Recently discovered video clearly shows Volvo truck and lowloader with phonenumber on yellow sign

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

A video was discovered at March 6, 2016 showing the white Volvo truck with the red low-loader which is exactly the same as shown on the two Paris Match photos made in the morning of July 17, 2014 in Donetsk.

The video was made in April 2013.

The video clearly shows the low-loader having a yellow sign with the telephone number of the company owning the truck and lowloader. The video was first referenced at the mh17.webtalk.ru forum. This forum is one of the most active worldwide on finding out  what happened to MH17. In the past this website came with interesting photos and details.

Here is one of the two photos published by Paris Match. It clearly shows the same truck

buk-on-low-loader-in-donetsk-parismatch

Some people had their doubts about this yellow sign and suggested it was a Photoshop. This video clearly shows the Paris Match photos show an existing truck and low-loader.

The logo on the side of the Volvo truck clearly belongs to the company. The logo shows an elephant holding a construction I-beam in his trunk.

At June 30 Bellingcat published a report about this low-loader here.

The company who owned both the truck and low-loader was located in Donetsk. The owner stated his truck was stolen by the separatists.

bm-elephant-logo truck-elephant-logo

fed35cbf1355

Some additional photos of the truck. More in this album at vKontakte

It seems there are two different boards in use with telephone numbers. This picture shows a different yellow board attached to the low-loader. It could be there are multiple red low-loaders in use at the company.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

34 Comments on Recently discovered video clearly shows Volvo truck and lowloader with phonenumber on yellow sign

  1. We always come back to the same question – When was the Paris Match photo made? That is the QUESTION. That almost after 2 years of the shootdown of mh17 this basic question remains unanswered tells a lot.

  2. Antidyatel // March 6, 2016 at 1:28 pm // Reply

    “Some people had their doubts about this yellow sign and suggested it was a Photoshop”

    I think number of such people was marginal. Mote people are focused on photoshoped BUK itself. But I wonder why we still don’t have videos/photos of that truck in more recent dates. Particularly interesting if the truck still has the number on the side. Lughansk video practically alleges that number was removed

  3. Liane Theuer // March 6, 2016 at 1:44 pm // Reply

    Compare the video at 2:41 with the ParisMatch photo. The Buk had to be further back and the right red bar of the telephone number should be clearly to be seen.
    Compare the video at 4:09 with the video of the “missing missile”. It is seen that the proportions are not right. Again the Buk had to be further back.

    • “Compare the video at 2:41 with the ParisMatch photo. The Buk had to be further back and the right red bar of the telephone number should be clearly to be seen.”

      Maybe, but the right-hand red bar in one of the Paris Match images might be blurred by a smudge or maybe by a falling drop of water from the windscreen washer. It’s hard to be sure when the image quality is so bad.

      “Compare the video at 4:09 with the video of the “missing missile”. It is seen that the proportions are not right. Again the Buk had to be further back.”

      Yes, the front of the BUK in the Luhansk video is so far to the front that it is behind the yellow sign. That should not be possible, because of the board at the back of that sign, as seen in the “new” video.

    • On July 17, 2014 before the MH17 shootdown the lowloader length was extended for 1 m, the heavy Buk positioned in the middle, lowloader bent/sagged. So, Buk tilted forwards, the yellow plates with phone number tilted backwards. In Snezhnoe Buk drove off the lowloader towards launch site, lowloader length was de-expanded. After the shootdown the Buk drove back onto the shorter lowloader, all the way forward. Shorter lowloader didn’t sag as much as before. In the Lugansk video the lowloader is shorter for 1 m and not sagged, unlike Donetsk (Paris Match) photos, Makeevka video, Zuhres video, Torez photo. The sag is the reason why perspective in ParisMatch photos seems wrong. Look for the sag in Makeevka video, Zuhres video, Torez photo.

  4. On the right side in the background of the “Paris Match photo” you can see some trees. The silhouette of these trees can clearly be seen through the BUK’s massive radar cabin. This is physically not possible – the photo is a fake.

    There are more indications that this picture is a fake – you will find detailed explanations in Barry Hamill’s “The donetsk buk was photoshopped” or “MH17 – Paris NO Match” by Sergey Mastepanov.

    http://fakemh17photo.blogspot.de/2015/03/the-donetsk-buk-was-photoshopped-w-e.html

    Mastepanov: http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=543

  5. The action on the video takes place in Crimea, btw.

  6. > Some people had their doubts about this yellow sign and suggested it was a Photoshop.

    I don’t know if this new find strengthens the pro-Kiev PoV. The video is shot before the war. Possibly the rebels removed the number later, but it was photoshoped back (not sure why). Somehow I did not ever take it as though that number never existed on the truck. That argument was not particularly strong either.

    This case actually highlights the possible problem if you collect all oddities on a picture. Some may not be actual flaws. If they are found not to be flaws this will cast doubts on other arguments.

    To me the Paris Match photos is proved to be fake beyond a doubt by two facts alone: the perspective fuckup and the subtle error with the shadow. Other oddities found have only probabilistic support of the conclusion.

  7. Marcel:

    These are facinating videos.

    There is one major difference to the Paris Match photo. The thin black shape outlined to the right of the exhaust pipes.

  8. A photoshoped buk in an undated photo. That´s the “evidence” they keep us entertained with all this time.

  9. The yellow sign on the right hand side looks dirtier and less clear than the one on the left. That might explain why the number cannot be seen at all in the Luhansk video. See how the number only becomes legible at about 3:03 in the newly released video.

  10. “The yellow sign on the right hand side looks dirtier and less clear than the one on the left.”

    To me it does not, but appeal to be more in the shadows.

    • The back of the truck is almost directly facing the sun (the video seems to be deliberately shot in that way). The boards of the two signs are pointing in the same direction, so there should be no almost no difference between them as far as shadows or sunlight are concerned.

      • https://twitter.com/DeGrijzeDuif26/status/707222368830234624
        &
        https://twitter.com/DeGrijzeDuif26/status/707222483515138048

        If you look at both yellow and red, there is difference that cant be explained by just dirt. To me shadows plays an important role. In the picture that is most dark. Look at the red upward little beam (?) On the left of the yellow sign. This is bright red, and should be as filthy as the other red parts in the nearby area. But the sunlight is the reason this specific part is that bright.

      • You can see the same contrast between adjacent sides on the left hand side of the truck too, at 1:45. One side of that red bar is bright red from direct sunlight and the other side is darker.

        It doesn’t really matter anyway whether the explanation I gave is perfectly correct, because my point was that the sign is illegable at the same angle as in the Luhansk video. That’s in spite of the fact that the newly discovered video is shot closer up, at high resolution and with better lighting.

        There are already enough glaring discrepancies in what the various BUK videos and photos are supposed to show. So I don’t think it’s worth making a big deal out of issues that that there are explanations for.

  11. That poor Volvo looks as if it almost breaks apart under the weight of a 28-t digger back in 2013. How would it fare with a 35-t Buk launcher a year later?

  12. Kindergarden time! I’m just not sure if I should feel pity for the Pro-Russians here or just laugh…

    > Possibly the rebels removed the number later, but it was photoshoped back (not
    > sure why).

    of course! Probably Obama called them directly and asked them to do so…these fucking American bastards, right? 😉

    > To me the Paris Match photos is proved to be fake beyond a doubt

    I would say: Here you can see how arm-chair hobby detectives with their own political bias end up in an echo-chamber and become notorious conspiracy theorists. Actually its rather sad to see that the wish to see the truth that pleases you most always wins against the reality for those guys. But I understand. The occurrence of this video is a “bitter pill” for some here. Wasn’t it so obvious even for a child that the videos and numbers were just photoshoped? So much about the 3D models and the quality of uncovering things here by the Pro-Putin-Truth-Seekers…

  13. At least we know it was not the Ukrainian “A”TO Forces, they would never have managed to even get their vehicle onto the truck:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmyrbVmOHOg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdGB-MuBME
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UXLYiF5TA

    🙂

  14. To me, the only thing the new video proves is there was a truck, with the same characteristics as the truck on the PM photo, pre-april’13. That is the only thing You can take from this video.

    There is no direct connection to the MH17 videos nor the MH17 photos. The goal of this reply is not to claim the MH17 videos and photos are fake. I do know people claim this, and now the argument is made this video clears it all up. But it doesnt.

    The fact there was a truck in 2013, stil makes it possible the PM photo is fake. The 2013 truck might even have been the example for the 3D model. I am not claiming it was, but this video doesnt prove it wasnt. Same goes for the yellow plate. Yes, it was there on the 2013 truck, but still might have been photoshopped on the PM photo.

    Even if the number plates would match, you could not claim a thing. Since the “new” video is online since 2013, so lets assume this is authentic. We cannot say the same about the PM photo. There is much unclear about this. And to be frank is not even clear if this picture was realy taken om july 17th 2014…

    Now this new video has also been picked up by the people claiming the PM air pipe differs from the 2013 truck. This seems to be a correct remark. However I have seen the claim there might be 2 trucks, so the statement done in the PM article the truck was “unique”, is untrue. We should keep in mind there were 15 months between the 2 dates. The air pipe may have been replaced in this period. Its just a possibillity you cant rules out, so on the basis of this new video you cant claim this are 2 separate trucks.

    I have seen a BC picture of the PM photo/2013-screenshot duo picture, like it was supporting their narrative, but it doesnt. I have seen this duo picture edited, pointing at the differences, but this doesnt mean a thing either.

    If anybody can explain me how, besides they look a like, it has been established this is the exact same truck I would be glad. But just by looking at the video imho we cant claim anything in regard to MH17, both positive and negative.

    • The rental company that were supplying the trucks referred to them in a plural form. So there indeed may have been more than one similar trucks (or the company were just trying to look more substantial than they really were, which is a very real possibility too).

      The PM photo is a fake. This is one of only three things about mh17 that I was convinced about so far. The image actually was taken on a date close to the date that PM claimed it was (and then the Buk photoshoped in).

      Note that on mh17.webtalk.ru, where the video was found first, people did not take it that this new find gives more chances to the photo being real. The argument that the phone number was photoshoped in was not a strong one. It was borderline odd.

      What happened is the following. Someone finds an image feature that seems to show that an image was photoshoped. Then the image is scrutinized to insanity and all strange looking features are picked. But not all of may turn out to be actual photoshop artifacts.

      • Hector Reban // March 9, 2016 at 8:49 am // Reply

        There were trucks like it in the area:

        https://twitter.com/MichaKobs/status/707028302926639108

        Actually the vids show nothing more than we already knew. There was a Volvo truck with a red Faymonville low-loader. Apparently it was based on the Donetsk truckyard at least until 30 july, as Google Earth shows. It was used for a rebel photoshoot somewhere in august too.

        There is more material showing the truck, which Micha Kobs and others already published. That the truckyard was “requisitioned” including its inventory some time before the 17th july, seems to be factual.

        According to the webarchive of 3 august 2014 the website of this renting company continued until it was revised and replaced by a website showing the holding to which the truckyard belonged, owned by the same owner, Vasili Tumasov, some date thereafter.

        In all other cases, except on the imaging of the BUK trail, the Volvo and low-loader carried crap, junk, broken stuff. As it was shown at the Snizhne military junk yard Lenin Street, we may assume this is what it was used for, also after the 17th.

        Of course, it could have been used for a 35t BUK – broken or working. But its also still possible the not so unique truck was used as raw material to photoshop a BUK on somewhere along a busy Donetsk road, as Mivha Kobs imho convincingly showed.

  15. “Using the phone number on the side of the low-loader, Paris Match contacted the owner of the vehicle rental company, who claimed that the low-loader had been stolen by separatists who had occupied his warehouses since 8 July and that the vehicle was unique in the region.”

    The “unique”-claim makes plural impossible. But the plural is more likely to be true, since this;
    http://jitmh17.ru/?page_id=87

    I do mis the company logo on the side… it is claimed however the truck of this man was the BUK truck. It is not sure however, if the truck in the picture really was this mans truck.

    I agree on the PM photo to be fake. But that was beside the point I was trying to make in my previous reaction.

    Perhaps it was not the point they made at the RU forum, but it is the message in this article here. It cant be more explicit.
    “A video was discovered at March 6, 2016 showing the white Volvo truck with the red low-loader which is exactly the same as shown on the two Paris Match photos made in the morning of July 17, 2014 in Donetsk.”
    &
    “Here is one of the two photos published by Paris Match. It clearly shows the same truck.”
    &
    “Some people had their doubts about this yellow sign and suggested it was a Photoshop. This video clearly shows the Paris Match photos show an existing truck and low-loader.”

    Imho this is not a fair conclusion. Because this way, it appears like it is supporting the BC narrative. This probably was not the intention, but it has this unfair effect.

    Actualy this new video and photos are of great importance to show the BC narrative is incorrect, when they claim the “unique” remark of the owner, via PM article.

    All video’s and photos up untill now were verry unclear. The new material seems to disprove the “unique”-claim.

    Is this an official JIT website?
    http://jitmh17.ru/

  16. “Is this an official JIT website?
    http://jitmh17.ru/

    This site looks like anti-Russian propaganda to me. So it is strange they would use a different truck with the same characteristics as both mh17 “evidence” and the new 2013 images, and claim its the BUK truck, while is missing the obvious logo on the side… no author… no credit… and I do not know of this story published on another platform. Do you?

    The rest of this website is shady as well… but in the contactform the adress of JIT Holland is communicated. So what are they trying to sell?

    Weird website…

    • Liane Theuer // March 8, 2016 at 11:08 pm // Reply

      “Is this an official JIT website?”
      http://jitmh17.ru/”

      Never ever the official JIT website !
      But this site seems to support the JIT in the search for witnesses.

      Bellingcat itself disproved (unintentionally of course) the uniqueness of the low-loader here :
      https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/30/low-loader/

      Compare the „2 July 2014 vs 21 July 2014“ pictures (you have to wipe over the picture)
      1) The DigitalGlobe pictures do not prove that it shows indeed the “unique” low-loader of the PM photos.
      2) On 21 July 2014 there are a lot trucks with a white cabin to be seen in the yard.

      How can the “unique” low-loader be back in his owner´s yard when at the same time it disappeared in Russia (according to the weird website) ?

      By the way : If I were Alfred de Montesquiou, I would be ashamed about the rotten egg, for which he has lent his name. Time to come out of the cover !

  17. “It seems there are two different boards in use with telephone numbers. This picture shows a different yellow board attached to the low-loader. It could be there are multiple red low-loaders in use at the company.”

    Or it could be that the signs were changed at some time, so that they show just the phone number. This possibility is supported by the fact that the different types of sign can be distinguished by their dates. All photos with two rows of writing are from March 2012 or earlier, and all with just the phone number are from July 2012 or later.

    Two other signs on the front left of the Volvo truck appear to been removed around the same time as the yellow signs were changed.

    Here are a few photos from March 2012, apparently of the same truck and low loader. Two photos show the right hand side and one shows the left. Their image quality is poor, but they’re clear enough to show two rows of writing:

    https://pp.vk.me/c4558/u49488808/-7/x_3b10a5e6.jpg

    https://pp.vk.me/c4558/u49488808/-7/z_bfe8d582.jpg

    https://pp.vk.me/c4558/u49488808/-7/z_5a38f361.jpg

    All the photos can be seen here (the link given in the article above is for only one of two albums that show the truck and low loader):
    https://vk.com/photos49488808

  18. Another photo from that vk site is worth comparing to the Paris Match image. It’s taken from a different angle but it illustrates how photographed parallel lines point to a single point in the distance. The vk photo shows lots of such parallel lines (even though they don’t look parallel in the photo).

    https://pp.vk.me/c411429/v411429808/1e11/D7RqD7GIgi0.jpg

    The only way that the Paris Match image can be authentic is if the BUK was loaded with something lifting it up at the back.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*