Paris Match does wrong translation of MH17 eyewitness. Leaves out other plane flew near MH17

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Paris Match published at YouTube a video showing an interview with an eyewitness of the MH17 crash.  This man called Sasha tells he saw an aircraft flying near MH17. The interview is done at the location where the cockpit was found.

The eyewitness talks Russian. The subtitles are in French. And the translator which can be heard talks english.

The translator does not seem to translate exactly what is being said by the eyewitness.
And the French subtitles mention ‘the other’ while the eyewitness said ‘other plane’

Paris Match seems to deliberately not mention that another plane was seen by the eyewitness. Paris Match is also the magazine which published a photo seeing a BUK parked in Donetsk.

Paris Match is notorious for manipulating photos. The owner of the newspaper is a very intimate friend of Nicolas Sarkozy. Arnaud Lagardere, a major share-holder of Paris Match, even publicly called him [Sarkozy] “my brother”) (source)

In 2007 Paris Match used Photoshop to delete the love handles of French President Zarkozy

Below on the left is the French translation seen in the subtitles of the video. Right is a 100% translation of the left.


I requested someone who is a native Russian speaker to translate what the eyewitness said.

“they flew very high, about 10 to 15 aircraft.

the aircraft, that flew, nobody saw. It was not visible how large it was. It was quite in a distance. It looked like a dot, it disappeared behind clouds. It flew into clouds and Boom. It disappeared into the clouds, it cannot be seen in clouds right? Later a big boom, and large debris fell down. People fell out of the sky. Here were 37 bodies found.

When the plane flew there, it flew to Malaysia right? So it went that direction. This plane flew towards Rostov.

The aircraft which flew next to the big one and then entered curve to front of the plane. It was cloudy I just saw a fragment. After seconds an explositon. Boom. That was it.”

Another person who is native Russian speaker translated the most important part as:

“…If the plane was going this way  to Malaysia….. that means another plane overtook him like that….. it was cloudy, so I just saw a piece of this (2nd) plane, when he was overtaking, going into a cloud…  and then after several seconds – boom.”

More translations. They all mention the eyewitness mentioned another plane was near MH17. 







Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

45 Comments on Paris Match does wrong translation of MH17 eyewitness. Leaves out other plane flew near MH17

  1. Separatist Sasha lie as eyewitness.
    If ukrainian fighter which he saw in CLOUDS on HIGH ALT attacked MH17 then why this fighter stay invisible on radars. I dont know about stealth fighters in ukrainian armed forces. Good luck with trust to all these terrorists supporters.

    • There is no reason to think Sasha is lying . We have many many witnesses that saw other jets. The Ukrainians are responsible . The USA May be forced to abandon Ukraine and the bankrupt criminals will degenerate even more

  2. Another funny thing – Su-25 which all russian trolls believe CANNOT make hook around B777 with speed 900 km/h on alt=10km because have speed LOWER then B777.

    • Lets stick to the facts. This eyewitness did not say SU-25. In fact , if we believe Paris Match, the eyewitness even did not say plane.

      • Could it be that this eye-witness saw a missile that “went into the clouds” ?
        If so, ParisMatch did what they are supposed to do : report.

        There is not always a conspiracy of “group thinking” of media, as admin suggests below.

        • Rob please: you are close to a permanent ban with your suggestions. About four people who translated the eyewitness indicated he said ‘other plane’ and for sure he did not meant to say ‘missile’.

  3. sotilaspassi // September 2, 2015 at 1:14 pm // Reply

    That eyewitness testimony seems silly vs the evidence we have.
    1) there was no “another plane” in radar
    2) it is impossible to see fighter jet “beside” airliner at 10km
    3) impossible to see the “action” through clouds + 10km
    4) debris does not indicate any fighter jet “actions”
    5) conflicts with all other eyewitnesses?

    • The eyewitness probably saw something else than what he describes. The goal of this post is to show the ‘group thinking’ of media.
      Media should not manipulate the facts. Paris Match did some Photoshop on a photo of French president.

      • Any eyewitness is useless if dont supported by facts. Presence of mythical planes is useless too if reason of destruction for MH17 is missile 9M38M1.

  4. Eyewitness is just liar. He talk about something (unidentified) which climb to cloud and then Boom! And this is lie! He talk about a few seconds between actions – hide, explosion, debris. Even if this man stay directly under explosion point of MH17 then time delay between explosion (which he cannot see after clouds but only hear) and moment when sound reach him is near 30 seconds! 30 seconds! It is dont a few seconds but close to a whole minute. Especially because he cannot stay directly under explosion point. No one force on Earth cannot climb from alt of lowest cloud border to MH17 alt (let think in 3000m and 10000m) under attack angle close to 90 degree. So plane can climb at certain attack angle and 9M38M1 missile too. More like you can stay from explosion point on range from 10km (directly under) to 19km or 11km. So time delay started from 30 seconds to 55 or 33 seconds. And it is only if he stay directly on line between explosion point and point of climbing into cloud without any deviation. And we must add time delay between moment of entering into clouds and moment of explosion – even for missile 9M38M1 this delay is 18 seconds at least.
    Totally we have delay 48 seconds to 51 seonds which cannot be a “few seconds”.
    Im dont talk even about how find dot on cloud sky which climbing into cloud.

  5. First, it would be an absurd form of tunnel vision to debunk the confusion and distraction theory of SU-25 with MH17 under acceptance of the entirely unreliable reporting of the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images. Hence we really do not know if SU-25 flew around MH17 or at a lower altitude of 5 km.

    (p= 1): Residents say to have seen SU-25 in the neighborhood of MH17.

    (p= 0.5): At the time of the disaster residents probably saw more than one object in the sky. They were very familiar with the daily stunts of SU-25, so they probably did not confuse SU-25 with BUK, even though they possibly had never seen BUK smoke trail or heard BUK thunder before.

    (p= 1): The witness is sure he has seen two objects in close proximity before the explosion. (That’s the only important information of the interview).

    If we suppose this grown man knows the difference between SU-25 and BUK, then he must have had a reason not make a choice or not to tell his conclusion. If he concludes a BUK he would make himself vulnerable to the separatists. And if he had chosen for SU-25 he would be chased by the SBU. Hence he possibly decided not to lie but also not to give full information. He decided to give just enough information for us to draw our own conclusion. Otherwise his cooperation to the interview would be worthless.

    From his experience he knows SU-25 cannot climb so fast and high. Also they are not that maneuverable at high altitude. He wants us to draw the conclusion it was no SU-25.

    And he describes quite exactly the path behavior of a BUK without saying anything about the sound of the launch or the smoke trail, since the BUK possibly was launched from a very distant position and it was cloudy. But I am no expert.

    He knows we will infer BUK. Unless Erik Toonen is right after all with his advanced SU-25 from Georgia: ‘The modification of the [upgraded SU-25; BD] device is performed by the Israeli Elbit Systems and the Python missiles are also provided by the Israeli Rafael to Georgia. Location of these devices is the airport of Tbilisi since 2000.

    I draw no conclusions but only protect a scenario against tunnel vision.

    • agree with you though claims for the SU-25KM (Scorpion)are not to be trusted at all,mostly improvements in loiter time and ordnance delivery+general modernizations,claims it supports Python missile are based mainly in unreliable forums,TAM the makers website is down but as off 2012 only supported R-60 and R-73,similar to Russian SU-25SM

      • RB2 said “agree with you though claims for the SU-25KM (Scorpion)are not to be trusted at all,”

        RB2, “Basic Dimension” has not said a single word about an SU-25KM (Scorpion)…

        • Rob said-

          RB2, “Basic Dimension” has not said a single word about an SU-25KM (Scorpion)…

          he did mention it,this is a SU-25km he refers too

          Basic Dimension-Unless Erik Toonen is right after all with his advanced SU-25 from Georgia: ‘The modification of the [upgraded SU-25; BD] device is performed by the Israeli Elbit Systems and the Python missiles are also provided by the Israeli Rafael to Georgia. Location of these devices is the airport of Tbilisi since 2000.

  6. Actually, it was not Paris Match but a local unprofessional translator commissioned by them who did the mistake by not translating everything as he had just heard. The guy would hardly be sympathetic to the Ukrainian side, he was just mistaken. When the witness began speaking of a plane, obviously meaning his claim of a second one, the translator began translating “the plane…” but then stopped to let the witness speak out. We don’t hear the rest of the English translation, but the French text puts it as “the other” (l’autre), obviously meaning “the other plane”.

    Besides, for Paris Match being positive to Sarkozy actually would mean being positive to Putin, as the former French president has been recently more or less supportive of Russia.

    And, the guys in the video are by far not the only witnesses who claimed to “have seen another plane” in the situation it could not had been seen physically — and was not seen by any radar in the world (I mean, a real one, not faked by Russia).

    • Prosto Tak:

      Let me say up front I am not much an air-to-air shootdown partisan.

      “the guys in the video are by far not the only witnesses who claimed to “have seen another plane” in the situation it could not had been seen physically”

      Its easy to see planes at 4-7 km. Anyone with normal eyesight can make out the shape and most key features to spotting like wing shape and engine pod placement. With only the slightest experience looking at planes overhead, it should be easy for a layman looking at that altitude to quickly distinguish an AN-26, a civilian airliner, an SU-25 with unswept wings, and a swept wing fighter like a MIG-29.

      “and was not seen by any radar in the world (I mean, a real one, not faked by Russia).”

      And what radars are we referring to? The only radar tapes any people like us have seen are the Russian Rostov ATC radar. So do you think it is faked?

      And what other radars have you seen imagery from? Ukrainian field mobile military radar like BUK KUPOL’s and the “Tin Shield”? Ukrainian Dnipro ATC radar? Can you share these other radar tapes with the rest of us?

      If you are saying this because you don’t think there was another plane in the sky, what do you make of Marie Harf’s statement on July 23, 2014 where she would not deny the presence of a Ukrainian fighter jet? If the Ukrainian plane is a complete fantasy, why not just deny its existence in plain language? Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

      QUESTION: But the theory that – or the – I don’t know what you would – the suggestion isn’t necessarily that the Ukrainian jet – I mean, you have – you’ve discovered that the Ukrainian jet was in the vicinity, but it was not capable of shooting (inaudible) down —

      MS. HARF: No, I can’t confirm that there was even a Ukrainian – we have no confirmation that I have seen that there was a Ukrainian jet.

      QUESTION: Oh, that there was even —

      MS. HARF: I’m not saying there wasn’t. I just can’t confirm it.

      QUESTION: Right.

      MS. HARF: But regardless, the notion that this kind of Ukrainian jet the Russians are talking about could have done this with the kind of missile and the kind of debris we’ve seen – it just doesn’t match up.

      QUESTION: Because I think the suggestion is that whoever fired this missile may have been shooting for that plane, like what we saw today in terms of a shoot-down.

      MS. HARF: Which in no way makes it better.

      QUESTION: Well, I’m not saying it does. I’m not saying it does at all, but it’s not —

      MS. HARF: And I don’t know what the intentions are of whoever was on the ground pushing the button. I don’t.

      QUESTION: And the last thing about this —

      MS. HARF: Clearly – well clearly, I know the intentions were to launch a sophisticated missile and to kill people. Whether those – they were trying to kill Ukrainian military officers or civilians, we’re still waiting to find out.

      • Ahahaha! These russian liers so funny. They must to learn what difference between “no deny presence of ukrainian jet” and “cannot confirm”.
        Difference between Churkin and Marie Harf – Marie is very accurate with sentences and facts so if dont have facts which confirm clearly presence of another plane – then she dont spread out false info. But Chrukin and all russian liers is another thing – they catch any chance to falsify facts, even trying to find in Marie Harf words anti-ukrainian lie.

  7. Alfred de Montesquiou, the reporter on this video, has a history of getting the facts wrong. He reported the wrong locations for two separate recordings of a BUK that allegedly shot down MH17.

    He originally said that the Paris Match BUK image was shot in Snizhne. Paris Match later changed the location to Donetzk and he described the error as “a mixup in caption”.

    The same article also presents as fact the original Ukrainian claim that another BUK video was shot near Krasnodon. In this case Paris Match did not change the story, even after the Ukrainians changed the video location to Luhansk and after the error was pointed out to them.
    (30 Jul 2014) “regarding Krasnodon, we have official, on record Ukranian source saying it’s the picture’s location.”

  8. Eyewitness evidence is often of low quality. In TWA-800 a large number of people were certain they saw a missile rise up and hit the aircraft.

    Investigators finally narrowed the useful eye-witness list to only a very few professionals who did not assert a missile was involved. The investigators’ final conclusion was there was no missile seen, just the illusion of one.

    This was then confirmed by forensic analysis of the wreckage.

    For MH17 my opinion is that forensic examination of the wreckage is the most important item. It then remains to see what eyewitness reports are consistent with that. I do not discount any of the theories but whatever result is found has to be consistent across all evidence.

    • TWA800 is a bad example. Even investigators who investigated this case requests to reopen the case. The conclusion ‘explosion in fueltank’ could be incorrect.
      I do not think it can be ruled out TWA800 was indeed hit by a missile. That would be truth authorities do not like to become public

      • That is America, famous home of the conspiracy theory. Nano thermite, Sandy Hook faked, on and on.

        You have seen enough from MH17 to know that an anti-aircraft missile leaves distinct and obvious marks on an aircraft. They were not seen in TW800.

        TW800 has several possible theories rigorously examined. Bomb and Missile being the foremost, as well a structural failure and eventually fuel-tank explosion.

        I know modern aircraft designs use nitrogen inerting precisely because of the TWA800 analysis (amongst others)

        The full TWA800 report is well worth a cover to cover read. It’s one of the better reports I’ve seen.

      • admin said “I do not think it can be ruled out TWA800 was indeed hit by a missile.”

        I agree that it cannot be ruled out that TWA800 was hit by a missile.
        However, neither can it be ruled out that TWA800 was struck by a meteor.

        And the question remains : IF TWA800 was hit by a missile, exactly WHERE was that missile fired from and WHO launched it ?

        • Rob:

          “And the question remains : IF TWA800 was hit by a missile, exactly WHERE was that missile fired from and WHO launched it ?”

          The conspiratorial suggestion from the very beginning was a US Navy SAM launched during naval exercise GLOBAL YANKEE ’96 that were ongoing at that very time in the same area. The involvement of the CIA in the wreck investigation did nothing to allay these suspicions, nor have continual accidental references in the media to the plane being destroyed by a missile right up to this day.

          While TWA800 is wildly off topic, I would note that the wikipedia article on it shows a picture of the primary radar return of the wreck which is very different than the Russian Rostov tape released to the public. The Rostov tape is clearly a Civilian ATC tape and not a complete picture of primary radar – otherwise we would see the entire debris cloud of MH17.

    • Charles:

      “Eyewitness evidence is often of low quality.”

      Especially when it is not recorded or written down within the first few hours of an event. People start to conflate their memories with things they wish had happened or heard about from other people or news sources.

      However in the case of MH17, it was reported within hours that eyewitnesses thought they saw two SU-25 or SU-27, that one shotdown the plane, and then the warplane itself being shot down while another warplane left the scene towards Debaltsevo.

      Now, they may have been mistaken, and they may have thought for example, that the cockpit or tail was the SU-25 while the main fuselage crash at Hrabove was the plane. But lets at least grant that this impression was recorded almost immediately and long before any suggestions began to come from Russia and long before the briefing of the Russian Defense Ministry and its mention of an SU-25.

      The Voice of Sevastopol records at 18:05 pm Moscow time (so 45 minutes after the crash) on July 17 that two planes fell and it was already known non-combatants had died. The person making the internet report apparently assumed the bodies from MH17 were local victims on the ground:

      18-05. According to eyewitnesses: about 17-30 Loose in clause (Torez) fell two aircraft, there are victims among the civilian population.

      At 2:12 am that night they recorded (still confused thinking an AN-26 also shot down):

      2-12, Operational information:
      The result of the day: today’s militia managed to destroy one transport (an-26), drying (rook), four frogs (MI-8). About the shot down a civilian vessel: the route of the aircraft was planned to pass through the sky of the Crimea. Manager, consciously or helped (unknown), changed the route. The goal is clear provocation against Russia or new Russia, the attempt to blame in international terrorism. But, alas, those books, which were captured by the militia, are only good for towing cars, and not trucks is thanks UVS. The aircraft was shot down by drying with an elevation of 7000, 10000, and according to the intercept, in the pair dialogue was in English. No longer a secret that in the sky over Novorossia pilots fly no UVS: Kolomoisky pilots were issued from Georgia (21 people) and there is Polish mercenaries (they know Soviet aircraft); it is also known that the negotiations on the air poles are in English, therefore a very high probability that the pilot-killer mercenary sat.

      Similar eyewitness testimony was recorded by Lifenews and Russia Today within 3 hours of the wreck.

      At 21:37 Moscow time on July 17, Voice of Sevastpol released a video of eyewitness statements on the downing.

      At 21:55 Moscow time, Voice of Sevasopol separately posted a summary of the video:

      21-55, “Boeing” was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter
      Based on the record before the eyewitness who describes the details of the death of Malaysian “Boeing”.
      1. A total of 3 explosion.
      2. From the lost plane jumped 2 people with parachutes.
      3. Was recorded Ukrainian plane going in the direction of Debaltsevo.

      At 23:37 Moscow Time, Voice of Sevastopol reported:

      23-37, clarification parachutes – parachutes could belong to the pilots 1 of 2 Ukrainian jets that were “Boeing” from Kiev. According to eyewitnesses, the crash site left 1 the plane of the junta, not 2. So skydivers may well be the air force pilots of the junta.

      Turning to another source, the following from the LNR Press Service was posted to vKontakte Strelkov-Info on July 17 and 20:03 Kiev Time.

      17 July at 8:01pm (Kiev Time)
      17.07.2014. The statement of the press service LNR.

      “A Malaysian airliner was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter
      “The airspace over the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics closed by the government of Ukraine.
      “Violation of the Malaysian airliner could happen for two reasons: 1) the provocation of Ukraine; 2) the error Manager.
      “Any vessel on normative acts, it must be shot down by air defense of the country whose airspace it broke.
      “Witnesses who observed the flight of a passenger plane Boeing 777, watched the attack of the Ukrainian air force fighter. After that the passenger plane was split into two parts in the air and fell on the territory of DND. “After the attack, the Ukrainian attack plane was shot down and fell on the territory LNR in the area of Krasny Luch. At the moment we are searching for the downed plane.”

      This LNR statement seems the most accurate for describing this scenario – a fighter attacks MH17, MH17 itself breaks in two in the air, and the fighter is shot down.

      We should certainly read this testimony and evaluate its veracity and congruity with the physical evidence, but we should also acknowledge the testimony of a Ukrainian fighter plane attacking MH17 appeared immediately after the wreck and spontaneously from local eyewitnesses long before anyone in the Russian government had said anything.

      • And we must accept the possibility that the origination of the story may have been from a couple tweets that might have reported the cabin and other parts as parachutes and fighter jets, and then the gossip spread and evolved from there.
        More people may have keep repeating the story so they could be on their favorite media channel and get world wide recognition.
        Since the propaganda channels and Kremlin were promoting that story and looking specifically for people to give it justification.

        Like you say, even though LNR official statement was they shot down a fighter jet, they have yet to provide images and wreckage that prove the fact it was from that day.
        IE, no evidence to back up what they say.
        Probably was a discussion of shoot downs from the days before was what they reported, but attempted to change the narrative on MH17 to protect their behinds.

        Fare thee well

  9. If we assume it is a BUK by itself shooting MH17 down, then all statements that do not include a plume would be considered false unless they were too far away to see the plume.

    Which would mean the witnesses that are to the West and North of the impact point if we geolocated the witnesses could be correct not mentioning a plume due to distance from launch site.
    A plume would have a profound affect on a person that just watched a large plane crash into the ground.
    The ones nearer the crash site should mention a plume unless they were blocked like by a skyscraper or some other interfering landscape.

    Also, if there was a plane targeting MH17 and shooting it down, there would be no mentions of a plume or smoke trail at all.
    We have talks of both.

    There should be NO talks of a smoke plume with any of the witnesses if it was an aerial dogfight.
    Since there are talks of a plume with the witnesses, doesn’t that automatically discredit any aerial dogfight theory?

    There should have also been a few mentions from the pilots that flew past MH17’s impact point and near the launch location and how it flew above the cloud layer.
    I wonder what and where their witness statements are since they had a clear and unimpeded view?
    I do not think I have seen any public statements issued by pilots.

    IF there was a BUK involved, which I think everyone here believes, then the only exceptions to a witness’s testimony not mentioning a smoke plume is if they did not have a line of sight to the plume.
    And those people’s witness testimony should be held to a higher scrutiny for not mentioning a plume.
    Regardless of guilty party, a plume should be mentioned in most witness’ credible statements if the BUK was the weapon.
    No separatist fighter jets, so people would not be looking for one of those to hit a plane.
    They know it will be a SAM of some sort that knocks a plane out of the sky.
    There would be and should be no witness statements of a UA plane shooting down its own aircraft.
    They are all just jumping on the bandwagon of false or paid witnesses.
    A credible witness would have been looking for some sort of SAM plume and mentioned it.
    There was only one source of Ukrainian aircraft getting shot down that far in its borders, and that was a SAM.
    And that is what took down MH17.
    IF they did not mention a SAM or a missile from the ground, their credibility becomes highly skeptical.

    Fare thee well

    • boggled:

      I think you are discounting far too many options for what happened and eyewitness reports. There are credible options which allow every claim to be consistent and true:

      1) Plume caused by rebel (or Ukrainian) BUK launch at MH17, but Ukrainian planes were also flying in the general vicinity. I.e., planes flying around are confused for the source of the catastrophe.

      2) Plume caused by the simultaneously reported use of Ukrainian BM-30 SMERSH (Tornado) system in Dyakovo behind the supposed rebel BUK site, MH17 shot down by Ukrainian plane (i.e. plume has an alternate origin). The SMERSH missile is remarkably similar to the BUK in size and appearance of its launch from a distance.

      3) Plume caused by rebel BUK launch shooting down fighter jet, fighter jet shoots down MH17 before being shot down by BUK (original rebel claim of actual events).

      4) Plume caused by Ukrainian BUK launch shooting down MH17, fighter jets also present in the area.

      I don’t see this necessarily as an either or scenario.

      • Yes, but Andrew, if in the view of clear line of site in much of those flat lands you do not see a plume of some sort and connect it with a LARGE falling aircraft out of the sky when all you have seen from the separatist side is artillery and SAM launches, make you wonder why they did not notice a plume and noise all at the time of the launch.
        They just ‘noticed’ other.

        Speaking of a GRAD type artillery as the Smerch or Tornado or the simple BM 21, it is artillery and I would suspect a salvo and a distinctive noise that people would have been able to label.
        Not often would it be used in a solitary missile launch, like a BUK would.

        One thing of interest is the Smerch’s missiles sometimes utilizing parachutes to drop munitions.
        Could that have been the two pilots parachutes claimed to be seen at the same day but a different location and then confused in the tweeting?
        I am not sure of flight patterns to know it could look like a BUK launch, if it was a solitary launch.
        A short km target so it goes high up and comes down in as wide an area as possible?
        But with 12 tubes, why a solitary launch when it is made to devastate a battlefield full of trenches, troops, or tanks?
        It is a very versatile artillery, as can bee seen by this video.

        Regardless as all your scenarios involved above point out, a plume would most likely have been seen.
        If the witness did not report a plume relating to the crash of the plane, it makes their witness statement suspect.
        IF it was a BUK missile.

        Fare thee well

        • Boggled:

          “Yes, but Andrew, if in the view of clear line of site in much of those flat lands”

          Its not as flat as you think.

          “Speaking of a GRAD type artillery as the Smerch or Tornado or the simple BM 21, it is artillery and I would suspect a salvo and a distinctive noise that people would have been able to label.”

          No, its not artillery. Its rocket artillery using solid-rocket fuel missiles, and not artillery shells. SMERCH, as I mentioned, is nearly as large a rocket as a BUK. So also is URAGAN.

          “Not often would it be used in a solitary missile launch, like a BUK would.”

          Why not? Both SMERCH and URAGAN are designed to be able to fire that way, therefore it would be used that way when military doctrine dictates it.

          “Launcher is capable of single or salvo firing.”

          The same thing is said on the same site regarding Uragan. “The BM-27 fires single rockets or full salvos.”

          • It is flat enough, not many trees and it makes Kansas look hilly and the cloud deck was quite a ways up.
            They would have noticed it if they noticed the plane and the noises.
            Edited videos? No Plume? or figured small MANPAD missile and would not see a plume so never looked for the evidence of the weapon?
            It is just surprising the limited amount of plume mentions and images with so many plane images.

            I know it is not mortars, or lobbed shellss like regular artillery, all are basically surface to surface missiles with very little guidance targeting then firing a pumpkin catapult.
            Some are more precise then that, but not many, some can link up with things like the BUK Command Center as a fire control station and utilize its coordination.
            So yes, they are a type of ARTILLERY, and I can agree with you they are rocket artillery if you want to be specific about it.

            Common use and most all the videos I have seen have been with full salvos firing all at once.
            Your right they could use it as a sniper weapon I guess.
            More commonly it is – you know an area enemy troops and equipment are passing through so you saturate the area with bombardment to destroy as many as you can before you send in the clean up crews with the tanks and APCs and BMPs to finish up the job.
            With 10 to 50 km firing zones for various rocket artillery, they do not have to be on the front lines, but sometimes you do get better accuracy the closer you are, unless you have spotter and plotter hidden near the war zone.
            I would hate to be that spotter, lots of friendly fire accidents happen that way from various failures in artillery equipment or teams or rockets.

            Odds on using it for single salvo suppression could happen, but not often.

            Fare thee well

  10. Boggled, interesting scenario in which however you started with a doubtful premise:

    ‘IF there was a BUK involved, which I think everyone here believes, then the only exceptions to a witness’s testimony not mentioning a smoke plume is if they did not have a line of sight to the plume.’

    If I was a resident of Donetsk I would not risk my life having seen the plume of a BUK. Conversely I would give an impossible scenario of a SU-25 so everyone understood it could not have been a fighter aircraft.

    Hence, in the beginning of any resident scenario we must expect a psychological evaluation of what can and cannot be said. And under that condition a veiled truth possibly will be proclaimed.

    • I hope your not mistaking what I say.
      I am not saying that if someone does not mention a plume, they are automatically thrown into the trash.
      It is just that those that mention a plume are more credible.

      Now as to your scenario, if I was a Donetsk person that was scared to tell the truth, I would not pretend to be a witness.
      Unless I was forced at gunpoint.
      Not many of them have stepped forward, that I have seen proclaiming the phantom jet.
      I doubt if anyone would think as you propose, I am going to testify and witness and make a statement with my reputation behind it, that a SU25 was the culprit but every one that knows me will know that is not.
      What you are saying, by saying it is a SU25, the witness is saying it is not an SU25.
      That may work in spy circles and their double speak and codes and ciphers, but not a witness statement.

      Anyways, if the fact of a BUK is established, the more credible witness statements are the ones that include a plume.
      The rest are not to be discarded automatically, but they do deserve a higher level of scrutiny.

      Fare thee well

  11. Well, it’s all very distracting and confusing. May be I was wrong and the witness sincerely meant he saw two planes. I accept the Russian translation he really saw two planes. Now what does this mean? In this scenario I suppose the witness saw a SU-25 and there was a SU-25.

    Now as AN already made clear a SU-25 (450 km/h) cannot overtake MH17 (900 km/h) and even make a hook around B-777. But because the clouds were at 3 km, the SU-25 could have made antics at 5 km, which were projected higher on the MH17 surroundings. Now it would be possible to see SU-25 next to MH17 but factually SU-25 was flying much lower.

    The stunts of the SU-25 could be meant to distract the members of BUK who intended to shoot down a military plane (IL-76). Also is possible the SU-25 had nothing to do with that military plane (MH17). And in case of IL-76 the SU-25 would bomb BUK in the first place. We see scenarios of SU-25 and MH71 at same altitude are not working. So, we conclude different altitudes.

    Next problem is SU-25 at 5 km was no immediate threat to BUK, so there was no reason to fire a missile. This except if the crew of BUK made a fatal error of judgment with radial speed and/or overlooked MH17.

    Then the solution would be as follows: Ukraine had no bad intentions with MH17. Also there was no spotter involved. ‘Birdie’ is a nonsense story afterwards. The BUK crew panicked because there was no complete BUK configuration set up. And the real cause would be a solitary OLD BUK-TELAR has enormous ergonomic shortcomings to keep apart civilian aircraft and military planes at different altitudes.

    • Baisc Dimension:

      Maximum speed of the SU25 is 950 km/h, not 450 km/h. Cruising speed is 750 km/h. 450 km/h might be the ground attack speed when it is trying to kill armored equipment.

      • Su-25 cannot have maximum speed 950 km/h on alt=10km. Any plane dont have MAXIMUM speed but maximum speed for current ALT.
        Im already shown why Su-25 cannot catch B777 with examples from Su-25 instrument panel.
        1. Su-25 on ALT = 8700 m have only IAS (Indicated Air Speed) = 480 km/h or TAS (True Air Speed) = 750 km/h
        2. Su-25 on ALT = 10500 m have only IAS = 440 km/h or TAS = 740 km/h
        3. MH17 B777 on ALT = 10000 m have IAS = 300kn or TAS = 890 km/h

        So for Su-25 maximum speed for alt = 10000 m is 440 km/h (IAS) which close to 450 km/h. And this plane cannot catch B777.

      • Likely 450km/h would be about top climbing speed and/or top forward momentum speed at the most while fully loaded struggling to make climb to 7 km – 8 km.
        Fully loaded, empty, modified, unmodified, so many things to think of aren’t there Andrew?

        Attacking a ground target I would imagine it is like a hawk and dives in fast for the kill.
        But it could use a different attack profile of flying as below radar as it can.
        Probably different specs for flying over water versus dry land.
        Regardless, Basic is BASICALLY correct.
        As a fighter jet makes a climb it will be going up at an angle which will slow down its overall forward momentum.
        It could be travelling at 975 km/h (actual top speed of a unmodified empty SU25) to get to FL280, but its actual forward momentum or velocity would only be 700km/h if it is lucky.
        Kind depends how quickly you want to get to that altitude to what your forward speed is.
        N’est ce pas?
        So after a SU25 is making the long slow climb to 8 km – at most unmodified, consistent straight flying B777 is flying away from it steadily and leaving it in the dust a long ways behind.
        SU25 forward movement?? 700 km/h or less B777’s forward movement? 900 km/h or more.
        About 3 km a second faster with just those numbers.
        So in 10 seconds the B777 is 30 km down range.

        Basic, you need to stop disqualifying the effectiveness of the Optical Sensor scope and laser range finder, they would have been effective that day.
        Some light filters they put over the camera lens almost makes clouds disappear.
        It is almost like having X-Ray glasses.

        And I am still not so sure a Command center and radar emplacement is impossible to be in range of the BUK launcher’s wireless signal.
        Russia says there were four BUKM1 batteries with active radars, plus a S200 network, which they may know just how to break into.
        Admin’s recent article I found at least one full battery within distance, and evidence of others.

        This article discusses various radars Ukraine had active about S200’s. Also interesting is an ITAR link that goes to describe daily active radars, some 9 some 8 some 7 –

        Fare thee well

        • Also here goes to describe the amount of BUK equipment Ukrainian intelligence saw moving out of Ukraine.
          At 2am (local time) on Friday July 18, about 8 hours after the plane came down, in a region of Ukraine near the Russian border, two big trucks each carrying a BUK system – one with a missing missile, were seen heading for Russia.

          At 4am on Saturday morning three more such trucks moved over the border into Russia. One had a BUK-M1, one was empty, and the third carried a tracking module that runs the system.

          Found at metabunk, you can find the exact thread by searching for a few of those terms in a generic search.

          Fare thee well

  12. Well Boggled thanks for the information about SU-25.

    I have not spoken about the optical target sensor or the slant range finder. May be, these instruments register optimally. I only stipulated we have no official reports, no official standards of how BUK-TELAR translates and recodes this raw information optimally for human processing. Hence ergonomic optimizing differs from optimal registration.

    Further in this scenario I supposed a standalone BUK. And if there were a BUK Command vehicle and a BUK TAR involved, it would be worse because then their cooperation totally failed, unless you suppose the Russians deliberately shot down a civilian aircraft. Of course a complete BUK system across the border also should be explored.

    • I just try to add the importance of optical sensors and laser range finder and other items as important items for confirmation.
      There is a reason why this multimillion dollar SAM vehicle has them installed on it.
      My guess goes along the lines of being in a standalone or offline situation.

      Just advising keeping eyes wide open, I am still learning new things daily to this day regarding MH17 and the weapon of choice.

      Fare thee well

  13. IMO, all eyewitnesses from 18Jul forward tend to be unreliable as long as novorussia controls the area. Eyewitnesses recorded 17Jul should have more relevant info than the rest.

    • Do you include Avakov’s “agents” (according to Bellingcat sect it is now a courageous babushkas) on 18th July seeing fleeing BUK? Just to be fair

      • If there is more “data” than just words, then let’s look at the data and less at the words.
        In general, we understand that people can not be neutral when war is above them.

    • It is premature to be deciding which eyewitnesses have greater or lesser credibility. Premature and disrespectful. Unlike us, they have skin in the game. Who are we to judge them?

      There has been much discussion about fear shaping what the eyewitnesses said or didn’t say. But no discussion about the fact that there are people of faith in eastern Ukraine who fear God more than human authorities and therefore would not lie about what they saw and heard. Not when it comes to a mass murder.

      I am less concerned about the fear of the witnesses than I am about the fear of the people running the formal investigations.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.