Could part found by journalist suggested to be BUK part be a Boeing 777 part?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Update April 6. 

The orginal title of this blogpost was “Part found by journalist suggested to be BUK part likely to be Boeing 777 part’.

Then someone on Twitter showed me another photo made by Jeroen Akkermans. It shows the digit 4 applied on a part of the Boeing 777. The 4 has a different look than the character on the piece found by Akkermans. So this makes it unlikely the part found by Akkermans was part of the aircraft as previously believed.

——————————-

Jeroen Akkermans, journalist working for Dutch RTL Nieuws, found in November 2014 several parts of what could be a BUK missile. RTL announced the news with a heading saying “Evidence for shot down of MH17 by a BUK missile. Here is the english text of the same news.

Akkermans found several parts of what could be of a BUK missile:

  1. a single part, rusted, which was found in wreckage which was located near the tail of the aircraft. This could be a bow-tie part of the missile warhead.
  2. several parts which could be part of the casing/body of the missile. These were found in the remains of the cockpit

In a previous post I showed that the bow-tie shaped part  was likely planted in the wreckage.

RTL states about the  piece found in the cockpit: “It appears from electroscopic enlargements that a fragment shows a cast-on Cyrillic serial number from the Russian language next to a partly broken number 2.”

Tse (Ц ц; italics: Ц ц) is a letter of the Cyrillic script.

A user on a Russian internet forum found out that the part of what RTL suggested belonged to the missile, could be a part of the Boeing 777.

On the photo below, left  is the part of the missile found by Akkermans. On the rightside of the photo the part of the Boeing 777. The digit 2 is clearly the same shape/font.

The what RTL believes is a  Cyrillic character could  be the digit 4. It is a bit odd shaped though.

buk-missile-digit-2

The photo which shows a serial number of the Boeing 777 was taken by Jeroen Akkermans. See the original photo here. The photo was taken at the spot where the cockpit crashed.

Analysis of the part

RTL had the part analysed. The spectrum shows aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), magnesium (Mg, titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), and strontium (Sr), on the basis of the oxygen peak probably in the form of an oxide. Also, traces of iron ( Fe), calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br).

What is still missing is a compare with an analysis of the  part of Boeing 777.

Also an analysis of a BUK missile part can be done.

BUK or Boeing part?

I found another photo made by Jeroen Akkermans. It shows the digit 4 on a piece of the Boeing 777 structure near the cockpit.

akkermans-digit-4

I rotated the photo 180 degrees and zoomed on the digits. The 4 is clearly different than on the piece found by Akkermans.

Boeing-747-number-4Buk-part

The charater on Akkermand does seem to be a  Ц and not a 4.

However Michael Kobs does not agree. In this report Kobs states:

digit-4

 

The thickness of the piece found by Akkermans seems to be much thicker than the outer skin of the BUK missile. The skin of the missile is likely to be as thin as possible to prevent kinetic energy from the explosion to be absorved by the other skin of the missile.

outerskin

Still some questions:

  • How likely is it that a serialnumber on a BUK missile is exactly the same font and applied on the same way as a serialnumber on a part of a Boeing 777?
  • How likely is it that the colour of the metal of a BUK missile is very simlar as the colour of a Boeing 777 part located in the cockpit?
  • How likely is it that a part of a BUK missile is found by a Dutch reporter 4 months after the crash in a location (the cockpit) which was visited by many, many people?

The characters on the Akkermans piece seem to be on the inside of the BUK missile. It is unlikely to be a serialnumber.

Photos I have seen of BUK missiles seem to have a serial and type indication printed on the missile body in black paint. On various parts  of the missile  a unique number is printed.

XJd7i_H_dPE

A closeup of the missile. The first part of the print shows the type of the missile. 9M38M01. The rest seems to be a serialnumer. In this photo 88901059

serial-number-buk-closeup

This photo shows a 9M317 missile. Again some sort of serialnumber can be seen.

1323987299_9m317

A closeup clearly shows 9M317 being the type of the missile and 8881610 likely to be a serialnumber.

serial-number-buk-closeup-2

The third example of a serialnumber on a BUK missile

0011

Also the closeup clearly shows the type of the missile and a unique serialnumber . In this example 9M38M1 then two characters and then 8900145.

serial-number-buk-closeup-3

DSB report

DSB did mentioned that Akkermans found parts of what could be a BUK missile. The text below was taken from the DSB final report. We really cannot conclude anything from reading the text.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

82 Comments on Could part found by journalist suggested to be BUK part be a Boeing 777 part?

  1. This character looks to me as either the Cyrillic “ц”, or an odd shaped 4. So I wouldn’t say “likely a Boeing part”. Unless you have better proof, you have nothing.

    • sotilaspassi // April 5, 2016 at 11:01 am // Reply

      Yes it would be odd shaped 4.
      + “number 2” looks very different in those two fragment images (vs each other).

      • Liane Theuer // April 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm // Reply

        “Number 2” matches perfectly in my eyes. But the shaped 4 doesn´t convince me. Looks more like an U (if letters are possible).

        • I am pretty sure quite a few people working at Boeing or a company doing maintenance or the supplier of Boeing have the answer.

  2. I recollect this information from my memory:

    – In DSB, Storchevoy represented the Russian Federation, while Almaz-Antey only was advisor. Now Storchevoy stated: ‘3. He said that the DSB ignored detailed information the Russians provided about the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missile systems including technical specs, flight and ballistics characteristics, launch parameters, algorithms governing the detonator and characteristics of the warhead.’

    Maybe Almaz-Antey first said it was a BUK on which Storchevoy later said the different characteristics of both BUKs had to be considered in the first place. He meant then DSB would conclude the Snizhne variant could not have been done with a 9M38M1 missile because its detonation is about 5 meter later.

    Possibly that’s why DSB refused to distinguish between these missiles and called both the 9M-series. Now in retrospect we might infer how early DSB already must have distrusted its own 9N314M scenario, but it was too late to change its policy: it had to be a 9N314M. Or SBU simply refused to publish about the 9N314 variant of 9M38.

    Following the specifications of Almaz-Antey I reject to interchange warheads and missiles. The very old BUK-missile 9M38 goes together with the very old warhead 9H314, and missile 9M38M1 with warhead 9H314M1.

    With the new conclusions from Admin about the alleged Cyrillic 4 we analyze the text of the DSB report again:

    ‘At the crash site one of its (RTL) journalists (Akkermans) found fragments that possibly originated from a weapon and had them examined’.

    ‘The fragments were handed over to the Dutch Safety Board on 20 March 2015. The Dutch Safety Board had the NLR examine the fragments. The results were no different from what the Dutch safety board already knew for a fact came from the wreckage or from the bodies of the victims’.

    DSB does not use the term ‘parts of a weapon’ but ‘fragments’. But we know with fragments they mean ‘pieces of shrapnel’ and not pieces of a rocket…

    Well, DSB stated almost literally the piece with the alleged Cyrillic 4, found by Jeroen Akkermans, came from the wreckage or from the bodies of the victims. (the ‘found’ bowtie came from the body of the captain.) And it is stated also as ‘no different’ from the other fragments DSB found earlier in the bodies of the crew and in the wreckage.

    But we definitely know the alleged Cyrillic 4 is completely different from all other fragments found in the cockpit. Since, no other parts of weapons were found in the cockpit, exclusive shrapnel.

    So, DSB did not mean: the Cyrillic 4 was also found in the cockpit. No, DSB must have meant the Cyrillic 4 was PART OF THE WRECKAGE OF THE BOEING. DSB must have meant the Cyrillic 4 was NOT PART OF A WEAPON. Because in this kind of investigation it is not usual to interchange the wreckage with the weapon.

    So we conclude, DSB made up its mind in a very veiled formulation and already in a very early stage of this investigation!

    NLR, having no information about the working and interior of BUK-missiles and not wanting to cooperate with the Russians, must have contacted Boeing, which apparently assured the Cyrillic 4 was part of the wreckage of the Boeing.

    But in that case there was no proof of a BUK and then the DSB report was less convincing. Maybe that’s why DSB (SBU) did not reveal the origin of the alleged Cyrillic 4 as a part of Boeing. They left it to the reader.

    On the other hand, if the part of the missile found by Jeroen Akkermans with the alleged Cyrillic 4 really was part of a 9M38 missile then Ukraine as a member of DSB could easily have confirmed this as a fact, since they own a lot of these missiles. (Note, from now on I reject missile 9M38M1 and 9N314M1 as a scenario as being falsified by Admins earlier article.)

    What does this all mean? This possibly means DSB already for a very long time knew bowties and the Cyrillic number were false allegations against the Russians.

    • sotilaspassi // April 6, 2016 at 7:25 am // Reply

      “But in that case there was no proof of a BUK…”
      Beside boutie shrapnel there were other missile parts found.
      See for example:
      ch 2.12.2.8 / page 80,81…
      also in ch 2.16.3 there is info of two more missile piece.

      • Sotilaspassi thanks, that’s correct.

        (Ch 2.12.2.8) pag 80 of 279:

        [Other relevant objects recovered

        During the recovery of the wreckage a number of parts that did not originate from the aeroplane and its content were found in the wreckage area. The parts found appeared to be connected with a surface-to-air missile.

        The parts that were suspected to be related to a surface-to-air missile were transported to the Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base in the same way as the aeroplane wreckage was. On arrival the parts underwent the same examination as the pieces of aeroplane wreckage.

        The shape and form of the parts recovered is consistent with a 9M38 series surface-to-air missile. Images of three of the recovered parts are shown in Figure 36 together with an indication of origin on a 9M38 series surface-to-air missile; namely an engine nozzle (1), part of one of the four stabilizer fins (2) and a data cable (3).

        In order to not risk impeding the criminal investigation, the Dutch Safety Board has decided not to publish images of all of the recovered fragments that were presented to the Annex 13 partners during the progress meeting in August 2015.

        (Ch2.16.3) pag 93 of 279:

        One of the fragments that was recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, was found in the left wing tip and a second one was found lodged in the left cockpit window frame. Figure 40 shows images of both of these fragments.]

        http://tinyurl.com/jaahmuh
        http://tinyurl.com/je4qn6y

        DSB decided to 9N314M because they probably are convinced by the evidence of bowties. But we think they have no proof of bowties passing the hull. So we reject 9N314M. But they might have at least one rocket part fulfilling the conditional probability of passing the hull. Then this might prove a BUK. But what kind of BUK? That’s the question.

        If they were sure the rocket parts came from 9M38M1 they would not conclude to the ‘9M38-series’. Then they would report 9N314M ànd 9M38M1. So, they have no proof. Hence it also could have been a Ukrainian BUK 9M38.

        Questions:

        – Are the rocket-parts fulfilling the conditional probability of passing the cockpit or the wing identical for 9M38 and 9M38M1? DSB only speaks of 9M38-series.
        – If they are the same, then is Cyrilic 4 perhaps only part of 9M38M1?
        – There is no proof Cyrillic 4 passed the hull. Was it placed on the crash site later on?
        – Indeed we must ask Boeing if Cyrillic 4 is part of the plane.
        – If not we must ask Almaz-Antey to which missile it belongs.
        – But we already concluded Cyrillic 4 does not pass the test of conditional probability.

        • In retrospect we may conclude that possible malpractice with shrapnel and rocket parts concerning the wreckage of MH17 clearly took no account of the methodological requirement of conditional probability that invading parts must leave clear traces on the airplane. For, this is not a normal accident but a criminal investigation into a war crime.

          But from now on we are bothered by dialectics of progress. We must expect artificial butterflies made in the wreckage by criminal parties. We can expect parties coming to court with withheld and ‘convincing’ evidence.

          To be more specific the biggest threat is criminals withheld parts of the roof on the port side above the first door L1 to the nose of the plane and meanwhile provided these panels with artificial butterfly holes:

          http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg
          http://tinyurl.com/j67qcnw

          That’s why we now formulate an additional methodological requirement. We understand JIT to withhold very delicate evidence not to alert beforehand parties and individuals for court.

          But we do not accept the withholding of key evidence regarding the conditional probability as provided here. Regarding impressions in the hull, the wings and the windshields we consider the investigation of DSB as decisive and closed.

    • The correct designation of the two types of warheads is 9N314 and 9N314M. According to Alma-Antey, the 9N314 warhead belongs to a 9M38 missile and the 9N314M to the 9M318M1 missile, they should never be mixed. But the Ukrainian experts said they can be mixed. DSB left the matter unresolved, they chose for “9M38 series”. A ridiculous decision because a 9N314M is not a variant, its an upgrade. In the simulations made by Almaz-Antey, you can see the relevance of the distinction (DSB p 145-146). However, DSB mixed up the results: the 20 square kilometers area belong to the 9M38M1 simulation.
      Now, if can be proven, a Russian 9N314M contrary to a Ukranian, is indeed never combined with a 9M38, you know either it wasn’t a Russian missile or it wasn’t launched near Pervomaisk.

      • Deus Abscondis // April 6, 2016 at 8:38 pm // Reply

        Rob,

        DSB said a 9N314M warhead could be fitted to the older 9M38 missile but gave no basis for this claim. Almaz Antey said they are electrically incompatible. You said “Ukrainian experts said they can be mixed”. Are you putting this as a hypothetical or as a fact as I haven’t seen this mentioned by “Ukrainian experts” only by DSB.

        The unweildy “9M38 series” phrase is an important clue in the DSB report. Essentially they are keeping alive the idea that it was a 9M38 retro-fitted with a 9N314M warhead. Who would do this? Almaz Antey stated Ukraine did not proceed with a life extension refurbishment contract in 2005 of their 9M38 missiles. I have no idea if refurbishment would include a possibly costly warhead upgrade. The alternative scenario is Ukraine retro-fitted their 9M38 with a 9N314M warhead. Ukraine has the technology to do this but the question is where would they get the warheads from? Would Almaz Antey sell bare warheads? Another possibility is that Ukraine made their own version of the 9N314M warhead. This is possible too, they have the technology. The electrical “incomaptability” is a trivial issue for Ukraine’s technicians.

        So the fact that Almaz Antey denies the 9N314M can be “fitted” to the older 9M38 missile should be read as “easily fitted”. It suggests they don’t do it; afterall Almaz Antey want to sell missiles. This then leads to the view indeed it is Ukraine who may have retro-fitted the older missile body with the newer warhead.

        Non of this is a certain fact. However, it is very strange that the DSB kept the retro-fitting theory alive. Apart from bowties the additional missile parts were it seems insufficient to identify exclusively a 9M38M1 missile. The conclusion is that DSB either distrusted the bowties or Almaz Antey’s warhead incompatability statement. Either Almaz Antey aren’t being fully truthful or Ukraine has been fiddling with (modifying) its missiles. My feeling is it is the later.

        The Russian’s have boxed in the options by showing experimental evidence, if it was a BUK missile, only the 9M38 with the 9M314 was used and these missiles no longer exist in service in Russia. Given the dubious status of the bowties it is looking like that the Ukrainian only missile option is increasingly likely.

        In terms of the DSB mixing up results from the location fly out. Thanks, I’ll check that. What is my suspicion is that DSB took the Zaroshchenske flyout data and modified it for the Snizhne location after the drafts were seen by the Russian’s. It is stated in the figure next to the graphic used by DSB the graphic was ‘updated’ without being specific. One area presented by DSB as based on Almaz Antey data looks unusually elongated by comparison to the flyout areas that Almaz Antey presented in their second presentation.

        With regard to the cyrillic character on the fragment. Are their parts for Boing made in European countries using the cyrillic alphabet. Boing would know exactly if this piece was part of the plane or not. There should be no mystery. The type of metal seems a bit exotic for a soviet era missile.

        @Deus_Abscondis

        • “According to the Kyiv Research Institute for Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice, both the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles can carry the 9N314M warhead” (DSB p. 132). Although their expertise seems limited, they were taken seriously by DSB.
          “DSB took the Zaroshchenske flyout data and modified it for the Snizhne location after the drafts were seen by the Russian’s.” No, Almaz-Antey was asked to do these simulations by DSB. Almaz-Antey also did them on their Zaroshchenske scenario.
          You should also look at the discussion in DSB Appendix V.

        • Liane Theuer // April 6, 2016 at 10:23 pm // Reply

          “Another possibility is that Ukraine made their own version of the 9N314M warhead.”

          In fact, there is some evidence for the thesis :
          May 30/2014
          “Ukraine’s state enterprise Ukroboronservice is in talks to upgrade an additional S-300PS surface-to-air missile (SAM) defence system for the Ukrainian armed forces.
          In addition to this, the company is also expected to hand over an upgraded Buk-M1 mobile air defence system to the service early next month.
          During the upgrade of the next Buk-M1 system, the company specialists are expected to mount the system on an advanced Ukrainian radar station, developed at State Enterprise Scientific and Production Complex, Iskra, instead of a Russian-built station.
          http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsukroboronservice-to-upgrade-additional-ukrainian-s-300ps-air-defence-system-4281548

          June 6/2014
          “In the near future the first in Ukraine refurbished anti-aircraft missile system Buk-M1 will replace on alert”, the head of the Air Defence Forces Commander Air Force of Ukraine Major General Dmitry Karpenko stated. Signature Act adoption complex repair shows that domestic enterprise mastered the repair of air defense systems of this type.”
          http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2014/06/06/povitryani-sili-zs-ukraini-otrimali-vidremontovanij-zenitnij-raketnij-kompleks-buk-m1/

          “On the prospects of modernization of Ukrainian SAM “Buk-M1” read the book Sergei Zgurtsa Defense Express publishing a series of “Weapons of Ukraine” entitled “Shield Power: fire damage, command and control, intelligence” (2012).
          Special attention in the book “Power Shield”, among other things, given arms and military equipment for the protection and defense of the airspace – anti-aircraft missiles, which are modernized by Ukrainian specialists, as well as new systems are created for the benefit of anti-aircraft missile troops of Ukraine and foreign customers . The book provides an overall assessment of the status and prospects of the arsenals of anti-aircraft missile forces of Ukraine.”
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkEfl3NxRQE

          • Deus Abscondis // April 7, 2016 at 3:17 am //

            Thanks Liane for your informative reply. You are a gem!
            I had seen some info on Ukroboron upgrading the BUK-M1’s and the additional info is appreciated.

          • I would not be surprised. I have been in contact with someone who knows a lot about the BUK. Once Novaya Gazetta leaked the Almaz Antey report which mentioned the 9N314M, this guy the M is a mockup warhead. Not a real warhead. When AA presented their report, this guy stated he was wrong. I am wondering why someone who knows a lot, did not know about the 9N314M. Could be various reasons.

          • Deus Abscondis // April 8, 2016 at 10:16 am //

            Sorry Admin

            “Once Novaya Gazetta leaked the Almaz Antey report which mentioned the 9N314M, this guy the M is a mockup warhead. Not a real warhead. When AA presented their report, this guy stated he was wrong. I am wondering why someone who knows a lot, did not know about the 9N314M. Could be various reasons”

            this does not make much sense to me could you please have another go, expand a bit.

            Thanks

  3. Liane Theuer // April 6, 2016 at 10:06 am // Reply

    As we know from the Final Report, not a single state, who is in possession of Buks, gave it to the DSB for comparison.
    On what basis the DSB concludes, that the “other missile parts found” belong to a 9N314M1 warhead ? NONE !
    There are only the two very questionable two bow-ties.

    The whole Final Report leaves a lot of loopholes through its WITH INTENTION, I guess. formulations. WITH INTENTION, I guess.
    Starting with the inaccurate mapping of the chemical composition of individual fragments.
    Vague statements about where the pilot Team A was autopsied.
    Not saying, what exactly was received from the USA.
    Omitting important parts of the wreckage in the reconstruction. Etc.

    Somehow I have the feeling that the DSB expects a Whistleblower and is prepared to defend the “uncertainties” in its Report.

    • Deus Abscondis // April 6, 2016 at 8:53 pm // Reply

      Correct, the DSB skirted around matching the missile fragments to actual missiles. This is a major fundamental flaw in the DSB report. The a priori statement that it couldn’t empirically be done due to the mixed composition and origin of steel used was pure voodoo science apart from which Poroshenko is likely to not have allowed access to his missiles. Apart from the dubious bowties there is the possibility it wasn’t a BUK missile at all.

      @Deus_Abscondis

      • sotilaspassi // April 7, 2016 at 7:08 am // Reply

        “there is the possibility it wasn’t a BUK missile at all.”
        What other missile it could have been?

        It must have been:
        -non-rod warhead
        -70kg or larger
        -fired from something invisible in radar
        -something that fits what was seen by eyewitness *

        * (incomplete list of eyewitness vs SAM)
        -People talk about something that sounded like Grad volley.
        -Was there a sound of a jet plane at all?
        -Woman: Vika, look, before the plane was shot down, I was watching in the direction of… well, precisely when you look at—what’s the name?—KhimMash. And so, above KhimMash, in the direction of KhimMash, there was something upwards… like smoke, something like a smoke trail… err… as if some kind of a missile launches upwards. …
        -Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from.
        -woman B
        Guys! I’ve just listened to the story… (sigh) Right then, I was at the garden, at Oktyabr’ (no Wikimapia link available) sound, out of nowhere, there was droning sound. It was silent right before that, and then suddenly there was loud droning sound… I [looked] at the sky, err, something was flying… well, I, I can’t tell for sure, well, from that direction, it was flying as if from Saurivka [Wikimapia-link]. I thought it was a missile, ran inside the house, shouted to my mom, well, after we went down to the basement, only then did we hear some bangs, explosions.
        But it was flying and smoking—with a white smoke—and strong buzzing loudly above Oktyabr’ flying there, you know, to… towards the town, in that direction.
        -I heard strong buzzing, flying there, towards the town.
        -“Dima, got it, something buzzed above us but not like a plane, they say that a rocket went up to it”
        -“And it seemed to us that it was in Snizhne”
        -“And maybe a volley and then after the explosion of an unguided missile from a plane…”
        -“At first it was a single explosion that wasn’t too strong, and then after a minute a second stronger one thundered”
        -“Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying…And then an explosion.”
        -“During the ongoing droning I heard separate loud booms, and right now a volley has gone out”
        -“I saw how this rocket flew!!! I even saw where it came from ans where it went!!! It was terrible as hell tos see!!!!”
        -I saw how rocket flew from the direction of Saurovka…and then a minute-long lull ans a lound exposion… a trail remained in the sky from the rocket… I didn’t see the explosion myself it was very loud…all of my family ran out to street…we very scared…I donät know who to believe but we didn’t hear the sound of an SU… it was quiet jus like with normal passenger plane and then…
        -ITAR TASS reports eyewitnesses seeing a launch by rebels & missile taking the plane down.
        -Eyewitness on the crash site says one plane was involved and rocket flew to it. (unconfirmed)

        • Deus Abscondis // April 8, 2016 at 1:25 pm // Reply

          sotilaspassi,

          apart from the non-rod point I have issues with your other points.

          I was surprised at the extent of damage by a 40kg warhead in the DSB report.

          The level of analysis given by DSB and Almaz Antey (superior in my view, which does not mean DSB is worthless) is unprecedented. There was no significant reference to pre-existing modelling or experiments. Approaches/methods appeared novel and unique. There is a lot more to be learned about in general about missile damage to civilian planes cockpits. There were flaws in both Almaz Antey’s and DSB’s methods and analysees. That’s to be expected in new science/engineering. We are not talking about established applied science. Of course the underlying physics remains the same in the applied physics. Both studies raised many unanswered questions. While there are limitations to the experimental approach they are known limitations. Isn’t it interesting that engineers can figure out how to make compensations for such things as static vs dynamic testing and interpret results accordingly. That said there is a dearth of experimental data for the damage from fragmentation warheads from 40kg up on modern passenger planes cockpits.

          The difficulty I have is that DSB baulked at the proposition of linking the fragments to actual warheads via metallurgical comparative analysis. It would have increased the amount of work significantly but technically for the DSB to say a priori that empirical results would not have been meaningful is silly from a scientific point of view. If the DSB said they couldn’t obtain access to warheads, let alone a sufficient number of warheads, to take samples to do a comparative analysis I could accept that. I don’t accept that shape alone of a couple of fragments is sufficient grounds to prove a bowtie and hence a 9N314M warhead regardless of more recent doubts about their origin. That leaves the 9N314 warhead. Almaz Antey’s claim that different steels were used in light and heavy elements needs testing. So analysis of the steel used in 9N314 warheads should show uniformity between fragments. It wasn’t tested.

          Science is not so much about corroboration as refutation (See Karl Popper’s Science Conjectures and Refutations). All swans are white can be rejected by a black swan. Only a BUK with a 9N314M warhead could have caused the damage to MH17 can be refuted by showing experimental results from any other warhead on a fragmentation warhead SAM or A-A missile that produced better results. If DSB believes only a 9N314M warhead does the trick and Almaz Antey says no a 9N314 could then most obviously blow up a 9N314 next to a plane cockpit. In absence of evidence really linking the 9N314M to the damage (including bowtie holes) then the 9N314 has to be a candidate to be excluded. Any fragmentation warhead of 40kg or more on any missile that could conceivably have been used needs to be excluded as no existing warhead has conclusively and exclusively been shown to have caused the damage. One must blind oneself to other evidence that sucks you in to the corroboration approach that, for example, caused the DSB to to focus on the Snizhne area as a possible launch location and all of the consequences that flowed from that assumption – missile angles etc. Not a good example because DSB weren’t doing science and South of Snizhne was likely chosen for political reasons.

          Call me hard arsed or setting unreasonable standards of evidence if you like but that’s science and epistemology for you. Counting all the swans in England and then Europe doesn’t make the false theory all swans are white any truer.

          The suggestion was floated that JIT needed a higher standard of evidence than the DSB. I can see why. It was suggested the JIT needed to exclude any other missile type that could have been used. I agree. Note the method here, to “exclude”. A process of elimination as opposed to gathering evidence to support a hypothesis.

          The invisible to radar point is silly.

          The eyewitness accounts (that’s the Zello discussion you refer to) needed followup and closer examination of the witnesses in person which the DSB didn’t do. Psychology teaches us that witness reports can be unreliable. Carefull examination is needed. The tyre tracks in the field near Pervomaiske in the Miller photo are interesting. Some of the unburned stalks of grass/wheat aren’t flattened in the middle on the tyre marks. Weird. It’s like the tyre marks existed before the grass/wheat grew. The burned grass and unburned stalks is suggestive of a smouldering creeping grass fire rather than the flame thrower exhaust of rockets. Volleys of rockets heard suggest Grad, while a single exhaust suggests a single rocket – a single range finding Grad, a Tochka-U or a BUK or a Strela-10 or a SA-8 are all possibilities. None of the unexamined conflicting or complementing witness accounts, witness accounts which change depending on who is asking the questions, witness accounts by pro-Kiev or pro-separatists with an obvious slant, while they add colour to the story, they don’t amount to much without the persons being questioned by an experienced independent questioner.

          A last note. I’m not a metallurgist. DSB used principle component analysis of the metals. All of the components may yield more data, incuding unintended components. For example, steel made in Europe prior to 1986 will have different levels of radionucleotides to steel made after due to Chernobyl. If Ukraine made their own warheads the steel could be quite different to Russian steel (assuming Ukraine makes steel) Without collecting and testing the steel from samples of missiles, an epidemiological approach, and looking (observation is important in science) no conclusion can be drawn a priori that any comparative analysis is useless because the steel came from different batches over time from different sources and all markers or combinations of them will be random or the varience too high to discern differences. Perhaps the varience would be too high. Collecting samples would, hopefully, be non destructive to the warhead, a tiny drill would do the job.

          But really folks do you think investigation into MH17 is really about finding out who did it? Call me a cynic but I expect evidence will be found to corroborate the dominant narrative regardless of the truth. It’s the black swan that is needed.

          @Deus_Abscondis

          • @Deus_Abscondis : Good comment
            Reminds me to write a new blogpost about the BUK warhead and the bow-tie

          • Deus Abscondis

            Interesting discussion.

            [Science is not so much about corroboration as refutation (See Karl Popper’s Science Conjectures and Refutations). All swans are white can be rejected by a black swan. Only a BUK with a 9N314M warhead could have caused the damage to MH17 can be refuted by showing experimental results from any other warhead on a fragmentation warhead SAM or A-A missile that produced better results.]

            I agree. According to DSB it does not matter more warheads in the world can do the job, since they already found the bowties, which are unique for 9N314M. So we need not prove the black swan, but we must show DSB hasn’t yet found any swan at all.

            From the beginning DSB seemed to be convinced 9N314M was the warhead used. They not really were interested in confirmation or falsification of this hypothesis. Some ‘found’ bowties are the only ‘facts’ legitimating 9N314M as the warhead used.

            We need not test all warheads in the world if we are able to falsify the connection between the alleged bowties and 9N314M. I think that will do the job.

            It is not our task to find the black swan, only to prove the white swan is no swan at all.

          • Deus Abscondis // April 9, 2016 at 12:28 pm //

            Basic Dimension
            “We need not test all warheads in the world if we are able to falsify the connection between the alleged bowties and 9N314M. I think that will do the job.
            It is not our task to find the black swan, only to prove the white swan is no swan at all.”
            That’s logical. It is sufficient to reject the 9N314M to show the alleged bowties were not bowties or were bowties but did not belong to the missile responsible for MH17, i.e., were planted. If they were planted, someone had gone to the lengths of shooting them at a Boing window. I don’t see holes in the windows consistent with a large fragments like bowties. Occam’s razor would otherwise be on the side that they are bowties.
            Of course testing all possible warheads is not required. The 9N314 warhead has been shown by Almaz Antey, by exclusion, to be a candidate. The absence of damage consistent with bowties to MH17 was reasonably demonstrated. However, the 9N314 was not empirically demonstrated. That said DSB did no hole analysis. DSB’s method of determining a “match” between simultations and actual blast damage was absurd and more so the exclusion of Almaz Antey’s results.
            I suggest, in absence of an admission bowties were planted, then only further experimental data can exclude the 9N314M in a scientific sense.
            A real conundrum exists if you discount Almaz Antey’s experimental data. DSB did for unjustifiable reasons. DSB cherry picked from Almaz Antey data.
            In the legal domain things are a bit different. Notwithstand the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, the chain of evidence comes into play. That a possible perpetrator could have had their fingers on the alleged bowties counts. The few numbers of alleged bowties may count. The additional mostly unknown to the public missile components will be brought into play. Apart from questions about the weight of the alleged bowties the Russian’s have questioned a panel. When BUKs detonate in the air the rocket end is sometimes seen flying on. Where the rocket nozzle was found will be of interest.
            Showing the bowties are not bowties is sufficient but I suggest it is begging the question, don’t you think?
            Whether additional comparitive metallurgical data would exclude the alleged bowties is an open question. Almaz Antey suggested that the heavy elements are made from a different steel alloy but it hasn’t been established if one of the two metal “groups” determined by DSB corresponds to the alloy type Almaz Antey mentioned. Almaz Antey regretted not doing “chemical” analysis. That DSB didn’t exclude this possibility is bizarre and highly questionable.

          • I am working on a new blogpost about the bow-tie. Feel free to let me know what kind of subjects are usefull to include in the blogpost.

          • Deus Abscondis
            >> Almaz Antey regretted not doing “chemical” analysis.
            Can you elaborate on that?

            What I understand from DSB (one of the boardmembers I talked to) is that Almaz Antey had stated that comparing different bow-ties of multiple batches of warheads does not make sense. There are multiple manufacturers of the bow-tie fragments which used various metals.

          • IsThatSo // April 9, 2016 at 8:53 pm //

            Deus Abscondis, the only hole analysis I’ve seen was in a report leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (albert_lex) on 7/14/15. The timing was after the release of the Almaz Antey report and before the release of the final DSB report.

            The analysis was based photos of 186 holes. The study first had to calculate the position of the warhead when it exploded based on string analysis. The detonation point was determined to be 0.8 to 1.6 meters from the pilot’s sliding window. Based on that calculation the strike vector was calculated for each hole, and the hole size was measured perpendicular to the strike vector (relative to the known size of rivets).

            The distribution of hole sizes was shaped like a normal bell curve. This is not what one would expect if the warhead had two or more sizes of strike elements; such a distribution would have two or more peaks. The report said there was only one type of strike element, which was parallelepiped and size 8x8x6 mm ±0.5 mm. Each strike element would weigh about 3 grams. The warhead would have no more than 4,000 strike elements according to the report.

            The report is in Russian and has received very little attention.

            http://albert-lex.livejournal.com/68374.html?nojs=1

          • admin, You should reread appendix V from the DSB report, the comment on section/paragraph 2.16.1. In the answer to the comment DSB states: “Studying the detailed chemical composition of the steel is not relevant to the investigation …” They do not refer to Almaz-Antey, so I understood it was DSB’s own conclusion. There is also the recommendation from the TNO report about more extensive research. DSB might have taken a short cut.

          • admin,
            “I am working on a new blogpost about the bow-tie.”

            That’s very good. These are important topics that show how the report was rigged in order to lead to the conclusion of a Buk warhead.

            -The detonation point was moved away by the DSB. It was a crucial step that lead to a wrong conclusion. With a correct detonation point at hand they could not come up with a Buk warhead as a kill weapon because observed hole density would not fit that of a Buk.

            -Lack of bow-tie shaped holes observed on the photographs of the wreckage.

            In a nutshell, the entire coverup worked like this: Ukraine planted fragments and the DSB had to justify a Buk warhead by moving the detonation point 2-3 times further away (and making other omissions such as disregarding the mismatch of the hole size distribution, disregarding the fact that from their calculated detonation point a lot of areas would be reachable by shrapnel, that are observed to be damage free, etc).

            If you want I can try to contribute. If you send me your bow-tie text before posting I may help debug it or add something else.

          • Deus Abscondis // April 9, 2016 at 12:28 pm //

            Thanks again for some interesting dilemma’s:

            [If they [bowties] were planted, someone had gone to the lengths of shooting them at a Boeing window.]

            Yes I agree, this way bowties could have got their layer of zirconium or aluminum. Then JIT must prove for court different Boeings have characteristic different levels of aluminum and zirconium in the first place. What they can’t and the concentrations are probably measured on face value. Hence, there will be no proof bowties came through the hull or through the windshields of MH17.

            [I don’t see holes in the windows consistent with a large fragments like bowties. Occam’s razor would otherwise be on the side that they are bowties.]

            http://tinyurl.com/zdlwes7

            There is a big hole absorbing the alleged butterfly for the alleged bowtie of EFIS. But that is no proof, the bowtie of EFIS is not confirmed. BTW never heard of EFIS again…

            http://tinyurl.com/z7v5gg8

            Indeed in a normal situation Occam’s razor would be on the side of bowties, because of big holes in the windshields. But in this criminal investigation we could be trapped by perpetrators, who expect we will choose for the most logical explanation. Knowing there is a big hole in the windshield in front of EFIS they just could punch a butterfly into EFIS.

            I also wondered if Occam’s razor could possibly be on the side of little squares of 9M317 with only parallelepipeds of 8x8x6.5 mm, i.e. no bowties at all. But then we cannot explain the big holes in the cockpit with possibly big parallelepipeds of 13x13x8 mm. So we need a warhead with big ànd little shrapnel, like 9N314 from 9M38.

            http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

            But there is a another complication since our discussion with Wind tunnel man, Eugene and Antidyatel concluded we don’t know exactly the behavior and speed of exploding shrapnel near the point of detonation.

            I think light shrapnel (blue) goes to the periphery of the lancet and heavy shrapnel (red) like bowties remains more in the center. Then heavy bowties would not arrive at the windshields in the first place, but somewhat later and further on the cockpit and 9N314M of 9M38M1 would not be impossible for that reason.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM
            http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

            [I suggest, in absence of an admission bowties were planted, then only further experimental data can exclude the 9N314M in a scientific sense.]

            Indeed, but the fact that DSB does not agree with bowties were planted does not mean 9N314M has still to be excluded from the investigation, for 9N314M was not included as a premise in the first place.

            Furthermore, this warhead already has been disconfirmed and we are on the verge of falsification. Warhead 9N314M can be included in the rebound only as a result of adequate scientific research with definite proof of bowties that meet the criterion of conditional probability. For this we do not need to simulate 9N314M or 9N314 in practice.

            [In the legal domain things are a bit different. Notwithstand the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, the chain of evidence comes into play.]

            The permutation which DSB made up of this disaster and presented as the real chain of evidence is an illogical mess and will be swept away by the judge. There is no single independent element with a convincing likelihood.

            [Showing the bowties are not bowties is sufficient but I suggest it is begging the question, don’t you think?]

            Well, it will be bowties but how about their conditional probability of coming there? At all fronts the start of this investigation was a mess and nobody expects this heals automatically:

            – The crash site was unattended for many months which led to the requirement of conditional probability.

            – Possible perpetrators chosen in the DSB resulted in:

            ‘We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.’

            – Secret agreements between members were drawn.

            – DSB is not independent from the State.

            – Shelling of the crash site with a lot of casualties by a DSB member is an immoral act.

            – Disregarding and framing of the Russians by Western society is counterproductive.

            From the beginning this investigation was a bitter joke.

          • Basic Dimension,
            “this way bowties could have got their layer of zirconium or aluminum”

            Can you please point me to the section that says that the bow-ties found had zirconium traces?

          • Page 89 of the final DSB report

          • Looked up. Zirconium is used in explosive primers, so could be present in a Buk’s warhead. Aluminum is present in a missile in abundance. We don’t know how minute the traces of zirconium found were. If at all they were found on bow-ties. Anyway, the traces could originate from the warhead itself.

          • “Page 89 of the final DSB report”
            Thanks. However, nowhere I’ve found that the bowties were among the tested fragments with the glassy deposits containing zirconium. Have you?

          • Sorry, I see now.

          • The text is a bit vague. First they talk about glassy deposits with zirconium, but don’t mention bowties. Then they mention bowties when they talk about a metal composition. One can form the view that the bowties had a glassy deposits containing zirconium. But under closer inspection of the text this is not being said.
            So I don’t see any confirmation that any of the bowties had glassy deposit from the cockpit window.
            What’s your take?

          • Basic Dimension // March 26, 2016 at 11:11 am //

            Basic Dimension // October 16, 2015 at 11:04 am // Reply

            [Next it seems they SOMEHOW divided the 20 sample elements (n=20) into two groups of fragments. This is ABACADABRA in a scientific report.
            They apparently took m=8 kind of independent variables as metal dimensions. A dependent dichotomous variable seems to indicate the difference or similarity between groups. That dependent variable could be the principal component on which groups can differ or agree. It looks like multiple regression or discriminant analysis but then not optimized because of PCA.
            A number of techniques have been developed enhancing differences or similarities between groups, but sample size always influences significance in the first place.]

            What could have been their design?

            n= 20 subjects:

            I propose they had a subject group with shrapnel in their bodies (n1=9) and a cockpit group of pieces of aluminum (n2=11). They want to know if groups differ.

            They had m=8 metal variables as vectors from the origin, and might have extracted up to 8 principal components in that 8-dimensional metal space. Discarding unique factors there might remain p=2 components reducing the variable space to 2 dimensions. PCA is a form data reduction.

            Now for example you may project iteratively your n=20 individuals (2 groups) from a 20-dimensional subject space into the m=8 dimensional variable space. This converges into a solution in which the n=20 individuals as vectors from the origin are plotted onto the p=2 factor space. Hence, in this iteration from subject space to variable space and back, you will find the factors in the p=2 factor space, as the reduced variable space.

            So you might have n1=9 elements of shrapnel from 9 subjects and n2=11 elements from the aluminum cockpit frame. Now you project these 20 vectors onto the resulting 2-dimensional factor space. And now it is interesting if the 9 shrapnel elements from the subjects agree with the 11 pieces of aluminum of the cockpit frame. For example they agree if they score randomly on the p=2 factors. Or in the same bundle of vectors. If the 9-subject bundle scores only on the first and the 11- cockpit bundle on the second factor than groups do not match on metal.

            On the other hand if there is no combined bundle and a random mess results,it also may be caused from your poor design and from too less sample elements. So only if these small groups are amazingly different on the factors it gives information. It seems they were not different, so DSB did not gain any insight.

            Remember in the social sciences Principal Components Analysis is an explorative technique only meant for a lot of individual subjects n, about ten times more than the number of variables m. So we needed about 80 sample elements. But disregarding statistics it all is possible.

            Hence, statistical testing is not the main purpose of PCA, only getting an idea how subjects score on the reduced metal factor space.

            After this explorative analysis there are a lot of techniques to find optimal differences or optimal agreement between groups. But remember you need parameter free tests if you have very few subjects. And I think this study is only for explorative use. So if they got the idea groups were the same this is no hard evidence and other tests had to follow. But why, if they were already satisfied these groups looked the same on metal?

            So they concluded groups did not differ. Can we conclude shrapnel came through the hull or through the windshields? No, they don’t know, for the crash site has not been guarded adequately from the beginning.

            Hence now they also must prove the aluminum and zirconium in the cockpit of MH17 differ significantly from thousands of other airplanes in the world, which all can have changed their window shields. This is an impossible dead end in research.

            If there is no significant difference between planes, perpetrators could have smuggled shrapnel and bowties from every other plane in the world.

          • Eugene // April 9, 2016 at 6:57 pm //

            [[Used techniques are interesting but will not prove a causal relation between 9N314M and MH17, since the crash site and the bodies have been unattended for a long period of time and techniques only were used qualitatively (naked eye inspection). Hence for causal relations DSB comes with zirconium in the bowties from the windows of the cockpit.

            The origin and the elemental composition of the 72 selected fragments were determined only qualitatively. It was found 43 of the 72 examined fragments consisted of unalloyed steel (rusty = warhead); hence, 29 were not from a warhead (stainless steel and one otherwise). That ‘otherwise’ fragment was non-metallic (coal-slag).

            Only 4 (FOUR) of these 43 ‘had distinctive shapes: cubic and in the form of a bow tie’. As said, they were found in the cockpit. Hence, nowhere else in the wreckage bowties were found. I mean, we have no information. So, only two bowties have been found to support 9N314M. One in the body of the captain of team A and one in the cockpit wreckage.

            And in 20 rusty, out of the 43 rusty, out of the 72 selected objects, fragments of unalloyed steel, aluminum and/or GLASS LIKE DEPOSITS were present. They have been inspected by the Focused Ion Beam (FIB). On 14 of these fragments, the glass deposit consisted of sodium, aluminum, silicon, oxygen and ZIRCONIUM.

            Hence on 14 rusty, out of 20 rusty, out of 43 rusty, out of 72 selected objects THEY FOUND ZIRCONIUM. BUT… POSSIBLY NOT ON THE BOWTIES:

            ‘The chemical composition of 20 selected fragments which had either a very distinctive shape (including the two bow-tie shaped pre-formed fragments) or a layer of deposits OR BOTH was determined. This was determined by means of laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.’

            This is the Dutch text:

            ‘Van 20 geselecteerde fragmenten met OFWEL een zeer uitgesproken vorm (waaronder de twee fragmenten in de vorm van een vlinderdas) OFWEL [[EN/OF; BD]] een laagje afzettingen werd de chemische samenstelling vastgesteld.’

            Is it ‘and’, is it ‘or’ or is it ‘and/or’?

            We don’t know if the bowtie had a layer of deposits. If not, we don’t know how it came into the body of the captain. May be no zirconium was found on the two bowties. Maybe they did not come through the window but through the skin of the cockpit. Maybe they were shot into the body of the captain of team A by criminals. We have no information from this research.

            Now earlier was said 15 high energy objects were found in the crew of the cockpit. We also know 14 of the 20 had zirconium. So 6 out of 15 high energy objects, found in the crew possibly had no zirconium. One of them might be the bowtie found in the captain’s body.

            So it turned out zirconium was found in 14 out of 72 pieces of possible warhead shrapnel. Hence and to be fair, if zirconium has been found on the bowtie in the body of the captain, it might be an important clue. But this zirconium has been demonstrated only qualitatively and it has not been cross checked by independent institutes. Hence this will not be enough to convince the judges. At most there could be a correlation between 9N314M and MH17; causality is not proven.]]

          • IsThatSo // April 9, 2016 at 8:53 pm //

            [The report said there was only one type of strike element, which was parallelepiped and size 8x8x6 mm ±0.5 mm. Each strike element would weigh about 3 grams. The warhead would have no more than 4,000 strike elements according to the report.]

            Looks like Russian missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318. Maybe a try out exercise. But to many big holes in MH17 on the roofpart pictures. You can get big holes with a lot of squares on one spot near the point of detonation, but not as far as on the roof.

            http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

          • IsThatSo // April 9, 2016 at 10:51 pm //

            Basic Dimension // April 9, 2016 at 9:34 pm //

            [You can get big holes with a lot of squares on one spot near the point of detonation, but not as far as on the roof.]

            Agree, big holes on the roof are a problem with the albert_lex report. Even so, a hole analysis that doesn’t explain everything is better than no attempt at hole analysis.

            [Looks like Russian missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318.]

            Wouldn’t a 70 kg 9N318 warhead with a detonation point 0.8 to 1.6 m from the cockpit would have caused more damage?

            Given the shelling in the debris area and lack of custody it will be hard to find one explanation that fits all of the details.

          • Basic Dimension,
            “Looks like Russian missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318.”

            Indeed. Or other warheads…

            “too many big holes in MH17 on the roofpart pictures. You can get big holes with a lot of squares on one spot near the point of detonation, but not as far as on the roof.”

            It’s hard to tell whether the holes on the roof are big or just seem to be. http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/nu541040e4.jpg

            Big holes could also be caused by the flying junk (missile parts).

            IsThatSo // April 9, 2016 at 8:53 pm
            The DSB were in a much better position to do the statistical analysis of the holes sizes and density, but they chose not to do it. Anyway, if the DSB did not have a politically set goal their report would look more like that of albert_lex.

          • ^Deus, LOL^

          • [The significance of weight and shape of resultant fragments from Almaz Antey’s experiments was a bit unclear to me apart from the point they were driving home about lack of bowtie related holes. (..)
            Maybe it’s my ignorance but I would have thought the science and engineering would have been reduced to more practical rules of thumb by now about what works and what doesn’t. But there are engineers and others who like to know the minutiae eh Basic Dimension :)].

            – In Dutch parliament a delegation of DSB also spoke condescendingly to A-A on their remarks about too much loss of weight of bowties. They spoke of rules of thumb from statistical handbooks from which they concluded bowties found in MH17 have the right and low weight.

            – Indeed there might be statistical handbooks with tables with univariate or bivariate data for loss of weight for different kinds of shrapnel, made of different kind of metal, for different relative velocities of missiles, planes and speed of shrapnel. But the problem is practical rules from tables in handbooks are worthless in situations where interactions have taken place, which we cannot specify or which cannot be found in handbooks. In this case we better set handbooks aside and control the loss of weight of bowties and over again, since it is important!

            And there are only two alleged bowties. Hence, there cannot come any convincing proof from metallurgic analysis on these bowties. And nothing will be conclusive about possibly different batches of steel from different types of warhead. Much too complicated and no statistical relevance with only two bowties.

            And the mere fact that the crash site was unattended for many months and all kinds of suspects had free access corrupts the whole investigation. So, why investigate two alleged bowties if you can nullify their conditional probability in the first place? Why taking these pieces of metal seriously? If JIT can prove for court these alleged bowties came from the missile targeting MH17, only then we must start their analysis.

            But if we can disconfirm or falsify these alleged bowties in a simple experiment, why not? Why DSB did not do the job?

            It is true Almaz-Antey made a methodological error and must repeat their practical experiment of bowties shot through aluminum. Their fault is they erroneously combined the results of loss of weight of bowties from the blast on the written-off-IL86 airliner with the bombardment on the 5 aluminum plates. Moreover the last experiment failed in methodological sense.

            So A-A must rewrite the rules of thumb of the statistical handbooks, as follows:

            The Russian static tests of A-A must be split into two parts.

            1: The most important investigation is on the written-off IL-86 airliner. This is the best controlled static experiment matching the dynamic situation of MH17. From this experiment we need the total number and the average weight of bowties and their standard deviation. Then we see how significant the alleged bowties of MH17 differ from the average weight of bowties in the IL-86 airliner.

            http://tinyurl.com/hptearr

            In the second test all plates were blown away in the shock wave.

            http://tinyurl.com/jffgh6t

            The blast causing the speed of bowties was quicker than the shock wave.

            http://tinyurl.com/gumlcc4

            Fortunately plates were numbered. From inspection of the number of holes in the first plate (plates 1.0-1.5) we find the maximum amount of shrapnel pierced through aluminum. Then we want to know how many shrapnel elements succeeded to pierce the second plate, etc. We are very interested in the rank order.

            http://tinyurl.com/jtsw2pe
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM

            In the YouTube film it is said all bowties were gathered. That’s fine but they were blown everywhere and we do not know how many plates individual shrapnel has pierced.

            If most bowties pierced most plates we accept the average weight of bowties as after piercing all plates. If not we may use all kinds of estimation formulas to estimate the total effect on plates. But that would unwise.

            If bowties allegedly found in MH17 significantly differ from the static test on the IL-86 then the RF is almost there. Then they must be prepared to repeat the test with the aluminum plates. Then they must perform three separate tests with massive aluminum plates of respectively 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm thickness. This time the plates must be very stable and must not be blown away. Bowties in the wooden construction must not be counted. If bowties can pierce these plates without substantial loss of weight, then the bowtie hypothesis of MH17 is not confirmed. It might even be seen as falsified. This test must be controlled by independent scientists.

  4. admin, a Buk missile consist of many parts. All these parts have (serial) numbers.

  5. Liane Theuer // April 6, 2016 at 4:17 pm // Reply

    Remember the statement of Fred Westerbeke on August 11/2015 :
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/11/mh17-possible-parts-missile-system-found-ukraine-crash-site

    He spoke about 7 parts found that COULD belong to a Buk missile system but need further investigation.
    At that time the Final Report was already written and passed to other countries for comment.

    When the 9N314M1 theory was born ?

    Are there different opinions between JIT and DSB about the alleged evidence ?

    • sotilaspassi // April 7, 2016 at 6:51 am // Reply

      >When the 9N314M1 theory was born ?

      Spring 2015 ???

      But does anyone in the area have older variant of BUK in use?
      Does UA use it? Really?

  6. Admin, how sure are you that the “4” you see in the Akkerman image (the image that includes a fingertip) is anything at all?

    You say that the “4” was “applied on a part of the Boeing 777”. I did what you did – copied the image, flipped it and enlarged it 100-200% and what I think you’re calling a “4” appears to be neither embossed nor debossed nor painted.

    How sure are you that this “4” was applied deliberately by Boeing?

    • Well, to me the 4 is clearly embossed by Boeing. What I mean the 4 is just like the other digits part of Boeing parts.
      The Ц on the Akkermans part does not seem to be something applied by Boeing

  7. Deus Abscondis // April 7, 2016 at 3:29 am // Reply

    If DSB had access to Boing engineers this issue shouldn’t be alive. Every part is in a CAD database, probably photo’d too. What’s going on?

    We shouldn’t forget that Ukraine’s forces fired rockets and shells into the crash site area potentially contaminating it.

    • sotilaspassi // April 7, 2016 at 6:39 am // Reply

      “Ukraine’s forces fired rockets and shells into the crash site area potentially contaminating it.”

      Perhaps they did. (NovoR main supply route went past crash site and UA troops were trapped between NovoR and RU. So UA had pressure to do something.)
      But perhaps also NovoR shelled the site, like they surely have been doing all around eastern Ukraine for propaganda needs.
      NovoR took away a lot of MH17 material, perhaps they also brought something.
      So, both UA and NovoR might have contaminated the site.

      • Sotilaspassi: why do yu think NovoR took away a lot of MH17 material?

        I asked Bellingcat severall times to research who shelled the crash site. Their response: both did it and it has nothing to do with MH17.
        Well, I disagree.

        • sotilaspassi // April 7, 2016 at 6:57 am // Reply

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wQ0drUEszUWJybW8
          (it is from a video where rebel nationalized also the golden ring from the cargo)
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wQWVoVDMxM2xwMm8

          +IIRC, OSCE told some parts of cockpit was cut off.
          +Also I saw a video where something was being cut of and (something heavy) then carried to a van by two persons.

          • I studied photos of the cockpit made just after the crash. Then I looked at photos days after.
            OSCE told that parts of the cockpit were removed. I have not seen major parts of cockpit being removed. Parts cut off could well be because of recovery. I do not rule out that some parts like instruments were removed or demolished.

            I am more worried about parts which were recovered but not used in the reconstruction of DSB.

          • Sergey Tokarev // April 7, 2016 at 1:33 pm //

            Dear Finnish neighbour Satilaspassi! I understand that it is hard to keep clear mind, when you are a serviceman in Finland. Your country is being dragged into NATO on false pretext; de-facto Finland already is NATO member. For this, hysteria with ‘hunt for Russian submarines’ is useful, imaginary submarines – I emphasize ‘imaginary’. This trick was useful in Sweden as well for a long time. They boosted percentage of Swedes fearing ‘Red Alert’ from 20+% to 80+% using British subs. For this media-space in Finland is almost entire controlled by MiniTruth outlet Sanoma, where truth about Russia is off-limits.
            However, I insist that the rebels didn’t loot anything – or ‘nationalize’, as you politely put it. Australian coroners made a special statement to this effect. You can find it on Helmer blog. They didn’t loot, they didn’t steal cards, didn’t try to use them – thought DPR official urged the Netherlands to block credit cards, because the debris were spread on huge territory, and he couldn’t guarantee anything. The coroners said that the rebels treated the bodies with utmost respect; many of the rebels are Christian believers.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcwYL7wW7o0
            There was also a theme with Teddy bear:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvF8GLVKp4

          • sotilaspassi // April 8, 2016 at 8:10 am //

            sergey:
            >when you are a serviceman in Finland.

            Just a reservist & too old to use TOW anymore, they say. 😐

            > Your country is being dragged into NATO on false pretext; de-facto Finland already is NATO member.

            Propaganda.

            We are not more “NATO” than how Ukraine is.

            I personally am against NATO, so far.
            To me it endangers more than it offers.
            If we can not defend our country by ourself, it is not worth defending.
            I do not want any “cowboy” to kill some people for us.
            Etc…

            >For this, hysteria with ‘hunt for Russian submarines’ is useful, imaginary submarines – I emphasize ‘imaginary’.

            Hysteria is unneccessary as it is sane fact that when a modernized SUB is released from St Petersburg dock, the best way to test it is in finnish & swedish waters.
            Annoying thing to do by a friendly neigbour, but we welcome(d) it with depth sharges, unlike swede friends.

            >This trick was useful in Sweden as well for a long time. …

            Swedes might be hallusinating sometimes, but they have history of really “catching” RU submarine(s).
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c2e_1414337339

            >treated the bodies with utmost respect;

            Then they would have got rid of those dogs eating human remains. etc etc etc

  8. sotilaspassi // April 7, 2016 at 8:51 am // Reply

    DSB & butterfly/boutie shrapnel etc. my summary:
    -I have pretty high confidence in DSB analysis.
    -DSB might have made error here and there, but in general it seems solid.
    -If found bouties were planed, DSB would have noticed it and ignored them.
    -So, I think the warhead truly was M1.
    -Most likely carried by normal BUK missile, launched from normal TELAR.
    (not by some CIA made mystery missile from F-22)
    -Found missile parts, so far, do not rule out BUK missile.
    -Found missile parts can belong to BUK missile, but some larger parts like the found engine nozzle, cabling, wing piece, might have been planted on the area.
    -Warhead carrying missile was painted with green paint. 😉
    -To me DSB handled also Akkerman found fragments properly. (checked them, not relied on them)
    -I wonder if anyone is studying the wreckage further… some missile nose pieces might be in the left side engine remains etc. Perhaps JIT continued with it …

    +Did DSB show/state which of the found missile parts was inside the left side wing?

    +I wonder if there is any other missile warhead in the world that has similar boutie shrapnel?

    Annoying that:
    -no official eyewitness study is public
    -investigators (+the world) were not agressive in getting to the area ASAP
    -some MH17 remains are still in the area because of politics & frozen war

    • Sotilaspassi

      It is not our task to believe DSB, but to disprove their thinking. Or course, if you have 50 million euros to spend you can manage a nice looking report. Of course, if you can involve expensive scientific institutes paid by Dutch tax payers you can throw a lot of formulas into your research. NLR and TNO only simulated 9N314M and not 9N314, since they also had ‘pretty high confidence’ in the SBU of DSB. Damned, it is our duty not to trust them but to falsify their thinking.

      [-I have pretty high confidence in DSB analysis.]

      In principle I don’t trust them.

      [-DSB might have made error here and there, but in general it seems solid.]

      Their report looks fine but is it a methodological mess. The main error, they did not work from facts to theory but the other way around. They apparently had a theory and forced the facts into it. And even if they have (hidden) facts sustaining 9N314M, they better ordered NLR and TNO to simulate also 9N314 as a control and as a check on the results. If they show a better proof of shrapnel of 9N314M we will be flexible enough to change our position and sustain 9N314M in the rebound.

      [-If found bouties were planed, DSB would have noticed it and ignored them.]

      It is not, they said the bowtie found by Jeroen Akkermans was in line with their conclusions. They are just not lying but their language is veiled and misleading and multi-interpretable. And that is suspicious in such a report.

      [-So, I think the warhead truly was M1.]

      Can you prove it? It is our task to disprove, to disconfirm and to falsify; to formulate criteria to ruin their conclusions. And guess what, this site made already big improvements. So, in the rebound DSB and JIT must come with a better case.

      [-Most likely carried by normal BUK missile, launched from normal TELAR.]

      And, with a normal warhead?

      [-Found missile parts, so far, do not rule out BUK missile.]

      That’s very meager evidence to start with. Remember DSB definitely has chosen for the BUK missile. Wait for court until JIT has to come with metallurgic proof. The alleged rocket part found in the construction of the cockpit pass the criterion of conditional probability, but it is from a BUK missile? That’s not certain.

      [-Found missile parts can belong to BUK missile, but some larger parts like the found engine nozzle, cabling, wing piece, might have been planted on the area.]

      [can belong] No, in fact DSB already concluded a BUK, so they think found missile parts must belong to a BUK missile. And why do you adapt another strategy for larger parts of the BUK? What is your methodology, your decision rule? The scratch on the wing looks very convincing.

      DSB (SBU) has chosen a strategy to reach their goal of Russian intervention in which they simply must have thought they already had enough evidence with the alleged bowtie in the body of the captain. And DSB takes the larger parts of the BUK for real.

      It all is a methodological mess. They did not see the very simple criterion of conditional probability of the bowtie in the captain’s body. But now it’s too late.

      [-Warhead carrying missile was painted with green paint.]

      Of course, would you paint the fake red?

      [-To me DSB handled also Akkerman found fragments properly. (checked them, not relied on them)]

      No, not true, the found fragments – as you corrected me – are in agreement with parts of the warhead already found by DSB. So they implicitly authorized the finds of Akkermans.

      [-I wonder if anyone is studying the wreckage further… some missile nose pieces might be in the left side engine remains etc. Perhaps JIT continued with it …]

      I wonder your confidence in DSB, since why did not they study the wreckage completely in the first place, the inventory of the cockpit, the engines? There was time and money enough. I think they only took to Gilze-Rijen what they were looking for, it is their tunnelvision.

      [+Did DSB show/state which of the found missile parts was inside the left side wing?]

      http://tinyurl.com/jaahmuh

      [Annoying that:
      -no official eyewitness study is public
      -investigators (+the world) were not agressive in getting to the area ASAP
      -some MH17 remains are still in the area because of politics & frozen war]

      Maybe you see a trend 🙂

      • sotilaspassi // April 8, 2016 at 6:50 am // Reply

        >In principle I don’t trust them.

        Their findings are inline with mine. And none of the investigating participants had any serious complaint in the DSB report.

        >>[-DSB might have made error here and there, but in general it seems solid.]
        >they better ordered NLR and TNO to simulate also 9N314 as a control and as a check on the results.

        Perhaps. (but it would still not change the direction where the missile came or crash reason)

        >If they show a better proof of shrapnel of 9N314M we will be flexible enough to change our position and sustain 9N314M in the rebound.

        One shrapnel from captain (with some holes that fit with bouties and their fillers) is enough for me (after rebels cleaned up the wreckage + stole cargo).

        >>[-If found bouties were planed, DSB would have noticed it and ignored them.]
        >they said the bowtie found by Jeroen Akkermans was in line with their conclusions.

        I call that “ignoring”.

        >>[-So, I think the warhead truly was M1.]
        >Can you prove it?

        No. But I have found no other indications myself. Only things that confirm large or larger than BUK warhead. (I was sure it must have been BUK or larger, then A-A demo proved it was have been larger or closer to cockpit to blow cockpit into pieces.
        Boutie shrapnell hint at M1 variant.

        >>[-Most likely carried by normal BUK missile, launched from normal TELAR.]
        >And, with a normal warhead?

        Doubt miners and farmers can modify BUK warhead. So if BUK, we know approximate area. I’m personally 100% sure (based on evidence so far) there could not be Ukraine Army controlled BUK on that area.

        >>[-Found missile parts, so far, do not rule out BUK missile.]
        >…Wait for court until JIT has to come with metallurgic proof. The alleged rocket part found in the construction of the cockpit pass the criterion of conditional probability, but it is from a BUK missile? That’s not certain.

        I consider also available possibilities. I have not found a sane alternative yet. + no one else has found sane alternative either.
        (I doubt the helicopter we see in radar can carry suitable missile.)

        >>[-Found missile parts can belong to BUK missile, but some larger parts like the found engine nozzle, cabling, wing piece, might have been planted on the area.]
        >And why do you adapt another strategy for larger parts of the BUK? What is your methodology, your decision rule?

        Pieces that were stuck in wreckage are genuine pieces. Bigger parts from the area could have been placed.

        >The scratch on the wing looks very convincing.

        I was absolutely sure green missile piece(s) is found inside that wing. (+I was right)

        >>[-To me DSB handled also Akkerman found fragments properly. (checked them, not relied on them)]
        >No, not true, the found fragments – as you corrected me – are in agreement with parts of the warhead already found by DSB. So they implicitly authorized the finds of Akkermans.

        Well I read / understand it differently.
        To me they say: ” Yes we know those items, we looked at them, did not tell us anything new vs what we had allready, so we do not include those results.”
        Well, perhaps they could have worded it more clearly.

        >>[-I wonder if anyone is studying the wreckage further… some missile nose pieces might be in the left side engine remains etc. Perhaps JIT continued with it …]
        >I wonder your confidence in DSB, since why did not they study the wreckage completely in the first place, the inventory of the cockpit, the engines? There was time and money enough. I think they only took to Gilze-Rijen what they were looking for, it is their tunnelvision.

        Lazy people? I hope not.
        They had the plane remains in january 2015, they spent 5 months studying it. They think they found out the cause and moved on?

        • Sotilaspassi, thanks for your reaction.

          [And none of the investigating participants had any serious complaint in the DSB report.]

          I don’t know, since DSB is allowed to omit information from its reports, by law…

          >they better ordered NLR and TNO to simulate also 9N314 as a control and as a check on the results.
          [Perhaps. (but it would still not change the direction where the missile came or crash reason)]

          There is a lot of doubt about where the missile came from, not to speak about the crash reason. And your argument is substantively where I emphasized the methodological aspect.

          [One shrapnel from captain (with some holes that fit with bouties and their fillers) is enough for me (after rebels cleaned up the wreckage + stole cargo).]

          Well, I only accept holes which are genuine butterflies. It is not a matter of ‘big enough holes’ but of matching proof. Big holes also are caused by squares of 9N314.

          Bowties cannot be confirmed as coming from the assault. And generalizing the findings of Admin – concerning the alleged bowtie of Jeroen Akkermans – makes me falsify – as a rule – all alleged bowties. BTW that makes the finds of Jeroen the most important of the whole investigation!

          I possibly might agree with fillers which could prove also 9N314M, as I claimed earlier:

          ‘Now, we cannot prove the bowtie hole in EFIS by inspection of the window. But in this special case it is completely legitimate to check the windshields on fillers (6x6x8.2 mm). Has this already done before? Look at this left port little front windshield. We know at the blast shrapnel and non-shrapnel hits the target. Can we draw a conclusion?’

          http://tinyurl.com/zdlwes7
          http://tinyurl.com/oy6tnnf

          [>>-So, I think the warhead truly was M1.<Can you prove it? [>>No. But I have found no other indications myself.<<]

          Indications just are the problem, we need proof.
          I consider 9N314M as falsified unless JIT withheld evidence.

          [Doubt miners and farmers can modify BUK warhead. So if BUK, we know approximate area. I’m personally 100% sure (based on evidence so far) there could not be Ukraine Army controlled BUK on that area.]

          Concerning the BUK I am inclined to agree with BUK missile 9M38 with warhead 9N314.

          But further we know nothing, it's all speculation. And where are the calculations of that area? The RF has been manipulated by DSB concerning that area and also there were Ukrainians troops along the Russian border. Our main problem in this investigation is the methodology of formulating stringent criteria for proof.

          [Pieces that were stuck in wreckage are genuine pieces. Bigger parts from the area could have been placed.]

          These genuine pieces are doubted by Storchevoy as weighting too less.

          Also little parts have been placed (Akkermans). And 'stuck in wreckage' could be genuine but is no definite proof. It could be hammered into the wreckage as into dead bodies. So, you have a curled policy with your criteria.

          'Stuck in[side] wreckage' is the right criterium only after it is proven pieces came through the hull, the wings or the windshields. So I might agree for pieces found in the wing and in the cockpit frame. (Remember, they did not find a bowtie in that frame).

          Hence, I disagree with all alleged bowties and by systematic reasoning must conclude to 9N314, where I earlier tried to prove 9N314M. But perhaps JIT comes with convincing proof in court.

          [I was absolutely sure green missile piece(s) is found inside that wing. (+I was right)]

          I agree.

  9. This story of a stolen golden ring is complete nonsense made up by the Ukrainians and brought to us by FM Timmermans from The Netherlands in his speech to the UN Security Counsel. It wasn’t even a ring. Some months later even Dutch television had to admit that. And I agree with Sergey, the rebels didn’t loot anything. In fact the salvation operation was lead by professional rescuers from the State Emergency Service of Ukraine. This was clear from day one. You only had to check the characters мнс on the uniforms of the rescuers, which Vice News obviously didn’t do. Although the Ukrainians did know, they decided to use them for their propaganda.

    • sotilaspassi // April 8, 2016 at 6:32 am // Reply

      Nonsense.
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wQ0drUEszUWJybW8
      (it is from a video where rebel nationalized also the golden ring from the cargo, IIRC the said rebel is behind the man throwing cargo to lorry)
      Here you see the result:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wQWVoVDMxM2xwMm8

      IIRC, Later Girkin ordered it’s forces to give all looted material for NovoR “officials”.

      • Liane Theuer // April 8, 2016 at 7:52 am // Reply

        sotilaspassi, you forget that the bodies had to be recovered.
        But the bodies had to be cleared of rubble. They lay partly under heavy wreckage, that had to be sawed or even lifted by cranes.

        Both the OSCE and Resolution 2166 wanted to prevent the separatists from recovering the bodies.
        Recalling the 18 July statements by the OSCE Chairperson :
        “3. Calls upon all those in the area to preserve the crash site intact, including by refraining from destroying, moving, or disturbing wreckage, equipment, debris, personal belongings, or remains;”
        http://www.osce.org/pc/121427?download=true

        Fortunately, the separatists did not let the bodies rot in the sun.

        • sotilaspassi // April 8, 2016 at 8:17 am // Reply

          Are you kidding?

          What bodies would be inside cargo?
          In real life they anyway let people rot in the sun and dogs eat the remains.

          • Liane Theuer // April 8, 2016 at 12:47 pm //

            The part you linked
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wQWVoVDMxM2xwMm8
            is the cockpit with a part of the cargo attached.
            That is the place were the bodies of the cockpit-crew lay.

          • sotilaspassi // April 8, 2016 at 12:59 pm //

            Crew is above and ahead of cargo bay. Not inside cargo.
            We see from cockpit images that cargo is not on top of the cockpit and that forward section is not upside down.

            There is no way to deny. That is a theft of evidence and cargo happening there.

            So many here seem to be defending the criminals in every way possible, it makes me sick!

          • Please! This is no theft. There could be passengers burried under the cargo. So it makes perfectly sense to remove the cargo.
            It becomes stealing when the cargo was not handed over after it was recovered. I have not read reports of cargo being handed over or not.
            I also have not seen any evidence of removing evidence.

            So who would then be responsible recover the area? The Dutch stayed away from the area for a long time because they were afraid.

      • I have seen the whole video shortly after FM Timmermans speech. This so called wedding ring didn’t even look like a ring, and it was certainly not taken from a victim.

  10. “The Australian Federal Police has warned an Australian citizen to return items he says he collected from the MH17 crash site near the Ukraine-Russian border.
    First generation Australian-Ukrainian Demjin Doroschenko was in the region working as a freelance journalist when MH17 was shot down.
    He said he collected pieces of evidence for “safekeeping and out of reach of the forces of the Russian Federation”.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/journalist-warned-to-hand-back-mh17-debris/7295994

  11. @Eugene // April 9, 2016 at 10:26 pm //
    >”The DSB were in a much better position to do the statistical analysis of the holes sizes and density, but they chose not to do it. Anyway, if the DSB did not have a politically set goal their report would look more like that of albert_lex.”
    Maybe not, because the authors of the albert_lex report had undoubtedly also direct access to at least some of the same sources, materials and equipment the DSB has used. The clue is in the diagrams the albert_lex report used to explain their case. Some of them are exactly the same as the ones the DSB used for their case, except for the fact this information was classified at that very moment. The albert_lex report is therefore with a high probability a dissenting opinion from people closely related to the DSB investigation.

    • rozem, you may have a point, but I’d like to refine what I said.

      Imagine you have crime scene investigators investigating a crime. You’d expect them to do all related due diligence, such as collecting fingerprints, matching the found bullets against found guns, etc, wouldn’t you?

      The DSB apparently have not done their due diligence to match all the signatures of a weapon. Such as:
      – They haven’t measured metal composition of the fragments
      – They haven’t measured hole density
      – They haven’t measured hole size statistics

      You’d suspect something fishy is going on, if CSI don’t take fingerprints on a scene. Shouldn’t you also suspect the same if the DSB do not look like doing their job properly?

      This is why I say that they had a political goal rather than simply finding a truth. Their job was a more intelligent and sophisticated way of doing essentially the same what Oleksandr Ruvin was specializing on in Ukraine – turning a political agenda into an expert opinion.

      • Eugene:

        [– They haven’t measured hole size statistics]

        NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1 (Appendix Y report = NLR)

        Page 33:

        -Over 350 hits are present on the wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total, accounting for the structure of the cockpit that was not available.
        -The size of the penetration damage indicates that the objects that caused the damage to the cockpit had a size in the range of 6-14 mm:

        http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m

        Page 18:

        2.6 Size of penetration damage

        On the piece of cockpit skin with the highest number of penetrations, the size of the holes caused by these penetrations was measured (Figure 12).
        Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account. Of each hole the dimension perpendicular to the impact direction was measured: (Figure 13):

        http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u

        Only this dimension gives an indication of the size of the object that caused the damage. The larger dimension, parallel to the projection of the impact direction on the plate, is the result of the speed and the angle at which the object impacts the plate. As can be seen in Figure 14, the size was found to range from 6 mm to 14 mm.

        RESTORING PERPENDICULARITY OF IMPACT HOLES

        But remember this can be done much better and with simple means to derive more complete forms of fragments:

        They measured but one side of shrapnel, and now they run into difficulties of separating kinds of shrapnel (9N314 from 9N314M). Now it becomes critical if they manage to identify fillers from squares and squares from bowties. That’s why I propose the intermediate step of restoring perpendicular impacts by correcting for speed and the angle at which the object impacted the plate. So they have to fit the larger dimension in a single general correction.

        • Basic Dimension, a fair remark. What I meant, though, is that the DSB were in a good position to precisely measure physical hole sizes, and the best they could do is 6-14 mm? Come on. A lot of warheads will fit this course “statistics”. What I meant is to have a sort of histogram, like albert_lex has. “over 800 hits” can make a very good histogram that can tell us a lot. For example, it can confirm or exclude the presence of a right amount of holes made by the bow-tie shaped fragments of 9N314M.

          The DSB only coming up with the 6-14 mm range looks a sloppy job to me.

        • As to the supposed “histogram” http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m
          It looks like it was constructed out of data for 31 holes. Hardly can be called a statistics. Compare to albert_lex :
          http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/albert_lex/73995734/248616/248616_original.png

  12. Robert Parry says that the Dutch were put in the awkward position of having to support John Kerry’s statements when much of the evidence denies what Kerry claimed.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/14/the-credibility-illusion/

    Maybe Washington will come clean about what happened to MH17, but with elections looming it is more likely they will stay the course.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*