Video of Paris Match photos published by JIT

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At september 30 JIT added two video’s showing the BUK TELAR on a lowloader.

One of the video’s is made in Donetsk. Stills of the video where published by Paris Match.

  1. the video-footage, which is the source of the picture of a BUK-TELAR that has been published by Paris Match;
  2. so called “stills” of new video-footage of the convoy in Torez, of which the background has been erased because of safety reasons.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

16 Comments on Video of Paris Match photos published by JIT

  1. The “Paris Match” video linked above provides some good opportunities for sun-angle measurements on light poles etc. I look forward to seeing someone calculate the exact time this video was recorded.

  2. Is Paris-Match finally going to make a statement that they lied about the origin of the original photos? Is JIT asking tgem for explanation on why they had to invent the story about their photographer taking PHOTO in Snejne? It might be interesting how SBU passed them that VIDEO and when?

    • It is important to remember that the original file provided to Paris-Match had Snejne in its name PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg
      It seems that there was a set of data prepared in advance for PM with primary story line about Snejne BUK.

  3. Actually, did JIT privude metadata or original file of the video to confirm tge date?

  4. Paris match photo is not jusr a still from the video. It is edited for some reason. Why was it important to cut out the billboard from the scene? Can it be linked to something they don’t want it to be linked? Geolocation would be so much easier with it. But BC didn’t fail, obviously without prior hint of where to look.

    There were more convincing stills in the video showing BUK, but they (SBU) chose two very strange cut outs.

  5. Wind Tunnel Man // October 1, 2016 at 5:20 pm // Reply


    Here is the available data for

    Format : MPEG-4
    Format profile : Base Media
    Codec ID : isom
    File size : 13.9 MiB
    Duration : 13s 266ms
    Overall bit rate : 8 762 Kbps
    Writing application : Lavf57.41.100

    ID : 1
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : Baseline@L4.0
    Format settings, CABAC : No
    Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
    Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=30
    Codec ID : avc1
    Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
    Duration : 13s 266ms
    Bit rate : 8 659 Kbps
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Variable
    Frame rate : 20.957 fps
    Minimum frame rate : 14.983 fps
    Maximum frame rate : 30.060 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Progressive
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.199
    Stream size : 13.7 MiB (99%)
    Language : English

    ID : 2
    Format : AAC
    Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
    Format profile : LC
    Codec ID : 40
    Duration : 13s 254ms
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Bit rate : 96.0 Kbps
    Channel(s) : 2 channels
    Channel(s)_Original : 1 channel
    Channel positions : Front: C
    Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
    Compression mode : Lossy
    Stream size : 155 KiB (1%)
    Language : English

    Please note the last entry “Language : English” may not be meaningful, also it might be a shortened copy of a longer original using a different codec. However the variable frame rate mode is interesting since that might cause an uneven playback.

    • So we cannot establish date of recprding if one would doubt the filename?

      • Wind Tunnel Man // October 1, 2016 at 5:56 pm // Reply

        That’s true because the date setting in the camera may be incorrect if it’s an original file. Or if it’s a copy then any file name can be used during the re-encoding.

        I will check out “Writing application : Lavf57.41.100” and see if that might be meaningful with regards to camera make and model or whether it also applies to a re-encoding.

        • Wind Tunnel Man // October 1, 2016 at 11:31 pm // Reply


          RE. Writing application : Lavf57.41.100
          This might be a candidate for a change in the format of the original video – possibly just unwraps the original video and replaces it into a .mp4 wrapper, i.e. not an actual re-encoding. I’ve used similar software to unwrap AVC type files, e.g. .MTS, etc. Some editing of the length of the video may also be possible but I haven’t done that when simply unwrapping and converting the file extension to .mp4 for ease of editing etc. nor change the file’s name.

          • How sure can we be about the authenticity of the paris match video based on the file data provided? Any chance of it being made after 17 july 2014? Or can we now be absolute certain that it is from the 17.07.2014? photography and related software/code is not my expertise hence my questions.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // October 3, 2016 at 2:27 am //

            “How sure can we be about the authenticity of the paris match video based on the file data provided? Any chance of it being made after 17 july 2014? Or can we now be absolute certain that it is from the 17.07.2014?”

            I would say that it’s almost certain to be authentic because of the variable frame rate. When a video is edited normally a constant frame rate is set for the project and also for the resultant output file. If one wishes to maintain the duration of the video then that involves the duplication of frames or the dropping of frames if the original video does not conform to the project settings. Basically a variable frame rate video can be difficult to process and that’s why I believe in this case the original video has not been changed but just repackaged (re-wrapped) as a .mp4 file to enable on-line playback without the need for a specific codec to enable the decoding of the camera recording.

            It’s impossible to say whether or not the date (file name) was changed during the re-wrapping process which was possibly used in this case. However I would say that the footage is genuine and the image content was probably not changed in any way. The fact that it was recorded using a variable frame rate means that any movement of the objects pictured will appear to change position unevenly when playback is done at very slow speed.

  6. Accidentally bumped into this
    Location is at the border on Russian side south of Snejne. Why did Russians need to cary BUK along Lugansk route?

    And again. TAR has to be there. And nothing could prevent it from supplying data to the TELAR across the border. So how did it happen tgat airliner was hit?

  7. Here is the video from 20june 2014. The same location appears on 30sec. Different posters. But this is nearly 1 month apart, so posters could change.макеевское%20шоссе%20кольцо%202014

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.