Was a parked BUK the reason for the July 15 bombardment of Snizhne ?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At July 15 around 07: 00AM an apartment building in the middle of Snizhne was bombed by an Ukraine aircraft. The Ukraine authorities stated the airforce did not fly so Russia must have done it. That seems to be not very likely.

The apartment is located at Lenin Street 14. 48°1’9″N 38°45’25″E

11 people were killed according BBC.

Now it does not make sense to bombs an apartment building. So it must have been a mistake. Interesting is that 300 meters to the northwest of the apartment a large complex is used by the separatists to store tanks and other equipment.

snizhne-bombed

Informnapalm.org was able to geolocate a video showing the same Volvo FH13 truck which transported the BUK . The truck and lowloader was parked at the military complex in Shizhne.

According the site :”Because the city is situated near the border,this allowed the militants to create a staging post in the base for the military equipment coming from Russia”

Novaya Gazeta reported that a BUK was delivered from Russia to an area near Snizhne-Torez in the night of July 15-16.

Could it be the BUK was parked in the military complex at July 15 and the Ukraine airforce wanted to destroy the BUK before it could do harm? Maybe Novaya Gazeta was wrong with the date.

We do not know but it is interesting.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

120 Comments on Was a parked BUK the reason for the July 15 bombardment of Snizhne ?

  1. I’ve made the same speculation. Another alternative is the rebels had stolen BUK missiles stored in the yard.

    There is a July 16 Digital Globe image of Snizhne-Saur Mogila. I bet it would be interesting.

  2. My first question is what evidence is there an aircraft did the bombing?

    I’m not saying it wasn’t an aircraft, just what positive evidence exists?

    My observations in the Syria arena are that most incidents are spun heavily, so many incidents that are actually local warfare are respun as aerial attacks. I assume the same happens in Ukraine.

    I note also the reverse where the obvious Ukraine aerial attack on the trade union building was spun by Ukraine as an ‘own goal’ caused by a misfired SAM.

    It’s not that I think this story is fake. Just that in any war zone / propaganda zone you need multiple verifiable sources. In all likelihood it was an aircraft attack but it needs some supporting evidence.

  3. Actually, the video geolocated by Informnapalm was made in the autumn, you can see the yellow leaves, but not anytime close to July.

    Knowing the established practice of combined Russian and separatist forces to shell their own occupied cities and towns to put the blame on Ukraine, it’s at least as much as possible it were the Russians who bombed Snizhne. Russia was obviously quick to blame Ukraine for that bombing — but, as much as the Ukrainian side, they haven’t given any proof.

    And the Novaya Gazeta made its claim about the night of July 15-16 just out of the blue sky, without any references or substantiation, — and was the only media or web outlet doing so.

    This way, everything is theoretically possible but you can easily reckon the percentage of such a possibility.

    • I think it is very unlikely a Russian fighter jet entered Ukraine airspace. I was not suggesting the photo showing the trailer in Snizhne was made in July.
      However it is very well possible this truck carried the BUK. And the BUK was unloaded from a lowloader here.

      • I think it was much more likely a Russian jet entering an uncontrolled part of the Ukrainian airspace near the border back in 2014 than a Ukrainian one. If it was a Ukrainian plane that was flying around Snizhne, 15 km from the Russian border but at least 50 km from the closest part of the government controlled territory at the time — why numerous Russian / separatist air defenses that were present there en masse did not make a single shot at it?

        • Prosto Tak:

          “I think it was much more likely a Russian jet entering an uncontrolled part of the Ukrainian airspace near the border back in 2014 than a Ukrainian one.”

          So can you explain a motivation and reason for Russia to attack Ukrainian civilians in Snizhne who are pro-Russian?

          “If it was a Ukrainian plane that was flying around Snizhne, 15 km from the Russian border but at least 50 km from the closest part of the government controlled territory at the time”

          I don’t understand the relevance of how close you think the front line was to whether Ukraine might have carried out the bombing.

          Second, Ukraine on the morning of July 15th was in indisputible control of the settlements of Marynivka (15 km), Tarany (15 km), Amvrosievka (34 km), Blagodatne (25 km), Dibrivka (24 km) and a number of other similarly situated settlements south of Torez and Snizhne where they were conducting offensive operations along the state border. Surely you don’t deny this?

          “why numerous Russian / separatist air defenses that were present there en masse did not make a single shot at it?”

          Actually, the rebels claimed to have shot down one of the planes involved and that it fell near Removka southwest of Snizhne. How can you say it was not shot at? Were you there?

          • Andrew, and how do you explain a motivation and reason for Ukraine to attack its own Ukrainian civilians in Snizhne who are not even close to be 100% pro-Russian?

            Actually, there’s not a single piece of evidence of a Ukrainian aircraft being shot down at Removka or anywhere else on July 15. The only “report” of this came that day from a Russian and staunchly pro-Kremlin agency “Regnum” that claimed such a shooting according to the words of “a local journalist named Sergey.”

            On the other side, a Ukrainian but pro-Russian paper “Vesti” (believe it or not, such news outlets abound in a pluralistic Ukraine and are not banned) reported that day that the locals were sure the plane had been Ukrainian — with one of them, Aleksandr from Snizhne, even claiming to have personally seen the plane clearly enough to “distinguish its propeller blades” (!) — from this you can judge the price of such “firsthand accounts.”

            Also, another point of view of a resident of a neighboring town of Torez was published in Facebook and reprinted by other media; he (or she) stated that, except from the sounds of a plane and the blasts on the ground, nothing else was to be heard; this resident wondered exactly why the separatists’ air defenses were not shooting at the aircraft.

            (I’ll try to give the links, sorry, in Russian in my next post as I fear links are blocked here; if they will not appear let’s wait for them to be approved.)

          • And now, the lost message once more:

            Andrew, and how do you explain a motivation and reason for Ukraine to attack its own Ukrainian civilians in Snizhne who are not even close to be 100% pro-Russian?

            Actually, there’s not a single piece of evidence of a Ukrainian aircraft being shot down at Removka or anywhere else on July 15. The only “report” of this came that day from a Russian and staunchly pro-Kremlin agency “Regnum” that claimed such a shooting according to the words of “a local journalist named Sergey.”

            On the other side, a Ukrainian but pro-Russian paper “Vesti” (believe it or not, such news outlets abound in a pluralistic Ukraine and are not banned) reported that day that the locals were sure the plane had been Ukrainian — with one of them, Aleksandr from Snizhne, even claiming to have personally seen the plane clearly enough to “distinguish its propeller blades” (!) — from this you can judge the price of such “firsthand accounts.”

            Also, another point of view of a resident of a neighboring town of Torez was published in Facebook and reprinted by other media; he (or she) stated that, except from the sounds of a plane and the blasts on the ground, nothing else was to be heard; this resident wondered exactly why the separatists’ air defenses were not shooting at the aircraft.

            (I’ll try to give the links, sorry, in Russian in my next post as I fear links are blocked here; if they will not appear let’s wait for them to be approved.)

          • Prosto Tak:

            “how do you explain a motivation and reason for Ukraine to attack its own Ukrainian civilians in Snizhne who are not even close to be 100% pro-Russian?”

            The loss of civilian life was an accident from conducting a “danger close” strike on the rebel compound nearby. The real question is not the unintentional loss of life, but the motivation for trying to strike the rebel compound on that day in way that would likely endanger civilians.

            As the Admin notes by making this post, a reasonable cause for such a risky strike was an attempt to destroy a rebel BUK launcher. An alternative I have suggested is hitting the logistical support of a BUK launcher – spare missiles and a missile loader crane.

            “why the separatists’ air defenses were not shooting at the aircraft”

            The Ukrainians did not carry out air strikes at night, so possibly it was unexpected that they would strike at first light in the middle of the city and the defenses were not manned. They seem to have otherwise been flying a regular tempo of making strikes every couple of hours during the middle of the day around Saur Mogila.

    • “the established practice of combined Russian and separatist forces to shell their own occupied cities and towns”

      Evidence, please…? If you make such an accusation, offer some reference material at least. Meanwhile, I have a clear memory how Poroshenko half an hour after the event condemned the Kramatorsk missile attack and claimed to know which missile was used… (yes, he claimed the missile system came from Russia)

      • I think it will be more right if said

        “the established practice of Ukraine to shift the blame of their attacks on civilian cities onto combined Russian and separatist forces”

        • The recent UN report makes it clear that the absolute majority of casualties in this conflict have been the result of shelling of separatist-controlled territory by the Ukrainian army and far-right controlled police, national guard and paramilitary units. So yes, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that the majority of damage has been caused by the Ukrainian side.

          http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/11thOHCHRreportUkraine.pdf

          Sorry for side-tracking.

          • Pianoman, you are trying to dupe the audience but it won’t go. The UN report you gave a link to clearly states: “HRMMU is not in a position at this time to attribute specific civilian casualties recorded to the armed groups, Ukrainian armed forces or other parties.”

          • http://www.cyber-berkut.ru/ has leaked documents from Ukraine artillery units with coordinates of civilian infrastructure to be shelled. Quite straightforward actually

          • Antidyatel, this fake by Cyber-Berkut or whoever feeds them with such stuff has already been debunked. Sorry it’s only available in Russian as of now: http://sprotyv.info/ru/news/kiev/krivorukie-hakery-fsb-kiberberkut-razrodilis-ocherednym-feykom

            In short, it would have been very strange to suppose someone has scanned a secret cable that does not exist as an email and saved the scan in one’s mailbox just to have Cyber-Berkut break it.

            On the other side, if you even do believe in this fake, it can be interpreted in a single possible way: that the four school buildings near the front lines obviously not used as schools any more and commandeered by the terrorists to be used as their HQs, were to be shelled on Dec. 28 — a holiday time! — at 5 am, so that no civilian would suffer!

          • Antidyatel, this faked “documents” by Cyber-Berkut or whoever feeds them with such stuff has already been debunked. Sorry it’s only available in Russian as of now at “sprotyv dot info” but my posts with a direct link don’t go through.

            In short, it would have been very strange to suppose someone has scanned a secret cable that does not exist as an email and saved the scan in one’s mailbox just to have Cyber-Berkut break it.

            On the other side, if you even do believe in this fake, it can be interpreted in a single possible way: that the four school buildings near the front lines obviously not used as schools any more and commandeered by the terrorists to be their HQs, were to be shelled on Dec. 28 — a holiday time! — at 5 am, so that no civilian would suffer!

          • You are contradicting yourself, Prosto Tak.
            So is it fake or is it information proving that Ukrs are not shelling civilians? You can’t have it both ways

          • Anti, It is kind of obvious that he believes it is fake.
            Most of the Cyber Berkut are fakes just like typical Kremlin sponsored media.

            HOWEVER, if you want to persist, all it shows is UA military planned on shelling schools that the terrorists were using as auxiliary bases and storage depots and buildings to hide behind.
            On a holiday when no one is in school at 5 am to make sure no one is in the building.
            IF it was a real artillery planning document.

            BUT he and I have little belief in CYBER Berkut ability to actual produce factual documents.
            Not saying that it is impossible for them to break into some thing, but it is very doubtful.

            There level of hacking is little better then mine.
            They are better forgers then hackers.
            And their forgeries have gotten regularly many times.

            Fare thee well

          • gotten ‘exposed’ – missed a word.

            Fare thee well

      • Pianoman, you should have monitored Russian language social media. There were lots of reports of Russian/separatist forces shelling the Ukrainian positions and then shooting in the opposite direction. The main place for such tactics was the city of Horlivka (Ukr.)/Gorlovka (Rus.), however, it often happened in Donetsk and in other occupied places. Please mention: I don’t say the Ukrainian forces have never shot to respond the enemy fire at residential areas when the enemy fire was coming from within those areas. I only say there’s a lot of evidence of such a behavior of the combined Russian/separatist forces coming from within the occupied territories.

        • I’ve been monitoring social media of the locals. There has been nothing like what you are saying. 90% or rebels are locals. It’s ridiculous to claim that they’ll be pointing their guns onto the very own families they went to protect.

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-21/stunning-footage-captures-ukraine-artillery-shell-mid-flight

          • That’s exactly the most stunning video that has been geolocated and that is a proof of the shelling from a tank from within the separatist held territories.

        • Prosto Tak:

          “Pianoman, you should have monitored Russian language social media. There were lots of reports of Russian/separatist forces shelling the Ukrainian positions and then shooting in the opposite direction.”

          And this is supposed to be believable because the language it is written in is Russian?

          To make an outlandish claim like this stick you would need to show a firing position, a crater, and an artillery piece capable of firing the distance shown. Or produce credible eyewitnesses. Or get a rebel to confess. Even better would be a picture of the unit firing where the angle is measurable. Saying someone wrote in Russian that it was happening is close to meaningless. That person could be anyone writing from anywhere.

          “I only say there’s a lot of evidence of such a behavior of the combined Russian/separatist forces coming from within the occupied territories.”

          Can you cite any evidence of this at all outside of Russian language social media?

          • What other evidence do you want me to quote? From Ukrainian language social media? There are practically no independent observers there. So if even the mostly pro-separatist locals write their witness accounts of one part of the city being shelled from the other part that means some must have had it enough. And some have even posted videos showing the direction the shells flew. Otherwise, you should also doubt the claims that Ukrainian forces shell the occupied cities (which they obviously do sometimes to make shut the separatist firing positions stationed in between living quarters).

  4. Strange and selective investigative journalism from Novaya Gazeta. So from 14 July Buk was travelling in Donbass only during curfew (after 22 pm). There is absolutely nothing strange for Novaya Gazeta that on 17th July that strategy was abandoned and they started traveling in daylight for everyone to see. Then comes this “около 12.15 его видел и наш внештатный корреспондент: «Бук» шел своим ходом, уже с четырьмя ракетками. По словам очевидцев, люди, ехавшие на пусковой установке, не были похожи на местных сепаратистов. По прибытии на место расчету была дана команда во второй половине дня ждать военно-транспортный Ан-26 украинских ВВС.”
    Description of what their correspondent seen too familiar to obviously invented story from AP reporter Peter Leonard. But even then, where Novaya Gazeta knows from that the BUK team received the order to down an26 in the second half of a day. This statement is so out of place and has no reliable evidence to back it up. Unless their journalist was there during the time the order was given to the BUK team.
    Also there is absolutely no doubt by Novaya Gazeta in authenticity of intercepted calls, while so many people noted inconsistency and detectable manipulation of the tapes. These three points strongly discourage trust in the whole article as objective analysis and indicates to another propaganda war piece

  5. But you also don’t put into doubt obvious fakes published by “Cyber-Berkut.”

    And you just baselessly dismiss any evidence that doesn’t please you but promote anything that fits your prefabricated picture of the events.

  6. Not sure if it was really parked there. But we can be pretty sure that there was a non-Ukrainian BUK launcher in the area.

    “Truthers” have been trying to 3D render + photoshop similar pictures for a year and still they have not managed to do it. (I doubt SBU was professional enough to do it in hours/beforehand either.)

    • The PM pic is fake. Micha made a one-page tutorial how to fake it.

      For now the only ¨evidence¨ the rebels had BUKs in operating quality stems from the SBU and Ukrainian officials about the flight of three BUK launchers and a TEL in the early morning of the 18th. So there is really very few visual evidence the rebels ever had a working BUK. The only interesting piece is the lone-BUK video in Snizhne with a lot of GRAD volleys at the background and the GirkinGirkin pic at Karapetyan street.

      It is possible they had one. But possession alone hardly counts as evidence they shot with it too, since the launch plume pic is also really on the bad side of trustworthy evidence.

      • >The PM pic is fake. Micha made a one-page tutorial how to fake it.

        Link please.
        The 85 page version failed pathetically.

        >For now the only ¨evidence¨

        A two other photos and two videos.

        > the rebels had BUKs in operating quality stems from the SBU and Ukrainian officials about the flight of three BUK launchers

        Flying BUKs? WOW!
        SBU has lied (almost) as many times as RU MOD.

        > very few visual evidence the rebels ever had a working BUK.

        In general. Very few evidence of any SAM in the position to shoot at MH17 cockpit from ahead. Still it happened. So it was there. No denying. Just hard finding it.

        (unless we believe MH17 was shot from RU)

        • >Link please.
          To me the most convincing point concerning the PM fake in Michael’s document is the wrong shadow of the low loader’s goose neck:
          http://i.imgur.com/vzkvSzV.png

          The edge of the goose neck is illuminated by direct sunlight, so that contour *must* be visible in the shadow on the road surface.

          (The other points Micheal makes are equally valid, they just need some more thinking to understand them.)

          BTW the German BND is also convinced Ukrainian photos are faked:

          “Der BND kam zu eindeutigen Ergebnissen: Ukrainische Aufnahmen seien gefälscht, sagte Schindler, das lasse sich anhand von Details erkennen.”

          “The BND came to unambiguous results: Ukrainian photos were faked, said Schindler, that could be recognized based on details [in the photos].”

          http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/mh17-laut-bnd-waren-separatisten-fuer-absturz-verantwortlich-a-997885.html

          >Very few evidence of any SAM in the position to shoot at MH17 cockpit from ahead. Still it happened.

          The photos of the debris leave little doubt that shrapnel entered the Cockpit from ahead at an angle between 0° and ~45° to the longitudinal axis. Yet there are serious doubts this could be the result of a BUK approaching at an angle of 11°, which would be the angle between the course to Snizhne and the longitudinal axis.

          Can you point to any evidence the missile approached from ahead?

          • A shadow comparison, not easy to find exact fast.
            Ole, will you say this is a faked photo since the loading ramps are not the exact shape in the shadow when sunlight plainly hits it?
            http://militarymashup.com/mmu_get_jpeg.php?1b922a54691d39f105d13c3299f0b586d

            Not quite exact timing and position, but close.
            Sunlight hits the barrel of the tank, but do we see it on the ground?
            Sunlight hits the gooseneck, can we identify that?
            Sunlight hits the second set of tires on the semi, can you clearly identify that?
            The last tire on the trailer that is clearly hit by sunlight, why isn’t the shadow for it a round shape as the tire?

            Fare thee well

          • > BTW the German BND is also convinced Ukrainian photos are faked

            — Actually, it was not the BND but the Spiegel report. BND chief Gerhard Schindler presented some report behind closed doors and one of the German MPs leaked it as he/she had understood it, and Der Spiegel published it as they had understood it, and both were wrong.

            The Spiegel report made fuss in Germany as well. Then, another MP who had been there at the BND head’s presentation, Armin Schuster speaking at MDR radio didn’t confirm the authenticity of the Spiegel version (though he also didn’t directly deny it in full) (the link I’ve saved at the time where I’ve listened to his words is dead now: http://www.mdr.de/mediathek/radio/mdr-info/audio992152_zc-65f871a3_zs-cd049873.html).

            Also, the ARD television reported the BND hadn’t confirmed the Spiegel report as it was and stated Schindler’s words had been a set of data only with no direct conclusions — which the MPs might have thought up by their own.

            As ARD Berlin bureau chief Rainald Becker put it, the problem was that one of the Bundestag members just “couldn’t keep the water inside” and had “spewed” it when he/she has been “punctured” by a Spiegel reporter: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/bnd-ukraine-101.html

            By the way, that Spiegel article has also claimed the BND had named the Russian data about the catastrophe faked as well as Ukrainian (without naming which exactly) and, most important (but not supported by the reports I’ve mentioned above), that MH17 was indeed shot down by pro-Russian separatists (but with a ‘Buk’ “captured from the Ukrainian side”). As I have said, the authenticity of the article in whole has been denied though parts of it may be true to a certain extent.

          • Ole, according to your favorite Kremlin sponsored media, he was talking about satellite images.
            http://de.sputniknews.com/german.ruvr.ru/2014_10_20/Deutschland-veroffentlichte-seine-Version-des-Absturzes-der-Boeing-uber-der-Ukraine-5073/

            How strange is that, him thinking Ukraine has been forging those?
            So far they have stood up from what I know.

            I think Schindler had a few too many Mint Julips.

            He also went on to say the terrorists did it with a captured BUK, from somewhere in the Donbas.

            Fare thee well

          • boggled:

            The photo and your analysis is a good example for what could be achieved by a closer look.
            The timing is quite different, sunlight comes almost from behind the trailer.
            On the side of the loading ramps something is illuminated, so you won’t expect a straight contour of the shadow there, and the shape of the ground there is unclear as opposed to the rood surface on the PM photo.
            Shadow of the barrel can be seen clearly in the middle of the tank’s front.
            Shadow of the gooseneck is partially in front of the soldier and partially on the wheels of the semi.
            Shadow of the second set of tires of the semi is very small (sun coming from behind) and exactly where I would expect it to be.
            The last tire of the trailer is also illuminated from almost behind, so there is little rounding left in the shadow, but even that can be seen.

            >”Ole, according to your favorite Kremlin sponsored media, he was talking about satellite images.
            http://de.sputniknews.com/german.ruvr.ru/2014_10_20/Deutschland-veroffentlichte-seine-Version-des-Absturzes-der-Boeing-uber-der-Ukraine-5073/

            How strange is that, him thinking Ukraine has been forging those?”

            How strange is that, you choosing for me what my favorite media has to be.

            >I think Schindler had a few too many Mint Julips.
            I refrain from drawing the same analogy as above.

            BTW: In an article published only in print, the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” – which is as unconditional pro-US as “Der Spiegel” – wrote that Schindler’s report to the parliament committee was only based on plausibility considerations.

          • There is some fuzzy stuff around the goose neck.
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wM3lVQTdxTWstM2s

            I would have to consult someone professional with motion JPEG/MPEG compression. As there the actual still frame is generated from the data of multiple frames. So original video data is mandatory before continuing. Ideally investigators must have knowledge of the compression SW code in use.

          • ” evidence the missile approached from ahead?”

            Try to make it short: IMO: BUK missile (by rebels) from south to MH17 is impossible because of separate several reasons, like proximity fuse function vs damage caused, shrapnell flight paths traced from cockpit debris + BUK M1 warhead shrapnel pattern.

            If missile was shot from shouth of the last recorded MH17 position, the weapon was not a BUK.

          • sotilaspassi:

            >There is some fuzzy stuff around the goose neck.

            In the linked pic you write:
            > “… at least there is something blocking the light behind the front of the BUK”

            That was my first thought too. But if there was something blocking the light such that the edge of the goose neck couldn’t cast a shadow, then it would be impossible for the edge of the goose neck itself to be illuminated, what it definitely is.

          • >Try to make it short: IMO: BUK missile (by rebels) from south to MH17 is impossible because of separate several reasons, like proximity fuse function vs damage caused, shrapnell flight paths traced from cockpit debris + BUK M1 warhead shrapnel pattern.

            There is a lot of propaganda fog around the homing algorithms, the proximity fuse and the shrapnel pattern of the BUK warhead. My assessment is not very different to yours. Everything west from Blahodatne and north of Tarany is hard to match with what appears to be known of the shrapnel traces and the shrapnel pattern. I’m looking forward to what the final DSB report has to say to this topic.

          • Trying to find the form for the front of the load on the lowloader… https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wV2xaWTJlRlduNDA

          • I should build BUK M1 from LEGOs and try what kind of shadow it generates when it’s on to of my son’s LEGO lowloader… 🙂

          • Ole, your right, not a perfect photo for shadow comparisons.
            This may be a little better.
            Sunlight comes nearer to perpendicular to the road, might be about the same elevation in the sky.
            Look at the pickup bed shadow.
            There is not clear definition between the shadow of the bed and the shadow of the cab, although they are clearly two different heights.
            We can see all the others, but why not that one?
            It all blends in and nothing can be seen as far as the difference in heights, but it is plainly there.

            http://www.hotwoods.com/images/fueltanks/fueltankgi%203.jpg

            correction – our favorite Kremlin sponsored media.

            Sorry about that.
            Also, It was a October 19th report a year ago.
            I have yet to hear Schindler clarify what was faked specifically.
            Both satellite and photographic media produced by Ukraine is still standing, although many of the Kremlin defenders still try to claim they are not, they have stood up in many circles.
            He probably had questions about the blue roof and orange one and therefore thought something was fakes, I do not know.
            Probably many of the questions we have asked and continue to ask were concerns he had, but he did not call them outright fakes officially from what I have seen.
            I am sure if you can find something you will let me know.

            As the head of an agency he is responsible to those under him that present the evidence and as far as I know, not any of it has been throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
            Anyways, the vagueness of the articles among other things throws those ‘quotes’ of his into doubt.

            And the fact that it is that you said that Spiegel said that a source said that Gerhard Schindler said, leaves a lot of chances for spinning, loose interpretation, and actually changing what Gerhard Schindler actually said in a closed doors meeting.

            Gossip has a way of evolving, as we all know.
            Just like witness statements taken for an event that happened a year ago.

            I guess one other possibility as far as the goose neck to me, would be the possibility of netting hanging loosely that allows sun to shine through to the top of that goose neck, but also gives an overall shadow.
            Since it is a still of a video or multiple shots in sequence, maybe the camera did not have a long enough exposure to capture the netting shadow in a defined shape.
            Also the camera was in a moving car.
            I am not sure, I am not a photographer, but I think there could be a plausible explanation.

            Fare thee well

          • To: Ole // September 17, 2015 at 6:37 am

            > BTW: In an article published only in print, the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” – which is as unconditional pro-US as “Der Spiegel” – wrote that Schindler’s report to the parliament committee was only based on plausibility considerations.

            — Actually, that’s what I’ve been telling about.

            The Schindler’s report to the German parliament committee was all about the plausibilities only. However, one (or several) German MPs leaked it to Der Spiegel as if it was about some concrete evidence — which was wrong. So, generally speaking, all of the Spiegel report we were talking about was mostly unsubstantiated (though some parts of it may be true to a certain extent).

            And, again:

            > the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” – which is as unconditional pro-US as “Der Spiegel”

            — I can say nothing about the SZ but Der Spiegel has been overtly pro-Russian too many times. At least it began at the times of the Russian aggression against Georgia in 2008 when it published several pro-Russian — and faked — stories. It also happened several times at the beginnings of the recent Russian aggression against Ukraine. Maybe now it is changing its moods.

        • Sotilaspassi:

          You read the report twice you said, so you could find the tutorial at page 72 of the Kobs report.

          From you ¨Two photos and two videos¨ cannot be established it is a working BUK. IT could be a BUK seized from a raided UAF airbase allegedly broken, according to Ukrainian officials.

          It is really not hard to find out from all the existing evidence of the truck with low-loader the rebels used this combination to transport broken military equipment.

          Furthermore, the BUK misses a clear designation, maybe brushed away to paint it over, as the rebels were used to do with other equipment too. This would mean it was a
          *Ukrainian *BUK, for example the formentioned seized broken one.

          Don´t know what you are trying to do mentioning a flying BUK. Flight is common English to designate an escape.

          Of course, MH17 was shot. But dismissing all the fake evidence – there is no 17th July BUK trail, plume pic has been debunked – its really hard to pick a site regarding the fact maybe both parties had possession of a working BUK launch platform within shooting range.

          But the official line of reasoning according to the pro-Kiev party line suggests a scenario our famous Dutch writer Harry Mulish won an Academy Award with.

          His book is called ¨The Assualt¨ and portrays the events of a family blamed for the murder of a collaborator with the nazi´s. The reason why they were picked and cleansed from the earth? His body was found in front of their house…

          • Hector Reban:

            > the BUK misses a clear designation, maybe brushed away to paint it over, as the rebels were used to do with other equipment too. This would mean it was a *Ukrainian *BUK, for example the formentioned seized broken one.

            — Absolutely the same way, it would mean it was the *Russian ‘Buk’* illegally transported to the occupied part of Ukraine.

            > plume pic has been debunked

            — It has not, not in the least. It has been put into doubt, not more.

            In both those cases, both “anti-Ukrainian” and “pro-Ukrainian” versions remain, none of them has been absolutely dismissed in the social media and in the blogs like this one. And none of them has been 100 percent proven there. So the only thing we can do is quarrel here, hate one another — and wait for the official results of both Dutch/international investigations.

          • Hector Reban // September 19, 2015 at 12:06 pm //

            Prosto Tak:

            So you are saying we actually can NOT tell if this was an Ukrainian or Russian BUK or not? Well, in a trial you are really in trouble with your socalled evidence now.

            The plume has been debunked. The only thing we don´t know is what the white part of the trail, exactly fitting the non-related black smoke, could really be. Wait for the full report with other evidence due on hectorreban.wordpress.com this weekend. Then you will find more.

            The pro-Kiev strain of thought can be dismissed up to the possibility the rebels may have had a working BUK, of which only the Snizhne vid could give an account.

            Then again, the timeline on the 17th regarding this vid has been put in serious trouble after Micha Kobs suncalced it to 12:30-13:00 PM
            http://www.docdroid.net/BW42XSs/because-uw-said-so-part-3.pdf.html

            It means AP testimony fails. GirkinGirkin pic fails (actually made at 13:45 according to Micha, see this thread: https://twitter.com/KusakaArato/status/643712309836169216)

            It says, the timeline doesn´t add up which means the images that are not fake, probably stem from another day.

            So, we had the track-a-trail with firmly established guilt on that fateful day and now we have a situation in which both parties had possession of a weapon and opportunity.

            What does this say, you guess? The side that has lied and cheated the most is the least trustworthy in this case perhaps?

          • Hector Reban:

            > So you are saying we actually can NOT tell if this was an Ukrainian or Russian BUK or not? Well, in a trial you are really in trouble with your socalled evidence now.

            — Correct. WE cannot tell that. Actually, I’ll tell you one thing, you’ll tell me the opposite. But it’s not US (meaning ‘us,’ not the U.S.) who will go to court with OUR so-called evidence. Others will do it with evidence of much higher level of credibility. (However, I’m afraid you’ll not believe any evidence that would not fit in your personal universe.)

            > The plume has been debunked.

            — No, absolutely no. It has only been put into question. The analysis of the pictures was the reason for Dutch investigators to collect samples of earth at the spot the ‘Buk’ missile might had been launched, according exactly to those pictures.

            > The only thing we don´t know is what the white part of the trail, exactly fitting the non-related black smoke, could really be.

            — Actually, we don’t know the opposite: whether the black part was the smoke from the initial phase of the launch or if it was just a smoke from a mine nearby.

            By the way, don’t remember the picture of the smoke is by far not the only evidence that a missile was launched there. There is, at the least, the U.S. satellite evidence that was not shown to the idle public — but the U.S. had correctly shown the launch spot near Torez in the very first hours after the shooting.

            > the timeline on the 17th regarding this vid has been put in serious trouble after Micha Kobs suncalced it… It means AP testimony fails. GirkinGirkin pic fails

            So, if one amateur calculates something using an application created by another amateur (I found at least two different SunCalcs on the web made by a Ukrainian and by a German but none of them has been created by astronomers or under astronomers’ supervision, and Michael Kobs is not an astronomer as well) it would mean everything that not fits its results FAILS? No, it’s only in your personal imagination. And there surely exist other people who believe in such a version. However, this version is not in the least close to be generally accepted.

          • “The analysis of the pictures was the reason for Dutch investigators to collect samples of earth at the spot the ‘Buk’ missile might had been launched, according exactly to those pictures.”

            Question: can “samples of earth” prove in any conclusive way what type of weapon was launched at a particular spot? Can such samples say anything about WHEN exactly such a launch took place? There are quite numerous spots with scorched earth that could be a result of several different weapon systems in use. If the samples you are talking about will prove anything, remains to be seen. However, that brings me to the next issue:

            “There is, at the least, the U.S. satellite evidence that was not shown to the idle public — but the U.S. had correctly shown the launch spot near Torez in the very first hours after the shooting.”

            Indeed, John Kerry went as far as to say that (I’m paraphrasing) ‘we saw the launch, we saw the hit we saw the plane coming down’. Undoubtedly, the US had their satellites eyeing the area, and most likely it is correct that they managed to get a detailed view of the launch spot. Therefore, it is a complete mystery that they did not track the movements of the supposed BUK system that they alleged shot down the plane. The US has not made an update to their initial assessment just days after the downing of the plane. Since then, we have references to social media, poor pictures (not a single BUK image with an exif file – how convenient!) with unverifiable date and authenticity, which supposedly proves that the missile system went back home to mother Russia. Meanwhile, the evidence proving that such a missile system went FROM Russia into Ukraine is even more scarce than evidence implicating the rebels for the shootdown!

            Could anyone explain why the US did not appear to track the supposed ‘rebel BUK’ after the shootdown?

            I should add that the fact that there was a ‘missile launch’ from the ground in close proximity to the MH17 downing does not automatically mean that they were related. Missile launches were not infrequent, and it is possible that there were numerous missile launches in a short period of time – especially if indeed there were Ukrainian figher jets in the sky.

          • Hector,
            Here is a video with a large amount of dirt and dust kicked up at launch of a BUK missile.
            Multiple launches in fact.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnUtIn9Rh8

            Another possibility is a smoke grenade (military issue so very large) set off before the BUK turns on its radar to obscure it from tank buster aircraft in the region.

            DNR did not believe Ukraine was not sending out its tank busters and having no military flights on July 17th, so would have used this technique.
            It is a pretty common technique used in SAM deployment when aircraft are looking for SAM emplacements to go and hit.

            I am really surprised you and your buddy Max did not consider it in any of your conspiracy theory discussions or articles.

            Fare thee well

          • It seems some of my comments aren’t getting through at all. Any reason for that…?

          • Hector Reban // September 20, 2015 at 7:56 am //

            Prosto:

            That’s really the last line of defence the pro-Kiev side is always clinging too: there is evidence to support their claims, but it is located somewhere in the Great Unknown, “we”, simple folks, cannot grasp. And for sure the trolling people can’t with their tiny world vie (for which they should be ousted from this forum, as I understood from your really low stooped question to admin).

            Your assessment of the black smoke is flawed. The black smoke cannot be the origin of the white smoke nor be an early stage trail, within my universe of math hand physics that is, of course. All calculations corroborate that, also for other timeline related facts. See Kobs calculations in https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/the-trail-that-wasnt-a-launch-plume-a-reconstruction/

            If debunk means 100%, it is not debunked. But the people who still believe in this evidence should come up with some really serious proof to harmonize all inconsistencies. And in fact there is really not much room for that except very invoking an unusual and coincidental almost unnatural event.

            Which evidence supports the missile launch? Not the Zello conversations, which are suggestively interpreted to fit the designated field, see discussion via
            https://twitter.com/Jetagodi/status/645231339415949312

            The burnmarks in the field? We see not all plants have been torched, so it is not likely the field is set on fire by an all encompassing fire blast. One would suspect fire torches for as farmers were burning the fields right that period of time in a controlled way.

            I am no weapon expert, but would it be advisable for a BUK launching team to stay in a dry field when a launch would always set their vehicle on fire?

            The tracks in the field? Well, probably machines used by farmers, or heavy tanks, because it was near the frontline during one of the most intensive battles going on in that period of time.

            But if you want to verify something, you can use everything to your advantage.

            About dilletants, maybe you should assess the usage of the suncalc method by ukraine-at-war that way.

            Furthermore you use it as an argumentum ad hominem, because the sun shine won’t depend on competence, so if the calculation fits not the right way, you could easily show Kobs’ mistakes.

            BTW, how competent were the time calculations before and how did you assess that?

          • Hector Reban // September 20, 2015 at 8:08 am //

            Boggled:

            In case you still are not grasping it: I have involved myself in debunking a conspiracy theory, so your comment is really out of place (again). Maybe its advisable to look for alternatives than seeing Kremlin trolls behind every tree.

            You always seem to manage to come up with a nice ad-hoc theory when new evidence shows your story is in trouble. My experience in science is this is almost always a sign the theory is flawed at its core.

            So now the rebels first ignited a anti- tankbuster smoke bomb when they were under serious distress in their short timeframe?

            Well, its a theory that doesn’t reject the dogma that a Russian BUK ordered straight from the Kremlin did it, so I understand its attraction.

          • Hector, all your doing is trying to debunk a theory which is the most likely one with the available evidence we have.
            Your not debunking a Conspiracy theory.

            MoD got caught lying over and over again, you presented it as facts to attempt to debunk the current theory.
            You presented and promoted other lies, and have been caught in that, and failed to re examine your debunking theory.
            Or retract them from your site.
            You try to force the equation and say the Smoke plume is debunked and over with, it is not.
            Those things make you look very seriously like a proKremlin agent, a troll well you can answer that to yourself when you look in the mirror.
            If it smells, walks, sings, talks like one then …

            The tactic I described with a smoke grenade is commonly practiced in the case of a missed SAM due to countermeasures of the aircraft or a multiple planes in the area, they cannot get a lock on the launcher.

            For over a year now the story has held up and you antiWest conspiracy agents have failed repeatedly to prove it conclusively wrong with the evidence the public has access to.
            What is going to happen when you are presented with ALL the other evidence?

            Do not get me wrong, I still have questions about some of the available evidence.
            And I feel I could not prove in court Russia or DNR did it, but that is the most likely scenario from the available evidence that I have seen.
            Is it possible the Ukrainian militias or it’s army itself did the knocking down?
            To me, yes, there is still that possibility with all I know.
            But there is little if any evidence provided so far that indicates that.

            With your’s and the Kremlin’s repeated failures and lying, as an investigator I would say that says a lot.
            Add to that the blocking of a Tribunal in a situation the RF proclaims it had no responsibility in, no passengers on, did not land on their territory, did not own the plane, has no legal claim to, etc.
            Add to that just after the Kremlin had access to the DSB report, and you Conspiracy theorists and Kremlin trolls have a dramatically increased presence on comment boards relating to MH17.
            It all says your stories are deeply flawed at their core and heavily in danger of failure.

            Fare thee well

          • Prosto Tak:

            > The analysis of the pictures was the reason for Dutch investigators to collect samples of earth at the spot the ‘Buk’ missile might had been launched, according exactly to those pictures.

            What makes you think the analysis of the picture was the reason to collect soil samples?

            The fact that almost one year passed, before the samples were collected IMHO is an indicator that this action was not caused by results of the investigators but by political pressure exerted by one partner in the JIT.

          • Boggled, it is really funny to hear such thing from Bellingcat sect “MoD got caught lying over and over again”. Your pastor Higgins was exposed as a fraud so often that there is no more place to add branding on him. Attack on Russian MOD by Bellingcat was 80% based on discredited attempt of SBU ON July 29. How come Bellingcat forgot to acknowledge the source? Famous screw up with error analysis of satellite photos was peculiar not only due to wrong use of the tool but also the limited application of the same tool by Bellingcat. If they trusted that approach so much why wouldn’t they use it on other controversial photos, like Paris-Match. Try it and you will be surprised with the result on the BUK. Really, try it. To me the fact that Bellingcat didn’t do this obvious step is the perfect demonstrator of their “independent investigation”.
            What else did we have from MOD? Dissipating BUK on 17 July photo. Many people projected that BUK was photoshoped away, while no such evidence exists. All that Bellingcat sect had was suspicious cloud (due to misunderstanding of error analysis tool) and question regarding the date. However, BUK and another 4 support vehicles diapered from the base on that particular date, whatever date it was. If we use vegetation as reference Ukrs managed to return BUK to exactly the same position after it was taken out. Or most likely same BUK is copy pasted into Google earth images.
            Then we had SU25. Russian troll army was blamed for attempts to modify wiki pages and place operational ceiling on SU25 at 10 km. How many times this was mentioned in media? What a surprise it should be that Ukraine itself was advertising proudly their modified Su25M1 in 2012 that has enhanced operational ceiling at 10km. So it seems that wiki was changed but in opposite direction. But why isn’t media reporting it? Joking, I know why.
            Then there is a radar video that Bellingcat sect and their associates use to prove that radar signal is just debris from MH17. What they forget is the whole presentation. Where it was clearly stated that SU25 was detected gaining hight before MH17 was struck. And their slide directly showsbthe time when SU25 was first detected by military radars. On July 21 black box is still not recovered to provide exact timing of the hit. But Russian MOD data shows that SU25 started to gain hight at 17:19. One minute before hit. You had to be very focused to miss it.

          • Hector Reban // September 21, 2015 at 7:06 am //

            In fact if we would apply the standard you provided here (if it walks and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck), we could easily come to the conclusion you are projecting. The only thing you seem to do is providing back-up for the official story, against all facts, flooding the net on the bellingcat site and now here, in the meantime smearing people. Are you a NATO troll commissioned to discredit dissidents?

            Because your whole rant obviously comes down to a long argumentum ad hominem without giving any back-up, I would advise you to convey some content with your accusations you are repeating all over the place on a regulary basis.

            Furthermore you discredit leads or evidence based on dogma alone. If it comes from the Russians, it is false by all means. Of course thats politically really convenient, but in logic and science we judge evidence by its merits and not by its source.

            Second, as you seem to portray the Russians as some evil entity, your guilty-by-association fallacy shows all the more clearly you only are very busy with discrediting instead of reasoning.

            The disgnation ”lies” says a lot in this respect. In your universe and that of other Bcat/SBU Believers, someone with another opinion is a heretic who is always deliberately misleading and in that way an instrument of the devil. This is called demonization.

            So, show us your merchandise that fit the standards admin is demanding here for his MH17 log. What are the lies? Why are they lies? And what Kremlin lies am I propelling?

            Or for ever hold your peace.

          • Hector Reban // September 20, 2015 at 7:56 am //

            > Your assessment of the black smoke is flawed. The black smoke cannot be the origin of the white smoke nor be an early stage trail,

            –Well, it’s not my assessment, I only quoted what I have read. Basically, there used to be a theory describing the black smoke as the result of some initial phase of the launch (either the smoke from a booster of some kind or just dust, or whatever). However, other version appeared later that the black smoke was almost always there originating from a mine nearby. In this case, you too say the black smoke is unrelated to the launch. So, the situation has just become clearer and we have to think about some “black smoke” no more, that’s all.

            > BTW, how competent were the time calculations before and how did you assess that?

            — I am not competent at that so I don’t even try to assess them at all. For me, all such calculations, yours as well, have the same value: as a theory that is both not proven and not debunked.

            Ole // September 20, 2015 at 7:03 pm //

            > What makes you think the analysis of the picture was the reason to collect soil samples?

            — The only thing: the investigators were themselves pictured at least at one of the two spots (500 meters away) geolocated as most likely launch spots by analyzing this picture. Maybe in reality the investigators had other evidence that led them to the same place, not analyzing the picture.

            > The fact that almost one year passed, before the samples were collected IMHO is an indicator that this action was not caused by results of the investigators but by political pressure exerted by one partner in the JIT.

            — Surely, and we know the name of the partner: it’s Russia. Ukraine as a participant of the investigation that claimed the Russian guilt from the very beginning was very much eager to have the investigators search the place. However, it’s not Ukraine that controls people who now occupy the territoty in question.

            Antidyatel // September 21, 2015 at 12:39 am //

            (though it is not addressed to me)

            > However, BUK and another 4 support vehicles diapered from the base on that particular date, whatever date it was. If we use vegetation as reference Ukrs managed to return BUK to exactly the same position after it was taken out.

            — Actually, the ‘Buk’ only “disappeared” at the Russian pictures taken much earlier, if we use vegetation as reference (and we cannot but use it, it’s so obvious). So, whatever date it was, it was not July 17 but several weeks or months earlier. And, on a satellite picture of the Ukrainian A1428 base taken on the day of July 17, 2014 the ‘Buk’ was still stationary there.

            > What a surprise it should be that Ukraine itself was advertising proudly their modified Su25M1 in 2012 that has enhanced operational ceiling at 10km.

            — You must have misunderstood something. The Ukraine only modified some navigation and targeting equipment leaving the same airframe and engines. So, the flight performance remained absolutely the same: the absolute ceiling of 7 000 m and the service ceiling of 5 000 m (though they say the plane, both original and the modified, is capable of a short “jump” up to 10 or even 11 km). And that’s what Ukraine too said about the modification.

            > Where it was clearly stated that SU25 was detected gaining hight before MH17 was struck

            — However, no evidence of that exists except for the Russian claims.

            Hector Reban // September 21, 2015 at 7:06 am //

            > The only thing you seem to do is providing back-up for the official story, against all facts,

            — I don’t know who it’s addressed to but I could as eagerly say: The only thing you, Hector, seem to do is providing back-up for stories contradicting the “official” one, against all facts (though there’s no single “official story,” just some theories that are not “official” but generally thought to be most plausible).

  7. “Spamming” some material that someone might find interesting vs 15Jul:
    http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/25/snizhne-mh17-and-rebel-held-territory/

      • You should really stay on top. The timeline has been breached by a new suncalc performance done by Michale Kobs and Japanese tweeter Aroto.

        The lone BUK vid stems from a time at about 12:30-13:00.

        AP saw allegedly a BUK at 13:05 in Snizhne, at least they mentioned it AFTER the crash, at 17:51 local time. GirkinGirkin photographed it at about 13:15 in Karapetyan street, coincidentally the same spot from where AP´s Peter Leonard witness allegedly saw the offloaded BUK.

        I already asked Peter Leonard of AP to comment:
        https://twitter.com/Jetagodi/status/644069403772985344

        • Please ask him also why didn’t he AT LEAST take a picture of the tracks left by BUK. He described it so vividly in his obviously fake account of events

          • The reason is clearly stated in the AP report:

            “A man wearing unfamiliar fatigues, speaking with a distinctive Russian accent, checked to make sure they weren’t filming.”

            And you can be sure there were other Russian/separatist people there closely looking after the Western (and thus “enemy”) reporters there.

          • Prosto Tak:

            There are AP photos of the Oplot tanks fueling up at the Lexus gas station on 7/17, so they must not have been prevented from taking pictures of everything. Hard to believe they had a minder shadowing their every move. I doubt DNR had people to spare to accompany every journalist in Donbass. There is no evidence the AP journalist was a “foreigner” either – they were likely a Russian from either Ukraine or Russia.

          • Hector Reban // September 18, 2015 at 8:53 am //

            It was stated the crew – from the BUK itself or from the two accompanying cars? – made sure there were no photos taken.

            Really convenient there is not 1 piece of visual evidence backing-up the post-factum “sightings”.

          • Hector Reban // September 19, 2015 at 12:11 pm //

            Weel, like all the others involved in the disseminations of the standard story, he won´t answer. But thanks for the tip! 🙂

          • Well, like all other involved in the dissemination of the artificially biased story, you won’t accept the obvious reasoning: having armed people just made sure you hadn’t done any pictures of anything connected with the ‘Buk’ you’ll hardly still do any more pictures even when those armed people are not in sight (because others are).

            Actually, WE don’t have much “evidence” either. All that WE (both you and me as well) have is just indications that can be interpreted in differing ways. As to the evidence, they’ll see it in the court.

          • Hector Reban // September 20, 2015 at 8:32 am //

            Prosto:

            What is the “artificial biased story” you are referring to? I am obviously only doubting the official story (though I have my own suspicions about the matter). Is it really necessary to smear people to make your point?

            I see clearly this “obvious reasoning”, and I distrust it. It seems to suffer from the same irrationalities “we” can detect in your reasoning too: It always boiles down to evil intent of The Others. This is of course a basic logical fallacy.

            In this case there is no triangulating evidence supporting this conspiracy every man in Donbass has complicity in. Many convoys have been recorded on film, only the BUK movement hasn’t (at leats, not from supporters).

            Now dogmatic thinking provides an answer: its not due to the non-existence of the movement altogether, no, all the people along the 800 km 17th july transport route must be accomplices in surpressing evidence.

          • Hector:

            I have not accused anyone of anything personally, not you as well. I do believe you do sincerely believe in what you state. However, please don’t claim that your beliefs are the absolute truth, as I don’t say about mine.

            Sorry, now I’ll be taking four days off the web 🙂

  8. The sister of the pilot said the following:

    “They showed me the pictures on the camera. It was full length picture and he wasn’t damaged, just slightly burnt. I was able to identify him. The person who cleaned the bodies told us our brother’s body was in the best condition with nothing missing.”

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14117

    Isn’t it somewhat surprising that he “wasn’t damaged” as she claims? With the amount of shrapnel that would come from a BUK missile (thousands of pieces), doesn’t this appear a bit odd? How is it at all possible that the investigation hasn’t yet firmly established what brought the plane down?

    • The pilot was off duty? Chair was destroyed by blast and shrapnel.
      IIRC there was two pilots and two co-pilots.

    • “wasn’t damaged”
      1) the why did he die?
      2) most likely he was cleaned for the photo for relatives
      3) co-pilot chair was destroyed by explosion, so the pilot has holes in his body
      4) in long flights there are two pilots and two co-pilots
      5) perhaps that pilot was off duty at the crew rest bunks little further behind of forward fuselage

  9. In their attack on Russian MOD satellite photo Bellingcat sect focused on vegetation and clouds.
    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/12/july-17-imagery-mod-comparison/
    Some on these pages extrapolated that BUK was photoshoped away (no prove of that so far). However there are also 4 support vehicles at the bottom of the paved square that dissappeared. Are they photoshoped away also? I doubt that this theory holds water. Thus Buk did moved out at some point. But Ukrs claimed that Buk was damaged beyond repair. I think this issue is discarded too early

    • FYI: those RU MOD clouds were there to hide the other revealing matters around the military base. From what I observed about that military base, the broken BUK has been on the same spot during whole summer of 2014, except when RU MOD edited it away.

      RU managed to show a good radar video. All the rest are proven lies.

      • So what exactly were they covering, in your opinion?
        Why did they “edited away” another 4 vehicles?

      • soltilspassi:

        “the broken BUK has been on the same spot during whole summer of 2014, except when RU MOD edited it away”

        The launch shoe was rotated at least twice. On April 28, it is at 90 degrees to the body. On June 19 it is at 40 degrees to the body. On July 27 it is at 50 degrees to the body. Three other BUK’s in the motor pool area move between May 30 and July 2. So there is nothing to say that the same BUK sat there the whole time or that it was broken in July. Furthermore, other vehicles clearly come and go from the base during the summer since there was direct road access to the Ukrainian forces near Optyne. There is a just a ground picture maybe from September 2014 from after the attacks on the base in late July/early August showing it damaged. The damaged parts are not visible on the ground in the space imagery and there is no picture to prove it was damaged during early July.

        However, we know this BUK was probably not driven into the kill zone by Ukraine. If it went anywhere, it drove on its own power via Optyne to a position north of Avdeevka. I think the reason Russia highlighted it was as a subtle message because the other BUK units from this base were the ones deployed to Styla, Gruzko-Zoryanske, and Zaroshchenske.

        • Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins issued a tweet in which he says Terraserver shows the BUK hadn”t moved for over a year;

          https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/644884272407572480

          Obviously this is the “the only way to connect to go from A to B is by a straight line” fallacy.

          If they would show a weekly images of 11:00 local time of the empty car space of an average employee, Bcat could conclude you weren’t at home the whole year (whereas in fact you were at work every day at 11).

          Guess he missed the rotation of the launching shoe as well.

  10. To Prosto Tak:
    Just read for yourself before talking about operational ceiling of Su25M1. It is not difficult
    http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html

  11. To Prosto Tak:
    Operational ceiling of Su25M1 http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html

    • Wrong. Why do you quote a marginal Greek site named after the Kremlin red stars to show the data for a Russian/Ukrainian plane?

      In fact, both the original Su-25 and its Ukrainian modification to Su-25M1 have absolutely the same flight performance: the absolute ceiling (where it still can steadily fly) of 7 000 m and the service ceiling (where its battle armaments can still be used) of 5 000 m. Ukraine only modified some navigation and targeting equipment leaving the same airframe and engines.

      You can read that the plane, both original and the modified, is capable of a short “jump” up to 10 or even 11 km. However, it could do that under very special conditions, with no armaments only and with little fuel in its tanks, and it’s not stable flying, just a “jump” to set up a record.

      Actually, that’s what Ukraine said of its modification back in 2010 when it “had no need to falsify”: “Maximum height of flight is 7,000 meters” http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/ukrainian_army_adopts_two_aircrafts_182074

      Which fully corresponds with the data provided by the plane manufacturer, the Sukhoi Holding: “Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km – 7” http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

      • Right. Do I need to translate to you the following
        Практична стеля — 7000-10000 м.
        http://www.mil.gov.ua/ministry/ozbroennya-ta-texnika/povitryani-sili.html
        They even say
        на висоті 8000 м — 870 км/год.
        How is it for “absolute ceiling at 7000 m”
        It is getting tiring to argue with children.

        Of course Sukhoi will talk about 7000 m ceiling. This is the spec of their plane. Su25M1 is purely Ukrainian modernization without collaboration with Sukhoi. Sukhoi has enough planes to cover 10000m ceiling. No need to do rubbish modernization, which doesn’t give any benefit. But it does give opportunity to shoot down passenger planes

        • I have not seen any document of changes to SU25 that would make it fly better at 10km than vanilla SU25?
          What are the changes? Did they switch to ukrainian engine?

          Perhaps it is just a change on paper. Because also Babak said, SU25 can fly at 10km, when empty & useless.’

          “But it does give opportunity to shoot down passenger planes”
          7km is without external ordinance. So 10km is also with just the gun?
          And SU25 must be waiting for the BOEING777 flight path to have the change to hit with one or two bullets.

          Also I can shoot at passenger plane 10km above my head. But I do not manage hit it.

        • I have not seen any document of changes to SU25 that would make it fly better at 10km than vanilla SU25.
          What are the changes? Did they switch to ukrainian engine?

          Perhaps it is just a change on paper. Because also Babak said, SU25 can fly at 10km, when empty & useless.

          “But it does give opportunity to shoot down passenger planes”
          7km is without external ordinance. So 10km is also with just the gun?
          And SU25 must be waiting for the faster BOEING777 on it’s flight path to have one time chance to hit with one or two bullets.

          • soltilpassi:

            I’ve seen you tube videos showing the altimeter of the SU-25 flying at 8700 m, and not for a short jump. I don’t know why this is a debate.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoO9ZdeVvp8

            The Python 5 Missile that has been suggested as a weapon has a 20 km range while the Python Derby has a 50 km range and a 23 kg warhead. The SU-25 (or another plane) wouldn’t need to “intercept” MH17, climb to 10 km or anything else, it would just need to be in the general area and point the missile somewhat towards the plane.

            The R-73 missile the SU-25 can carry also has a 20-40 km range. And if it wasn’t an SU-25, there is also the R-27 missile used by the MIG-29 and SU-27 which has a 39 kg warhead and a range of 70 to 130 km.

            I don’t understand the fixation people have on making a plane climb to the same altitude as MH17 and actually be in the immediate proximity. Obviously, these missiles are meant for long range use. In fact, the entire story is much more plausible if the airman is commanded to fire on a target he has not yet seen and thus doesn’t know is civilian.

          • I have seen video of SU25 flying at 10km.
            (no external ordinance, slower than B777 etc.)

            But so far I have not found any Ukraine Air-force weapon that could do the damage what we see on MH17 cockpit. (they are too small and/or IR guided and have too short range to be fired without being seen on radar)

            (I know RU might have suitable air-force weapon, but so far BUK seems a lot more realistic.)

        • So what? When Ukraine claims something you don’t like you accuse them of lying. But when Ukraine brags of impossible things which happen to fit your personal Universe on paper you now say they are delivering the only truth.

          In reality, what you’ve just quoted is what the Ukrainians claim about their OLD Su-25s, not even modernized. How can their planes back from the 1980s fly better than brand new and modernized ones made by the original Russian manufacturer?

          I gave the link to Sukhoi’s site above here. And now, go to your favorite Greek Red Star site and look for the flight performance of the original old Su-25, not of the Ukrainian-modernized Su-25M1. You’ll see the same lie — they state: “Service ceiling, m – 7.000-10.000” which clearly contradicts the manufacturer’s data.

          Sure Ukraine wanted to look better than they were even before the conflict.

          However, the only thing they’ve modernized in the Su-25M1 version is some avionics, namely some navigation and targeting equipment. No changes have been made either to the airframe or to the engines — the same original Soviet/Russian-made engines of the 1980s that Ukraine doesn’t make and only has to overhaul.

          • It was in reply to: Antidyatel // September 24, 2015 at 4:17 pm //

          • So we agree that Ukrainian MoD is a lier. Why are they so specific about speed at 8000 meters?

          • Yes, we agree that Ukr MoD may have lied in this (and maybe some other) particular cases back then in the 2000s, before they even got the first modified Su-25M1 to boast it on its site.

            On the other side, this statement, as well as the 8000 m speed claim, may be just a mistake: on the same page down there, read what they say about SAM S-300V1 — “Ammunition load – up to 1 missile” when we clearly see at least two (I think they are actually four) on a single vehicle in the picture (and there are several launch vehicles in each SAM battery or battalion). So, it looks like the page was created many years ago, and even the obvious mistakes have not been corrected since.

            We also agree Ukraine is not a junior school liar that would promptly change what it has written before — like Russia did when editing the Su-25 Wikipedia article from Kremlin-registered PCs to match it with the claims of their military. And don’t forget that Russian MoD lies about their own Su-25s have been debunked by the plane designers.

      • Then new article gave a peculiar link http://mediarnbo.org/2014/07/18/zvedeni-dani-iats-rnbou-na-12-00-18-lipnya/

        Let me quote using Google translate “Patrol Russian MiG-29 was carried out at an altitude of 8850 meters, and capture Ukrainian aircraft rocket armament MiG-29 was carried out at an altitude of 8250 meters. Distance between planes was 35-40 km.”

        How do we make piece with Prosto Tak who claims ” In fact, both the original Su-25 and its Ukrainian modification to Su-25M1 have absolutely the same flight performance: the absolute ceiling (where it still can steadily fly) of 7 000 m and the service ceiling (where its battle armaments can still be used) of 5 000 m. ”

        And of course all the wiki manipulation from State Department/SBU comes to light with so many colours

        • Where did you find any indication the Ukrainian Su-25 had been flying higher than at 5 km?

          And where did you find any “wiki manipulation from State Department/SBU” with a Su-25 article? While in fact the falsifications have been made from the Kremlin-registered IPs.

  12. “I don’t understand the fixation people have on making a plane climb to the same altitude as MH17 and actually be in the immediate proximity”
    reason being all UA AAMs are c-rod not large HE frag and to mimic the damage to MH17 they had to convince people a SU-25 was within cannon range to have any argument no matter how weak
    Python missile are alleged to be on Georgian only SU-25km Scorpion yet only official data say its similar to the Russian SU-25SM with R-60+R-73 both small c-rod
    R-27 still a c-rod which does not match damage either

  13. “I don’t understand the fixation people have on making a plane climb to the same altitude as MH17 and actually be in the immediate proximity”
    Ukraine AAMs are c-rod not large HE frag all claims to put a SU-25 in proximity is to justify a cannon strike to try and mimic the damage to MH17
    Python missiles are claimed on some forums to be on Georgian SU-25KM a claim not matched by official data that show R-60+R-73 very similar to Russian SU-25SM
    R-73,R-60,R-27 all c-rod not HE frag

  14. “What qualifies as official data? Does a report that Python 5 missiles were delivered to Georgia count?”
    no,Spyder is a ground based SAM
    and TAM the makers say SU-25KM armed with R-60+R-73 no mention of Python
    http://web.archive.org/web/20120217125332/http://www.tam.ge/scorpion.htm

    • + Python5 seems to be IR guided and only 11kg warhead.

      • Please no more comments on SU-25. That is a nonsense story. If you want to discuss SU-25 do it at nonsense tinfoil hat sites. All further references to SU-25 will be deleted!

        • Admin:

          “Please no more comments on SU-25. That is a nonsense story.”

          Okay, but do you agree that people in Torez reported fighter planes overhead at 2:58 pm on July 17 (see the thread “Sirens” on Overhead in Torez), and that eyewitnesses and the Militia and Russian MoD all think that there were fighter planes near MH17 at 4:15-4:30 pm? We also now have a Reuters interview of a rebel claiming they fired BUK missile at a fighter jet around 3:30-4:00 pm (that would be inconvenient, because then the three missile BUK on a sightseeing tour in Lugansk would have needed to load up an extra missile to also shootdown MH17).

          I think these are integral claims/facts to the story. No obviously an SU-25 did not shoot down MH17 with cannonfire and R-60’s, but that isn’t what is being discussed and no professional has ever suggested it. Please reconsider. We need to have an open discussion.

          • Andrew: I agree with you. No discussion on if a SU-25 shot down MH17. That is nonsense.
            I agree there are many eyewitness who saw one or more SU-25s flying near Snizhne. We can discuss this and their role.

          • Well admin, what do you say now that DSB says no planes, civilian or military, were withing 30km of MH17.

            What did these witnesses see?

            Do we need to organize MUFON to go over there?
            Andrew, you can chime in at any point also.

            Anyone else with comments about a SU25 witness?

            Fare thee well

          • DSB states it does not have primary radar from Ukraine civil and military ATC. For suspicious reasons they are not available. So how does DSB know there were no other planes in the area (at 2000 meters or lower)

          • Prosto Tak // October 16, 2015 at 9:53 am //

            Admin,

            Actually, much more suspicious for DSB was the fact that while Ukraine provided at least secondary data, Russia provided almost nothing.

            According to the investigation, while both countries did not provide primary radar data, both raw and processed, Ukraine did provide: secondary surveillance radar data — raw and processed, ADS-B data, and a “video film of radar screen showing processed secondary data.” The only thing that Russia provided was that video film which had a very little relevance by itself, without other data!

            DSB mentioned it specifically in the report:

            “10.4.5 Retention of ATC data

            “The Russian Federation did not comply in all aspects with the ICAO standard contained in paragraph 6.4.1 of Annex 11.”

            In a separate document, “MH17 — About the investigation,” DSB also stated:

            “From Ukraine the Dutch Safety Board only received the data from the secondary surveillance radar (raw and processed). In addition, Ukraine also provided a video replay of a radar screen from the processed secondary surveillance radar data.

            “During the second progress meeting in May 2015, the Russian accredited representative announced that the data from the primary and secondary surveillance radar were not available. The Russian Federation declared that it had not saved this information, because it was not obliged to do so since the crash had not taken place on Russian territory. In July 2014, the Russian Federation supplied a video recording of the processed primary and secondary radar data.”

  15. Andrew, I don’t belive that SU25 actually downed MH17. But I just give a propaganda example where used by MSM in blaming Kremlin army for twiking Wikipedia. It was allover the news. But based on Wikipedia rules, the two references provided by me clearly qualify the 10000 statement. Hence it was state department with Ukr mercenary who should be blamed for twiking. Also. Ukrainian military was very adamant that SU25 doesn’t go beyond 7000. Their own website even specifies the speed at 8000. The lie is so blatant, and that lie was used to ridicule Russian MOD. How is it that none of the “independent” journalists didn’t catch them on that?

    • There are few independent journalists, that is why.

    • So, now: “Rossiya” TV, one of the main Russian propaganda channels, confirms again: the absolute ceiling of a Su-25 is still 7000 m. Watch “Vesti,” the main daily news program, aired on October 1 at 8 pm Moscow time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxmjdC7givI&t=14m50s

      The Russian term used, “практический потолок,” corresponds to English “absolute ceiling,” i. e. where a plane can still fly and be effectively maneuvered.

      Or well, that’s what the Russian peace-keeper plane can do in Syria, and the Ukrainian fascist junta planes can do much more to selectively kill Russian-speaking children of the proud “Novorossiya” and the Malaysians?

      • Hector Reban // October 2, 2015 at 10:08 am // Reply

        Russian officials never said anything about SU-25 at 10 km height shooting down MH17, as I recall, but that there were a few in the vicinity. This has been confirmed by eyewitnesses.

        You are assuming the socalled service ceiling wiki was altered by someone associated to the russian state, which has not been established (again as I recall correctly).

        But if you can refute my recalls, please give the evidence!

        • Hector Reban // October 2, 2015 at 10:33 am // Reply

          Had a source it were journalists from VGTRK (Всероссийская государственная телевизионная и радиовещательная компания, Vserossiijskaija gosudarstvennaija televizionnaija i radioveshchatelnaija kompaniija), state-funded, who had altered the wiki.

          Could be, but thats doesn´t prove direct involvement down the chain of command of the Russian state.

          • Antidyatel // October 2, 2015 at 10:59 am //

            Hector, the key here is that 10,000 appeared after the Wikipedia story. It was sold to western public as another prove that Russians are hiding or tapering evidence. But according to wiki rules the presence of verifiable sources warrants the information to be placed on main page. Not only there are sources about 10,000, they are Ukrainian official sources.
            At the same time our friend here always refers to Russian sources. But Russian SU_25 doesn’t need to fly at 10,000. It is used for different purpose and Russia has enough planes that are more suitable for this altitude. While Ukraine is the one that declared before current conflict that they modified old planes to be operational ambrose heights.
            The bottom line is that wiki story is a perfect example public conditioning by western propaganda. If most westerners could think they would notice that it is not even the issue, as Russian MOD never blamed SU25 for the incident. It just stated that it was in the vicinity.
            But we see that result is achieved.

            Same for satellite images. Goggle doesn’t own satellites, they just publish data that they receive. The was a famous case of photoshoped forest on the golf course. But for MOD images we have Bellingcat sect using fotoforensics.com to find suspicious clouds. How quickly it morphed to “Russian MOD photoshoped Buk from the picture”? Funny how Bellingcat sect never tried fotoforensics.com on Paris-Match photo
            The propaganda machine is obvious but majority seems oblivious to it

          • Hector Reban // October 3, 2015 at 7:48 am //

            Antidyatel, that was my assessment too, even if in fact pro-russian people altered the page. Thanks for your extra info!

          • Prosto Tak // October 4, 2015 at 9:01 am //

            > While Ukraine is the one that declared before current conflict that they modified old planes to be operational ambrose heights.

            — It’s blatant l… well, not truth. Ukraine declared many times they hadn’t modified a slightest bit of the plane itself, i.e. the airframe or the engines. The only thing they did modify was part of the plane’s avionics: some navigation and targeting equipment. And the Ukrainian planes made back in the 1980s are sure to fly worse than modern Russian modifications — which still only do it up to 7 km unloaded and can effectively shoot and bomb from not more than 5 km.

          • Prosto Tak // October 4, 2015 at 8:16 pm //

            Well, if an IP used to falsify the data about Su-25 in the Wikipedia is tracked to the Kremlin that obviously proves it were the enemies of the Russian state who did that, not the Russian state itself: http://gawker.com/did-russian-officials-edit-wikipedia-to-back-up-a-bogus-1609071757

          • Antidyatel // October 5, 2015 at 12:40 am //

            http://www.federalbook.ru/files/Reestr/Company/OPK-7/O/8.pdf

            “Concern ” Sukhoi Attack Aircraft ” For the first
            vye aircraft Su- 25T , Su- 25TM was installed pressurized cabin that ensured flying at altitudes of up to 10000
            and to increase the range of combat employment”

            You just need to ensure hermeticity of the cabin. Not a hard task. Why would Ukrainian engineers fail to make this simple modification in order to stay competitive in the military hardware market. All your arguments a hollow. Modified Su-25 could reach 10000 m. Russian MOD just stated that fact. They also added that one can place AA rocket on the plane. That is also a fact. No conclusion was made that rocket was used. In comparison to “white elves” Russian MOD didn’t make any conclusion because they didn’t have enough data to make that conclusion on 21 July. In contrast exceptionals new what happened already in few hours of desaster. And till now they didn’t show any facts that could warrant such fast conclusion. Wikipedia should correctly show 10000 m ceiling for modified SU-25, based on facts. Hence, if there wad manipulation of wiki page it was from SBU/STATE DEPARTMENT side.
            Which still doesn’t mean that SU-25 downed MH17, BUT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT PLANE WAS THERE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSE. And I agree with Russian MOD request about that purpose. Particularly after such effort was made to conceal the fact that su-25 was there. Argument about the debris is pathetic, as Su-25 was detected 1 minute before MH17 was hit

          • antidyatel:

            Your tin-hat theories/propaganda should go to here: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/evidence-that-mh17-was-shot-down-by-an-aircraft/

            Or to here:
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-radar-does-not-show-any-ukraine-fighter-aircraft/

            There was no fighter jet above about 1500m and that is a undeniable FACT. RU MOD lied 100%.

          • Prosto Tak // October 5, 2015 at 9:15 am //

            Antidyatel, the problem is, there are no Su-25Ts in Ukraine. Actually, they say there are no active Su-25Ts in Russia as well now. The Ukrainian modification of their old planes from the 1980s has nothing to do with the cabin and with the flight performance, it only changed some navigation and targeting equipment.

            You also claim some “manipulation of wiki page it was from SBU/STATE DEPARTMENT side” while in fact the manipulation was made from the Kremlin-registered IPs.

            And, there is not a bit of evidence of a Su-25 flying anywhere close to MH17 — only empty claims.

          • Anti, please learn the differences between absolute, service, combat, and fully loaded and fueled ceiling.
            All different envelops a pilot needs to know when he is flying.

            With a minimum amount of armaments, it may have been able to climb to 10k after about 100km of flight.
            That would have been noticed by Rostov.
            It was NOT noticed any other radar signatures at that altitude of a plane following.

            The plane is at its limits of effective climb of 500 feet per minute at the service ceiling with no armaments at 7km and the rate of climb before stall decreases from there.

            Combat ceiling is 5km, afterwards the rate of climb and maneuvering becomes extremely hampered.
            So a SU25 could not climb anywhere close enough and fast enough to put its 30mm cannons on target.
            There was no SU25, it was a lie and a empty assumption by the Russian MoD.

            This image displays that you can also artificially inflate altitude measurements versus actual height

            https://www.americanflyers.net/aviationlibrary/pilots_handbook/images/chapter_6_img_7.jpg

            And as far as altimeter measurements, there are many different ones.
            http://caritates.eu/bob.atco/acad/Academy/academy.ivao.aero/files/aca/QFE.png

            I believe your measurement in the youtube video you posted was for the height that can be artificially set.
            I think it is called QFE.
            It can be set its zero level at mean sea level (MSL), the altitude level of the airport you took off at, the one your going to, or there is another standard measurement which is
            I forget, I think it has to do with a standard set in the UK, and below MSL.

            So you can climb to 10k, but you stall the engines if you pull back to far on the stick like pointing the nose up to attempt to shoot guns and lock on target.

            And at that height the airspeed drops dramatically too, and do not forget it is flying into a head wind which could give more lift but also create more drag.

            AS far as the T or TM model, Ukraine does not have them.

            As far as the M1, there is no structural or engine or pilot’s oxygen supply improvements that would increase the absolute ceiling (no weapons, sustained level flight) any higher, or the service (begins to drop below 500 feet per minute climb no weapons) or the combat ceilings (regularly loaded, no external fuel tanks, rate of climb drops below 500 feet per minute).

            Fully loaded, with fuel tanks and fuel and a few extra bombs or missiles, absolute ceiling is around combat ceiling or the 5 km mark.

            It is set up to attack ground targets mainly and very limited for air to air encounters.
            The M1 did improve that some for aerial battles, but still a MiG or a SU-27 or 24 would have a field day with it in a dogfight.
            It just improved targeting to be competitive with fighter helicopters and ground SAM vehicles.
            But like you say, no one here thinks a SU-25 is the culprit to MH17.
            BUKM1 or M1-2 is the most likely suspect.

            Fare thee well

        • “Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, purposed Su-25, moving upwards toward to the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between aircrafts was 3-5 kilometers.
          Su-25 can gain an altitude of 10000 meters for a short time. It is armed with air-to-air missile R-60 able to lock-on and destroy target at a distance of 12 kilometers, and destroy it definitely at a distance of 5 kilometers. What was the mission of the combat aircraft on the airway of civilian aircrafts almost at the same time and same altitude with the civilian craft?”
          Source: RU MOD http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76

          Jet eyewitness… none of them are credible + :

          Weather1:
          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJLV-UyW8AAzsOj.jpg
          Weather2:
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wTldXbVlVV1FpdW8/view?usp=sharing

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*