% have the date and time in the video.

  18. Sergey Tokarev // May 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm // Reply

    I insist on the wager with Oliver. Sorry for my previous rude comment.

  19. I recently read Hector Reban’s article (link below) which contains some interesting details about the Volvos cabin . Some Volvos (e.g. the “Paris Match” Volvo) have a round air-shaft at the left backside of the cabin and a “taper” at the right side of the cabin. Others (e.g. the Torez Volvo) have a flat air-shaft and no “taper”, the cabin is squarish at the right side.

    Which actually means that the PM Volvo and the Torez Volvo are two different trucks.

    Did someone take a closer look on the Volvo in the new video? Obviously the taper can not be seen, but the air-shaft is visible from the front side.

    I assume that it either must be similar to the Paris Match Volvo (round air-shaft + taper) or similar to the Torez Volvo (with flat air-shaft and no taper).

    If this is the case, it leads to the question why two of the Volvos are similiar and the third one is different.

    https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/bellingcat-trolls-russian-ministry-of-defense-we-all-lose/

    • H.L.: I used these markers to make clear how we psychologically are inclined to reach conclusions about relations and causality much too quickly. We see a truck with a white cabin and blue stripings of which we suppose is the same one on every picture on the same date, so make up a single transport to a specific site on a specific date.

      The fill-in-the-space-between-the-dots approach works very effectively on the subconsious mind, even more so when the suggestion how we should “read” the leads and punt them in line has been added in the package too.

      As science is always looking for “competitive” variables and relations between them, and so explanations, I am always trying to think about a way in which the given information could fit into another format.

      So by pointing to characteristics of the “unique” truck – its alleged uniqness gives the trail between the dots more credibility – I tried to get attention to this phenomenon.

  20. Another old convoy:
    http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.fi/2014/06/fresh-prorussian-convoy-with-tanks.html
    Perhaps some of the same escort car(s)?
    Similar route?

  21. The video does not seem to be leaked by someone in JIT.
    “JIT acknowledges the fact that on 12 May, almost 2 years after the MH17-crash, previously unpublished images of supposedly 17 July 2014 of a part of a BUK-system have become known.”
    https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/@94392/jit-has-notified-new/

  22. Viktor Shevchuk // May 26, 2016 at 8:02 am // Reply

    An interesting article which makes a good point…https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/24/more-game-playing-on-mh-17/

    “Another curious aspect of this and the other eight or so Internet images of Buk missiles collected by Bellingcat and supposedly showing a Buk battery rumbling around Ukraine on or about July 17, 2014, is that they are all headed east toward Russia, yet there have been no images of Buks heading west from Russia into Ukraine, a logical necessity if the Russians gave a Buk system to ethnic Russian rebels or dispatched one of their own Buk military units directly into Ukraine”

    • sotilaspassi // May 26, 2016 at 9:03 am // Reply

      Silly RU propaganda article. All RU military HW was brought in Ukraine during night.
      Very few cameras have night vision.

    • Indeed silly. It is very likely the BUK was transported in the night to Donetsk.
      A possible scenario is this:
      – separatists needed more advanced weapon to down UKR fighterjets operating out of reach of MANPADS
      – Russia wanted to prevent that the world knew they supported separatists with heavy weapons
      -Russia transported one or multiple BUK’s into the night to Donetsk
      -separatists suggested they stole a BUK from Ukraine to prevent people thinking Russia delivered it.
      -separatists wanted to show the BUK heading from Donetsk to westerly direction to suggest BUK was stolen from Ukraine

      -someone made terrible mistake and shot down MH17 in stead of a fighterjet/ transport plane

      • Sergey Tokarev // May 26, 2016 at 10:17 am // Reply

        This is a bunch of conjectures. Federalist rebels took Ukrainian BUKs as a booty, which is a known fact, but they couldn’t fix them and make those BUKs operational.
        Is a link to MIVD file ‘silly’? Do you value jobless Eliot Higgins and Sotilaspassi over own Dutch secret service? Which value do you attribute to Stratfor – who doctored images of supposed incident with choppers in Syria as recently as three days ago, and to official Dutch secret service?

        • Sergey: you wrote” hich value do you attribute to Stratfor – who doctored images of supposed incident with choppers in Syria as recently as three days ago, and to official Dutch secret service?”

          Can you tell me more about this? Hard to imagine Stratfor doctors images.

          • Sergey Tokarev // May 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm //

            You are welcome, Marcel. http://chervonec-001.livejournal.com/1359221.html Unfortunately this is in Russian. I also requested @partisangirl and @leithfadel (al-Masdar news) for such info in English.

          • Totally unimpressed by this Russian evidence that Stratfor faked images. Why would they do that?

          • IsThatSo // May 26, 2016 at 10:40 pm //

            Admin: “Totally unimpressed by this Russian evidence that Stratfor faked images. Why would they do that?”

            It is futile to inquire whether images are faked or about the motivations of Stratfor.

            It is more productive and easier to simply inquire whether the Stratfor story about a successful ISIL attack is true or not.

            Russia officially denies the event, but (correct me please if I’m wrong) you do not trust them.
            https://www.rt.com/news/344254-russian-helicopters-isis-syria/

            Perhaps you trust American officials. They say Stratfor is wrong according to Fox news.
            http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/25/russian-attack-helicopters-destroyed-in-syria-us-officials-say-accident-to-blame.html

            From these facts we cannot conclude that Stratfor’s other satellite images are bogus or that their interpretation is wrong. But surely we can agree that it is dangerous to assume automatically that images and interpretations provided by Stratfor are true.

            Also, if you have been following the conflict at Syria over the years, then ask yourself what are the odds that the jihadis launched a successful attack that destroyed many trucks and helicopters and did not make a video of it. The odds of that are somewhere between slim and none.

          • “Hard to imagine Stratfor doctors images.”

            To me they would kill themself if they do/did that.
            (their business is to sell reliable information, if it proves unreliable, no customers -> end of business)

          • Viktor Shevchuk // May 27, 2016 at 9:43 pm //

            If the truck is in the photo, then why didn’t Bellingcat find it? Didn’t they buy the same photo?

          • sotilaspassi // May 27, 2016 at 10:15 pm //

            Previous bcat bought photo did not cover what stratfor bought.
            Now bc bought larger section around stratfor image and another image further to east. No info yet from those new ones.

      • There are other possible szenarios as well:

        – The separatists captured some BUKs on the ukrainian military bases which they brought under their control.

        – The Russians recommended that these BUKs are not suited for them (because only experts can use them) and asked them to bring them to Russia to trade them in against MANPADS etc.

        – The Ukrainians knew about the BUK transports from the Donbass to Russia and used some of the pictures to set up a false-flag-attack on MH-17.

        As far as I remember Andrew mentioned somewhere that the Russians “confiscated” the BUKs which were in the separatists possession.

        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/tracking-the-ukraine-buks-156th-regiment3rd-battalion/

        This would explain why we only know of BUK transports from the Donbass to Russia.

      • Viktor Shevchuk // May 26, 2016 at 1:16 pm // Reply

        Marcel, how do you know what is very likely? All you seem to have is limited information anonymously planted on the internet on oft occasion
        Have you really convinced yourself that you, have likely solved the mystery?
        I don’t mean to be rude but your suggestions above look like carzy conspiracy theories…Am I being too harsh on you?

        • Viktor: with all respect but I am very sure a BUK was transported on July 17. So far the Russian Federation failed to come forward with some good proof something else happened. Fighter jet scenario is nonsense. There is no evidence for an A2A powerfull enough to down a B777 and create the fingerprint of damage we see.

          Maybe just maybe a Ukraine BUK was used. However, so far Russia failed to provide any good proof for that.

          • IsThatSo // May 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm //

            Admin: “So far the Russian Federation failed to come forward with some good proof something else happened.”

            “Maybe just maybe a Ukraine BUK was used. However, so far Russia failed to provide any good proof for that.”

            The burden of proof is not on Russia. The burden of proof rests on the accuser, not on the accused. So far the accusers have failed to rise to that task.

  23. Sergey Tokarev // May 26, 2016 at 9:41 am // Reply

    Marcel! Out of curiousity, why comments of Oliver and Sotilaspassi are published, and mine are not? I just want to understand your guidelines. Aren’t comments of esteemed Sotilaspassi spam? Regards.

  24. Denis Cashcov // May 31, 2016 at 3:52 am // Reply

    1.The truck was not found when the photo was first looked at by Bellingcat.
    2.The date on the dashcam video has been deliberately removed.

    Suspicious. Draw your own conclusions.

    • sotilaspassi // May 31, 2016 at 4:54 am // Reply

      1) Bellingcat looked at the wrong area.
      2) PERHAPS videocrapher wants to stay alive, therefore some stuff was removed. That would also explain why it took so long time before release.

      Let’s see what bc find from new sat images they bought…

  25. Liane Theuer // June 11, 2016 at 10:38 pm // Reply

    In the Allmysterie Forum the user j.t. made an interesting discovery :
    https://www.allmystery.de/themen/pr114908-274

    If you compare the video of the heavy transport convoy on July 15/2014 at 0:37 and compare it with the new video of the low-loader allegedly from July 17/2014 at 0:56 you see :
    At the Gas Station are two cars on both days – a white Lada 10 and a dark blue Logan.
    The Logan driver is wearing the same short-sleeved white shirt on both days.
    How likely is that ?

    My conclusion : The new video is dated July 15/2014 and was made before the convoy video.
    Since the new video fits into the series of other videos and photos, all the social-media evidence may have occurred on July 15/2014, too.
    And that would mean that the satellite image from Stratfor either dates also July 15/2014 or it does not show the unique low-loader.

    By the way : Why BC keeps silent about their newly purchased satellite imagery ?

    • The Buk video was shot around 11:15, whereas the convoy video was shot around 18:00. The two dark cars couldn’t be the same, unless the one that’s driven out in the earlier video was brought back later on. The two white cars couldn’t be the same either, unless the one in the earlier video either stayed at the station for more than six hours, or else left and returned, just like the dark car.

      People can see coincidences in anything if they try hard enough. That doesn’t mean that the Buk video was recorded on 17 July. There’s no evidence for that, unless you use your imagination to believe that the low resolution Stratfor image shows a Buk (assuming that the image is authentic). The disappearance of the track marks that were cut into the road two days earlier would also have to be explained.

    • sotilaspassi // June 12, 2016 at 10:28 am // Reply

      bc informed the material is huge. They will release info around the strafor image, with all of the cars of the convoy.
      Full SAT material review will come later, it seems.

      No info if they have also the Zaroh area. (I hope)

    • A possible explanation could be the Parallel gasstation is used as kind of an Uber carpool site, with next to some official taxi-cabs, also some unofficial private people working as taxis.

  26. Antidyatel // June 12, 2016 at 12:40 pm // Reply

    Marcel, cassad is giving links to videos showing Ukrainian jet flying around the crash area
    http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com

    It seems that both parties start to throw heavier artillery in terms of evidence.

    At the end it is getting clearer that sucj behaviour can only be explained if all of them are guilty. The scenario with Raethyon missile is the only one linking all inconsistencies.

    • Birds or flies can not be ruled out. A couple of days ago a discussion on a similar video on webtalk pretty much agreed on flies.

      • Antidyatel // June 12, 2016 at 2:40 pm // Reply

        Do you have a link to the discussion?

        In any case, the point is that two sides start using heavier arguments aftet 2 years: clear video of BUK on loader vs video with Ukrainian jet with mh17 fire on the background.

        Both didn’t need 2 years to reach fruition. The only plausible explanation for behaviour of parties in the disaster is that each knows that all of them are guilty. That is why all evidence cannot be used at once. Only if another party starts pushing agenda too far.

        • >Do you have a link to the discussion?
          From here on
          http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=326&p=19#p47342

          I live by a military airfield and can tell that a fighter shot from that distance will be heard.

          • Antidyatel // June 13, 2016 at 10:32 am //

            It seems that the flies are discussed on other pages of the forum. Not sure if it is really consensus. Flies are used to explain one of those videos. There is sound from the passing jet though and it is strange why camera is pointed into the sky at that moment. Another video that has most of the snapshots from, seems to show the debris falling, not jet flying. The third video has a jet quite clearly. But no sound related to it. Which is strange indeed. Even more strange is that jet looks like old MIG or French Mirage. So maybe it is digitally added. But why to go through such effort and not add the sound?

          • To me the first video from the cassad link is a bird (heron?). The second video is a fly (there are around 5 flies if you watch all of it). You could tell a fly from a plane by the way they interfere with the clouds. Here it looks like the fly might be disappearing behind the clouds (and therefore it is a plane), but one frame gives the fly away.
            http://savepic.ru/10074165.gif

  27. New video of BUK’s track on weapon depot in Snejnoe city (see 0:26): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSJuKGrbThE

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*