What you see is all there is: re-examining the Oplot, Buk and Vostok convoys on July 17th, 2014

extended guest blog by Arnold Greidanus

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
This report on the Buk route was published September 30th, 2015.
Revision of this report is due, following on a new article by Bellingcat’s Aric Toler about a sighting of the Buk in Donetsk as well as the publication of the Makiivka video.
Also in the past year I have reached new insights on several details.
Therefore this report will be revised. Yet, a date cannot be given currently as I am very busy.

September 6th, 2016
Arnold Greidanus
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

100 Comments on What you see is all there is: re-examining the Oplot, Buk and Vostok convoys on July 17th, 2014

  1. Arnold:

    Awesome work!

    днроевцы = днр оевцы = днр овцы =possibly= DNR sheep

    The “е” is a typo from other uses I have seen.

    For example: https://twitter.com/poggy_95/status/486085775210344448

    Новость дня : ДНРовцы в Моспино
    News of the day: DNR sheep in Mospino

    It is a mocking term for the Militia, just like the Militia’s use of “укров” = Ukrop = stolen/dill for their enemies.

  2. Arnold:

    The Ukrainian article you cite about a Russian MiG29 on July 16 merely “damaging” an SU-25 at 18:55pm is an out and out lie, not on your part, but on Ukraine’s.

    “Thanks skill Ukrainian pilot and completed missile maneuvers direct hit on the plane and its destruction was not. The missile hit the tailpipe, and the pilot made an emergency landing, as we reported.”

    This is only a tenable story if the “emergency landing” includes leaving the plane as a smoking heap of metal in the creek just east of Hyrhorivka south of Tarany. There are numerous immediate eyewitness accounts on VKontakte Novosti Snezhnogo of this downing, which include pictures of the smoke of the plane’s fuel load going up behind Saur Mogila.


    A zoomed in picture of this wreck was also taken by Pavel Aleynikov and published in Business Insider the next day.

  3. Arnold:

    The Ukrainian article you cite about a Russian MiG29 on July 16 merely “damaging” an SU-25 at 18:55pm is an out and out lie, not on your part, but on Ukraine’s.

    “Thanks skill Ukrainian pilot and completed missile maneuvers direct hit on the plane and its destruction was not. The missile hit the tailpipe, and the pilot made an emergency landing, as we reported.”

    This is only a tenable story if the “emergency landing” includes leaving the plane as a smoking heap of metal in the creek just east of Hyrhorivka south of Tarany. There are numerous immediate eyewitness accounts on VKontakte Novosti Snezhnogo of this downing, which include pictures of the smoke of the plane’s fuel load going up behind Saur Mogila.


    A zoomed in picture of this wreck was also taken by Pavel Aleynikov and published in Business Insider the next day.

  4. I haven’t read the entire thing yet, but this is impressive work, really. Possibly a recent Reuters report might be of some interest…?

    “A former rebel from the separatist Vostok battalion, who for security reasons asked to be identified only by his first name, Igor, told Reuters that a BUK battery was in Chervonyi Zhovten on July 17, and he himself was not far from the village.

    Igor said the battery’s mission was to discourage Ukrainian Su-25 ground attack jets from attacking separatist targets in the area. A BUK missile had been launched against the Ukrainian jets half an hour before the Malaysia Airlines Boeing came down, forcing the Ukrainian pilots to pull out, he said.”


    • Pianoman:

      “A BUK missile had been launched against the Ukrainian jets half an hour before the Malaysia Airlines Boeing came down, forcing the Ukrainian pilots to pull out”

      That at least sounds somewhat plausible.

      On “Overheard in Torez” in this discussion about air raid sirens from July 17 before the MH17 shootdown:


      The participants halfway through the discussion begin to talk about a military aircraft they can hear in the sky with an apparent time of 2:58 pm. The primary account of interest is Nikita Torezsky.

    • Pianoman:

      That testimony of the militiaman might also account for the two testimonies on Novosti Snezhnogo and also some fo he Reutersa witnesses of a BUK rocket being fired from Saur Mogila over the city of Snizhne, a flight path that is completely at odds with a shootdown of MH17 over Petropavlivka.

      This would then be an example of conflation by the witnesses – one event is blended together in their minds with another separate event. They remember seeing a missile launch and they also know of a plane crashing and they combine the two together.

  5. Antidyatel // October 1, 2015 at 12:53 am //

    Нету, это пишут местные в личку. Еще не хватало расстрела за фотки.
    Nope, it’s written in the local P[ersonal]M[essages]. Shooting pictures still lacks.”

    Last sentence translation should be: “last thing I need is to be shot for photos”
    Very different meaning. 😉

    Continue reading

  6. Antidyatel // October 1, 2015 at 1:00 am //

    было же фото танка с белым флагом в Донецке. Террористы
    It was the same picture of the tank with a white flag in Donetsk. Terrorists”

    Not critical but slightly different translation should be
    “but there was a photo with white flag in Donetsk ”
    [поднялся дикий ор ?] – the wild roar started

    [ Spakuha?]. – Be cool or don’t panic

  7. Antidyatel // October 1, 2015 at 1:11 am //

    “Не смерч. 1. База гуся. 2. Нет длин пусков труб.”
    Визуально это очень похоже на БУК. Только ракет прицепленных не было” #Стоптеррор
    Donetsk: “It is not a Smerch. 1. Base [is like that of] Goose.”

    It was not talking about Goose. What he means is that the base is crawler-transporter. Smerch is wheels based vehicle, so cannot be

    • Goose is also what the TOS-1 has been nicknamed.
      Or Buratino for its shape or Pinocchio.
      TOS-1 were described being used around that time.
      Very rare, less then 50, only and Russia and 3 other countries have them.

      Fare thee well

  8. This seems somehow contradicting: on the 19th he doesn’t know whether there are any photographs, one year later – speaking of that afternoon – he states people did photograph the launcher, but didn’t dare to upload them. Memory fail?

    What is wrong with protecting the witnesses?
    Witness protection is a big part of tyhe Justice system, and that is why a lot of info is not released until trial and when the perp is in jail and cannot harm the innocent, or they have had time to move away.

    Who are you to demand a pre release of images before the investigation is concluded and people are brought to jail?
    Are you attempting to help the guilty get off on a technicality of them not being able to get a fair hearing?
    Trying to force them to compromise an investigation and put peoples lives in jail?

    I am really surprised you posted this hash up admin.
    It does give a lot of info, but so does your site itself.
    This just takes away from conclusions made here and I I think and takes us ten steps backward.
    They just keep rehashing old arguments and restating them which in my opinion they failed at before.

    If this is the best they have to offer at the trial, I can imagine the failures in new non released evidence that is offered through JIT.
    The JIT and UN and Hague are going to have an easy time of it.

    A few things you do not consider in the PM images.
    The poles with the trolley lines follow the shoulder and are equidistant from the curb, not equidistant from the center line or the white line.

    The tires on the truck are larger in the front then they are in the rear, so the center hub is higher on the front tire then the others.

    The gooseneck can change the pitch of the trailer.
    The same way having a drop hitch to make a trailer your pulling level.
    They have different heights to adjust the ball.

    The trailer is not parallel to the ground, not adjusted right in the PM images.

    The sign is about the closest thing that is, because the driver adjusted the air shocks in the truck to make the truck itself as level as could be.

    And finally, the BUK is not correctly loaded to be level.
    That can be adjusted in the BUK as well as blocks under the BUK to raise or lower it for transport.

    As can be seen in these images as well.
    Buk loaded on the trailer as almost correctly as can be –

    One image of BUK loaded correctly and another incorrectly that is the identical to PM images.

    Another loading identical to PM images –

    I believe this BUK is loaded backwards, because the tank tracks end where they do, or the turret is spun around.

    And a BUK loaded correctly.

    And finally a demonstration of how a BUK can be not level by itself in how it sits on the ground.

    Nice try guys, but another fail in the long list if frequent comment makers here and twitter and elsewhere.
    But thank you for putting all this together Mr. Greidanus and admin, it makes some connections I did not see before, and much of what you posted confirms some conclusion and threw out a couple other assumptions I had in the wishy washy file.
    Definitely a lot of work and well written and researched, no matter how wrong I think Mr. Greidanus et al conclusions are.
    Gives a little to much credence to some articles statements, I think, and does not allow for being human and mistake human witnesses make and human error in intelligence gathering and sharing.

    And definitely wrong for demanding witnesses who took images to release more and endanger their lives before the trial and before they can get away from certain FSB influence as well as tainting the trial with too much evidence in the public sphere as much as we would all like to know, we need to wait until trial.

    Fare thee well

    • Boggled:

      “The trailer is not parallel to the ground, not adjusted right in the PM images.”

      The line of the trailer is clearly visible in the pictures over the windshield wiper of the war, and yes it is parallel to the ground.

      • It is clear from the other images, except for the video from Luhansk which is after it has been reloaded during the day as opposed to when it crossed the border and was loaded in the middle of the night, that the BUK is not in the earlier time frame images.

        You guys in your perspective point to attempt to prove the point of perspective if in 3D space:
        1) The trolley lines were parallel to the center line
        2) Buk was parallel to the white lines AND level on the trailer.
        3) The BUK did not weigh many tons with the missiles added weight (2800 KG or 6172 lbs with just those alone at the top) and would alter the other levels.
        4) The turret is in locked position and completely square
        5)The tires of the semi hauler were all the same size and have the same center point.
        6) The skirt of the crawler treads were all level
        7) just because the lower of the tank treads are sitting on a trailer and level, it does not mean the rest of the straight lines on the BUK above those lower tank treads are also level.
        As indicated by previously photos of various BUKs.
        You can search Google for others, and you will see it is not always the case.
        Yes, sometimes all lines are parallel to the ground, but other times it is not.

        Clearly they can be level on a trailer from other images I linked to, but from the photos of the BUK BEFORE it was offloaded around Snizhne, it was not level on the trailer.
        And they match up with the PM photo exactly in 3d space of how the BUK was sitting on the trailer.

        IF a average level college student can pick apart that part of your assumptions or manufactured truths, imagine what a real forensics team who is really trained in analysis and observation can do.

        Fare thee well

      • Look at this trailer and attempt to do your same analysis with the top tank treads and the skirt above it.
        It clearly does not work.

        Just like that, as seen in the Zuhres, Snizhne and PM, the BUKs top treads and the rest of the BUK are not level on the trailer.
        IF you did your perspective point assumption on the Snizhne image, you would find it fails also.

        Fare thee well

        • boggled:

          “just because the lower of the tank treads are sitting on a trailer”

          But they aren’t, and any person can see it right away if they just look at the support wheels of the BUK (which are very visible and round) and compare it to where the trailer is and thus where the tracks need to be but aren’t.

          “Look at this trailer”

          The tracks are clearly visible and seen on the trailer. There is no comparison.

  9. Antidyatel // October 1, 2015 at 2:37 am //

    Why did Paris-Match thought that photo was taken in Snijne. Because whoever sent them that photo, labeled it to be from Snijne https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg

  10. Arnold:

    Regarding the @GirkinGirkin photo of the BUK on Karapetyan Street, an alternative explanation is that the photo is from July 15 or 16, as a quick look at a map reveals Karapetyan Street is a decidedly inconvenient way through the city.

    On July 15, the Ukrainian Air Force bombed residential housing on Lenin Street one block north, a catastrophe which closed the street due to rubble and the rescue effort. On July 16, the street remained closed because an unexploded munition from the air raid remained in the street and had to be defused by the Militia. The closure of the street would partly explain the heavy use of the pedestrian alleyway and Karapetyan Street as an alternate way through town. The top side of this pedestrian alleyway is seen in the photo you publish off Twitter of the Separatists riding an APC with a bright blue sky behind them.

    There is certainly nothing certain about the date of that photo, just like there is little certain about the Snizhne video.

    One other thing I think is possible is that the BUK in the video was heading towards the 2nd or 4th Mine, and not to the field marked out by Bellingcat. On Novosti Snezhnogo, the local residents speak of air defense systems being in place on the 2nd, 4th, 10th, and 18th Mines near Pobeda and in Removka south of town, the center of town, and north of town north of the Khimmash plant respectively. The systems are stated to fire rockets (which could be the systems Tunguska, Strela, or BUK) and heavy machine guns (which could be the systems Shilka and Tunguska). If I am reading it correctly, the system on the 2nd Mine was said by the account Derkachev Dmitry to have shot down a plane in the direction of near Marynivka around 3:30 pm, which was the second of the day for Snizhne:


    That is a distance of around 10 km. However, possibly I am misreading what he is saying and he is giving his position and witnessing fire from an installation at another location like Mine 4. Then it seems the distance grows while the list of possible machines and rockets shrinks down to a BUK.

    • “local residents speak of air defense systems being in place on the 2nd, 4th, 10th, and 18th Mines…”

      Would they match better or even worse with the smoke plume photo?
      Anyone put those mines to a map for lazybones to find? Or put online the coordinates of those mines?

      • High ground like this could also serve as option to place the BUK on: 48.0126513,38.7213637 or this 48.0090132, 38.7419954 or this 47.9916886, 38.7410016 ?
        ((I would never ever launch SAM from a dry field. The launcher burns with the field when I try to launch another missile if the first one missed.))

        • And one more: 47.9929966, 38.7737954
          This is close the path BUK was seen driving.

          • sotilspassi:

            You have to remember what the rebels were doing with their air-defense assets. Prior to July 15, they were deployed to protect the rebel artillery positions on Saur Mogila and in nearby Stepanovka, which were under constant attack. At that time, they were likely very near Saur Mogila and perhaps north near Mine 2.

            On July 15, Ukraine conducted its terror attack on the center of Snizhne and then dramatically increased the tempo of sorties, sending the local population into an uproar and panic. Additional air defense assets were brought to Snizhne and it is likely the emplacements in the city on the 4th, 10th, and 18th Mines date from this period. These were located to provide slightly overlapping coverage of the 5 km range of STRELA-10, Tunguska, or Shilka systems over the entire city.

          • Andrew: TELAR is a poor tool against low flying ground attack aircraft.
            But it (or pantsir) is minimum requirement against high altitude supply flights.

  11. Antidyatel // October 1, 2015 at 5:46 am //

    Missed few incorrect translations but they are not critical. These two totally change meaning

    “#снежное фото не ложу.запалю осведомителей. Torez to #Snizhne. photos do not box. I will activate a whistleblower”

    The actual meaning is that he will not post photos, so that whistleblowers are not identified. Also pay attention to plural “whistleblowers”

    “Я на цп видела 3 танка
    I saw centrifugal machine gun unit (CPU) 3 tanks”
    ЦП is likely Центральня Площадь, meaning central square

  12. A lot to read. Thanks!

    “Most likely these images were photoshopped, since the perspective lines of the trailer do not match the lines of the BUK it is supposed to be carrying:”

    IMO: the perspective lines are identical to the other ones (other rebel BUK transports) from the same day. To me it seems BUK suspension has given away when tightened to the lowloader, I saw similar tightenings of BUK elsewhere. In “18Jul” image the tightening seems to have been done to the other direction.

    But anyway. PM photos are too distorted to be easily analyzed. And as long as PM does not give any more info, those images can not be taken 100% seriously.

    If photos are proven fake, SBU credibility in my eyes, in faking, rise from 0. So far they have not even been able to differentiate their own HW from the enemy. 😀

  13. And I do not understand the yellow lines here:
    As shown in pink the shadow of the tank is ok?

  14. Hector Reban // October 1, 2015 at 8:56 am //

    Its along read which exposes many details and will be a great log for future readers. But imho it gives no new insights. All conclusions stated in the first part were already drawn by others.

    Furthermore Arnold mistakenly times the euromaidan facebook posting in which is said ; In Torez in the direction of Snizhne drives a BUK. Information from local residents, later on adapted by adding a convoy to it; It has been posted at 12:15, or more exact at 12:17. Not at 13:15 eest.

    This is very interesting as it matches exactly the wowihay messages and the Roman message. All three seem to have been fed at the same time by the same info. All at the same time by loyal patriots in the area? Doubtfull.

    Remarkably too, Euromaidan has been corrected, possibly by Tymchuk/Inforesistance people, to mould this information into a message of a terrorist convoy which never was there.

    Second, stunningly Arnold draws the conclusion “That there was a BUK in Snizhne is beyond reasonable doubt”. No, it isn’t.

    First, the AP testimony doesn’t originate from realtime, but has been posted after the disaster. So it could be false.

    Second, the message contains another error by stating they saw 7 “tanks”. Now Arnold is conjecturing those tanks have been standing at the same gasstation at the same time, which is possible. But where was “The Eighth Vehicle” then??

    Because 3 tanks from Vostok and 4 from Oplot make 7, but Arnold forgets there was an Ural too, a fact he himself mentions somewhere else about a vostok video. So were was the Ural?

    Third, its rather remarkable the AP witness shows up right at the same spot as the GirkinGirkin pic, a picture issued again by an infowarrior (shortly operative at this time, from 29th of June) relaying messages from other sources, possibly in this case the sbu. The pic, which maybe shows signs of tampering (I know of people working on this), could be from an earlier day or fabricated in order to support the track-a-trail narrative. That would cast some doubt about the other Karapetyan AP witness account too. Just a bit too coincidental imho.

    There is only one other testimony about the Buk in Snizhne, a testimony Arnold has found himself and maybe therefore over-emphasises its importance. “And at this time in Snizhne appeared SAM “Buk”. Well, when we cast doubts about all the other sigthings because of their inconsistencies, maybe its wise to act very causiously here too. What about he netting here? How can this person recognize anything?

    It could be the sightings of the trail were fed from above instead from bottom-up, i.e. by people from Inforesistance working together with the SBU. Maybe to support the idea the rebels owned a buk regarding the 14 july shooting, maybe because something even more sinister was going on.

    In each case, “beyond reasonable doubt” is a clear exaggeration. The main question would be (not addressed by Arnold): What has really been left over from the track-a-trail narrative which places the Russian buk at the alleged launchsite at the 17th?

    Imho the answer should be: virtually nothing, looking at the sightings, and the evidence about the Paris match pics and the plume pics too.

    Another point I would like to address is the question why Arnold hasn’t put much effort in investigating the relations between the infowarriors, which there clearly are. One of the most interesting outcomes of investigation is not only the sightings stem from a few persons, but also that they seem to know eachother – some directly, some through one of the others – before the 17th.

    A questions I would really like Arnold to answer is, mainly because his report leans so heavily on Micha Kobs’ study, in which cases he disagrees with Micha and why. This would really support further investigation

    • Arnold Greidanus // October 1, 2015 at 1:21 pm //

      The Facebook post is of 13:15, not 12:15. Check e.g. the Gerashchenko Facebook posts. Or check the file dates of the photo in the Geraschenko Torez photo post and the photo in the EuroMaydan post (not EuroMaidan). Depending on the computer’s Time Zone settings and your location one has to establish the proper posting time. See e.g. https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=4570099785144
      Besides: the update of that Facebook post summarizes the presser by Lysenko which began around 17.00 EEST. So, it isn’t timestamped 16:30 but 17:30.

      The original news dispatch from AP only mentioned 7 tanks parked. This dispatch text was repeated in the elaborated story by Peter Leonard. The fact that the URAL wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean anything. It’s not a tank. The dispatch contained only two sentences, so it wasn’t aimed at giving a detailed report. Besides, the URAL truck may have continued to Snizhne, or maybe its tank was filled first and it had already departed to Snizhne.

      You speculate that the AP witness is on the same spot as BUK on the Girkingirkin picture. Karapetyan Street however is rather long and there’s a tweet of the 17th mentioning the BUK seen near the school at the end of the street. So the witness might have seen it there as well. The Leonard story just doesn’t specify that spot, so we don’t know.

      With respect to the Snizhne tweet: you’re twisting my words. Read again.

      As for your track trail theory: unless proof can be provided that the AP journalists and the Novaya Gazeta correspondent have been lying about their sightings, I see no reason to doubt their witness testimonies. Hence, my phrasing “beyond reasonable doubt”.

      As for research into the relations between the “infowarriors”: first, this was not my aim; second, I have no reason to distrust a report a priori because it is given by someone who takes a pro-Kiev stance; third, my time is scarce. Since you propose a theory that the sightings reported were “fed from above” and that these relations seem to be of significance, I suggest you investigate these yourself.

      As for Michael Kobs’ research: I do not adhere to his ghost convoy theory, even though I think it’s interesting. By the way, your own blog posts lean on Michael’s research far more. So, what’s your point again?

      • Hector Reban // October 1, 2015 at 3:24 pm //

        Check your timestamp again, Arnold. The Euromaydan facebook posting (why are you referring to Gerashchenko now?) has unix time 1405588620 which corresponds with 9:17 UTC. Btw this one and the other source with the same photo, how did you find it?

        So because the Ural isn´t a ¨tank¨ it has become invisible, not to be mentioned, of no importance in the counting of vehicles. Not very convincing, Arnold. Its another thing that raises doubt about the whole trail so it doesn´t add up when you give the BUK-in-Snizhne strain so much importance at the same time putting this under the rug.

        It was not your aim to investigate the ties between the main testimonies?? Thats rather strange, for sure when you mention yourself you worked out twitter completely. It would be a wise thing to do if you want to know more about the backgrounds of this socalled sightings.

        In an Infowar – you mention it yourself, I believe – accompanying these kind of events of world importance you should distrust every account from parties with a clear interest in the information given. (That is also true for the other side). Thats why I think its not a good sign you omitted an in-depth investigation into the ultranationalist rightwing extremist infowarriors disseminating second-hand information that fits other information from state-related parties like Tymchuk and Euromaydan/Inforesistance.

        Furthermore my speculations about the possibility the AP story is as fake as the rest are a bit more grounded than yours for as the AP witness says:

        “The Buk was parked on Karapetyan Street at midday, but later it left; I don’t know where,” he said. “Look — it even left marks on the asphalt.”

        He saw it where it was parked, it was photographed where it was parked too. The BUK stood there not very long you say, but are you really suggesting then these aren´t the same spots? Maybe its all an coincidence. Maybe there is something wrong here too. But don´t promote it as certain fact beyond any doubt, because it really doesn´t deserve that status imho.

        Don´t understand your grumpy remarks about you leaning on Kobs. What you say about it doesn´t match reality in full, but I have no need to go into details about these kind of childish statements.

        • Arnold Greidanus // October 1, 2015 at 6:29 pm //

          As for the timestamp: Facebook uses the data-utime element to display the time in a HTML page. This element is derived from their internal database system but the processing depends on your Time Zone settings. It displays your local time. Thus 12:15 is shown if you live in the Netherlands since it’s UTC+2 where Ukraine is UTC+3. The element in the HTML page that contains the real creation time is content_timestamp. In the case of the EuroMaydan post the value given is 1405592125. You can convert this, like here: http://www.epochconverter.com/epoch/timezones.php?epoch=1405592125 It’s 13:15 EEST.
          See also: https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-find-the-exact-upload-time-of-a-facebook-photo.t4367/

          As for the rest: you’re twisting my words again. Where did I mention I “worked out twitter completely”? And why would that imply I was going to investigate the relations between these pro-Kiev Twitter users? I never stated anything like that.
          Whatever, if it’s that important to you: why not investigate it yourself, instead of lecturing me.

          • Hector Reban // October 1, 2015 at 7:29 pm //

            Where did I say *you* said that in those words? These were *my* words, based om *my* interpretation of what *I* read. That seems to be a very hard concept to grasp these days around here.

            Furthermore I don´t want to go to this level you are dragging this conversation to. I mentioned some good points and I gave my opinion about the weaknesses of the report. Not more, not less. It seems your ego can´t handle criticism which entails as it seems you go for the man instead of for the ball.

            So I leave it to this.

          • Hector – ‘Furthermore I don´t want to go to this level you are dragging this conversation to. ‘

            Who called who grumpy first?
            Arnold’s original comment seemed very professional to me.

            Fare thee well

      • Denis Cashcov // December 23, 2015 at 3:54 am //

        Arnold, who are the AP journalist and the Novaya Gazeta correspondent?
        Do we know their names?

  15. After all the time spent on studying the known BUK images from the possible launch area, no new photo has come up?

    To me it seems pretty clear indication that there was only one moving on the area. Around 16…17Jul.

    Unless new evidence comes up, it seems to be the one that exploded the MH17 cockpit.

  16. Hector Reban // October 1, 2015 at 3:50 pm //

    Btw, Arnold, the disclosure of the AP witnesses is a great finding!

  17. Antidyatel // October 2, 2015 at 1:01 am //

    Boggled, please dismantle the evidence of phoroshop in Paris-Match photo based on fotoforensics.com analysis
    fotoforensics.com http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081

    After you done apply the same Logic to Bellingcat’s glorious blunders

    Please, pretty please, be fare thee well.

  18. With regards to winds from the South Mr. Greidanus.
    I recommend you read my comment 6th from the bottom at –
    It may be a little long of a comment (hopefully not to difficult to read), but I think we discussed it to a conclusion.

    Fare thee well

    • Arnold Greidanus // October 2, 2015 at 5:56 pm //

      As for the wind direction around 12.30 at/near Torez: take a look at the Vostok battalion video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OdjOt6TRsk), as of 0m52s, and watch the way the ribbon above the tank shows the wind direction like a wind vane.
      This fragment of the video has been geolocated by Ukraine@war at 48.032594, 38.508673 and he estimates the time of passing at 12:25 EEST.
      So, no southern winds there, but ENE I’d say.

      • Correct at what is shown in the video, but it is just a short snippet of time, less then 5 seconds of that flag being visible.
        In other points of the video watching trees and bushes you get an idea of them fluctuating speeds and direction, and it is not caused by an 18 wheeler going by at 80 kmh and creating a vacuum behind it.

        Besides that, there are blockages alongside tall apartments that will cause winds opposite of what is actually happening.
        A wind from the East, or a large are mass moving west, would hit the apartment and flow around it which would appear to show a wind coming from the South.

        I have a house near me that has two banner flags hanging from the side of the house parallel to the ground on adjacent sides.

        I can stand on the corner and watch those flags both come at me with a wind.

        Then you have the METAR, it plainly states before 12:30 variable winds are coming from the South and West since the past METAR an hour ago.
        That means at sometime it was noticed.

        Tells a pilot swirling winds and a storm from air masses colliding, so stay on your toes and pay attention, no gabbing with stewardesses or sleeping.

        Although none of that evidence proves that video was or was not made on that day, the evidence presented disallows others from claiming it could not be made that day 100 percent because there was no winds blowing from the South.

        I believe it is still possible the video was not made that day, doubtful but the possibility remains, however it cannot be claimed for a fact due to the four different pieces of evidence both I and Ole presented that says otherwise.

        Fare thee well

      • And my apologies to you for my comments above, you did a lot of work and presented a lot of newer evidence, or little discussed.
        Much of it stands up, and you present it as what you have learned.

        You seem to be fairly unbiased and just wanting to get down to the brass tacks and expose something if it is a coverup.

        You seem to go that extra mile to show that there is still a lot of evidence there, but we are missing the official results and some of the forensics the professionals are doing as well as what everyone hopes for is some releases of evidence.

        I am frustrated as you, but I also understand the idea of attempting to give everyone a fair trial and avoid a large scale witch hunt and condemnation of ALL ethnic Russians or Ukrainians.

        I appreciate your hard work and what you have uncovered, and some of the conclusions you come up with.

        I still think some of the conclusion you accept and make are flawed, just as I think some SBU analysis is flawed in the intelligence they gather and release.
        Too many cooks in the kitchen there I think.
        But much of your work is credible.

        Anyways, thank you.

        Fare thee well

        • Mr. Greidanus:
          One last thing as far as weather goes, Each item you posted in your article is as you stated, and correctly, are weather forecasts.
          NOT observations.
          Forecasts are many times incorrect.
          Forecasts are just predictions of future events.

          The items I presented in the other page were actual recorded observations.

          Fare thee well

          • Hector Reban // October 4, 2015 at 6:57 am //

            Your reference to the realtime wind on the Vostok vid was debunked: it was north-easern/eatern wind according to the weather report, as I showed. You have lost this argument. Deal with it.

          • Prosto Tak // October 4, 2015 at 9:05 am //

            Hector, not “debunked” but put into question, not more.

            The general weather report for the day cannot mean that there could have been not a single poof of wind in a different direction at a specific place and at a specific time.

          • Hector, you provide just as Mr. Greidanus did, a FORECAST, a prediction.
            A very vague prediction with general statements about how many of the winds would be for a hour or HOURS.

            Not actual observed conditions, except for the METAR that Ole provided which proved conclusively that winds were variable from the South and West in the hour before the 12:30 METAR.

            Sorry you are living in perpetual denial, but facts are facts.
            Ole provided the facts, if you did not believe mine.
            I just provided the correct interpretation of them.

            Fare thee well

          • Hector Reban // October 6, 2015 at 5:55 am //

            No, from the video you yourself picked, Boggled, is clearly shown the wind in realtime came from the predicted side.

          • Hector Reban // October 6, 2015 at 6:01 am //

            Its really telling a lot, Prosto, you need to resort to some strange weather anomalies – like the plume pic – to only try to cast some doubt which in reality just does not exist.

            Maybe you could apply your logic to the many, many cases in which Bellingcat draws a straight line between two points to intrapolate the truth.

            I.e. When at two SAT images a BUK at airbase A-1428 stands at the same spot, Bellingcat derives the BUK has not moved between those two moments in time.

            And so on, and so on…

          • Prosto Tak // October 6, 2015 at 8:37 am //

            Hector, correct. You’ve just put into question the Bellingcat report — but not “debunked” it.

            Also, in the event you (and me) cannot PROVE any of the versions it would be very useful to reckon the possibilities. How much is it possible that a vehicle would be taken away and then returned to exactly the same spot on the ground, and exactly with the same slant turn of the missile launching rails? How much is it possible, to begin with, that a functioning ‘Buk’ (and only one of them) would have been kept outdoors for half a year when you had lots of parking boxes nearby? Or, on the other side, that it has just been left there because of its inoperable state? Wouldn’t it be much more sane to use another ‘Buk’ kept hidden and secret if you want to secretly shoot down a plane? And so on, and so on…

            So, in many cases you just look for every smallest possibility that would seem to support your views — but try not to see much bigger possibilities that speak for themselves to support another point of view.

          • Hector Reban // October 6, 2015 at 1:30 pm //


            It wasn’t about the Bcat report, it was about the ludicrous claim made by Bcat/Kiev troll “Boggled” the wind on a video from the Vostok convoy differed form the forecast. This wasn’t true. So the claim was debunked.

            So the claim stands the Zuhres vid could well have been made on another day, unless you or Boggled come of with a strange weather anomalie at thne N21 on the 17th july at about 11:40 AM.

          • Hector Reban // October 6, 2015 at 1:34 pm //

            About the example I gave you, you show you are willing to believe all kinds of fallacies to be clear-cut reasoning just to prove the right side right. In fact Bcat never performs any logical evaluations of the sort you seem to know but discard yourself in this case.

          • >Not actual observed conditions, except for the METAR that Ole provided which proved conclusively that winds were variable from the South and West in the hour before the 12:30 METAR.

            Hi boggled,

            sometimes it’s difficult to know if you are serious. Here again the METARs from the other thread.

            11:30 EEST:
            UKDE 170830Z 01007MPS 9999 FEW033 SCT100 BKN300 24/20 Q1011 02250366 TEMPO VRB10G15MPS 0700 +TSRAGR SQ BKN015CB
            The time the Zuhres video was allegedly shot, wind from 10° (NNE) 7m/s, no variable wind directions

            12:30 EEST:
            UKDE 170930Z 04004MPS 360V070 9999 FEW033CB SCT033 BKN300 26/15 Q1011 02250366 TEMPO VRB10G15MPS 0700 +TSRAGR SQ BKN015CB
            The time of the Vostok Video: Wind from 40° (NE), 4 m/s, wind direction variable between 360°(N) and 70°(ENE) (consistent with the Vostok video)

            “Wind direction is reported by the direction from which it originates. For example, a northerly wind blows from the north to the south.Wind direction is usually reported in cardinal directions or in azimuth degrees. For example, a wind coming from the south is given as 180 degrees; one from the east is 90 degrees.”

            And yes, the data after TEMPO is a forecast which in this case contains no direction and obviously is overruled by the subsequent report of observed data.

            Also the METAR for 12:00 EEST to demonstrate how stable the situation was:
            UKDE 170900Z 01006MPS 340V050 9999 FEW033CB SCT033 BKN300 27/18 Q1010 02250366 TEMPO VRB10G15MPS 0700 +TSRAGR SQ BKN015CB
            Wind from 10° (NNE), variable between 340° (NNW) and 50° (NE), 6m/s
            None of these METARs reports gusts.

          • Actually OLe as you were so kind to point out, Donetsk airport stopped reporting back before the shootdown.
            So where are these METARs coming from.

            I did a little research.
            They come from Zaporizhia International Airport, now.
            And they bear the UKDE marking.
            I am guessing they took over with the destruction of Donetsk airport.
            That is just a little South of Dnipropetrovsk International Airport, a fairly long ways away from the Donetsk airport, Torez, etc.
            Last TAF was for May 12 2014 from Donetsk.
            I am guessing that is the date it officially changed.

            So your measurements are from the wrong area, I believe for one.

            So Mariupol (who is closed in by the Azov Sea) and not affected by Black Sea and on shore breezes as much would be the closest and most relevant.
            They do not have METARs I can see, so nearest to that would be Rostov or Simferopol or Kharkiv.

            The report I linked to with weatherspark app, you admitted had winds that came from the South.
            For two.

            You never linked to your source, for three.

            METAR’s for Mariupol on July17 2014 can be found here, but they are missing the various letter designations.

            I am not 100 percent sure of the data here, and it may need to be confirmed with other sources.

            This site has some history and is searchable.
            This one is for 12:30 EEST, I believe.

            Came from this page, I am still playing around with it, and still have to confirm some info, but for the most part it seems correct.

            TEMPO, I and you are both wrong about.
            IT stands for Temporary observations.
            During the last hour, if there was a large weather change from the but not the majority of the hour, it is noted here.
            If I get my reading of METAR’s terms right, I am learning as I go.
            If you look at the Simferopol readings at that time, Winds were from SW to North.

            They may have also radar maps and other items there or more detailed wind maps.
            Take some time to look around.
            Still Mariupol alongside a landlocked sea is the closest detailed measurements I provided with South winds noticed.
            Simferopol seems to suggest some as well.
            I have not looked at the other hours to compare, but will later.
            From the METARs listed, they match up with the UKDE I see on these maps south of Dnipropetrovsk International Airport also.

            Fare thee well

          • Hector Reban // October 7, 2015 at 8:57 am //


            Bcat´s Eliot H. vlaimed last week theu BUK hadn´t moved for over a year. You proved here he is wrong.

            Moreover, Andrew has shown in the weeks around the 17th of July the missile shoe of the BUK moved some degrees.

            In each case, its all about the argument. When I am at work every day at 11 and a Satellite shows that by issuing an image from 11 o clock every thursday for three months I wasn´t at home at that time, it won´t prove I wasn´t home for months at all.

          • Hector:
            Can you please show me the proof that the BUK parked for months at a base north of Donetsk moved? I see only Google images indicating it did not move.
            Also, see this picture of the same BUK showing it is damaged.

            You are very quickly jumping to conclusions which fit your agenda.

          • Admin:

            The picture is taken sometime in August/September judging by the size of the weeds.

            The BUK’s launch shoe was rotated during the period April-July.

            Other BUK’s on base moved and switched their parking position, so it is entirely possible that a BUK parked there in April is not the one parked there in July or August. There aren’t any identifying marks visible in the space imagery.

          • Re: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YsY7O2GynFI/VEQuefJHWJI/AAAAAAAAWis/URhaO2Q1fZM/s1600/BUK%2B16.JPG
            That hints how UA withdraw their BUK gear to that base.
            The unit with turned launch shoe was perhaps destroyed at some point, so that it does not end up in the hands of rebels. Or it is just junk that is being used for spare parts -> reason for launch shoe turn.

            +it also shows that RU MOD lied. IIRC, long before bc said anything about it.
            Now the base is destroyed but the HW still is there?

            I would rather see people focusing in finding out truth and more evidence than trying to belittle bellingcat etc.
            Do we have any proof of any other weapon in the area ahead of MH17 that could have blown cockpit off?
            (beside the one we know)

          • Well Andrew, upload date is August 8th with the FB tag if you did not notice, so that throws your September out the window.

            With the turret turned, I would guess still anytime between May 28th and August 8th.
            I have seen Goldenrod and other weeds that high in April May in cold climates, but looking at the satellite images, I would guess between July 24th and August 8th.
            So after the Shoot down.

            You – ‘The BUK’s launch shoe was rotated during the period April-July.’
            Last time it appears the turret rotated was June 19, and the turret was photographed in two different positions.
            Could have been more, but definitely moved from centered for transport, to 90 degrees, then to 45 degrees where it stayed for the rest of the images.

            You – ‘There aren’t any identifying marks visible in the space imagery.’
            Count the squares of cement, very telling and easy to locate the BUK relative to the other landmarks.

            That BUK has not been towed or moved from its location since May 28th, just the turret moved at least to two different positions.

            Fare thee well

          • Hector Reban // October 9, 2015 at 5:52 am //

            No, admin, you haven´t seen proof the BUK didn´t move. You have seen the BUK stood at the same spot at various moments in time. I really don´t understand people can´t grasp the logic of my assertion. Prosto did, but then couldn´t make a case against it.

            Evidence it might have been moved can be seen at various GE satellite images around the time of the disaster. Andrew has made clear – and I follow him blindly on this, because I saw his argument and picked images – the launching shoe has been turned on several images.

            Of course this doesn´t prove it has moved. They could have turned the launching shoe keeping the BUK at its spot. But again, its all about the logic applied!

          • Hector Reban // October 9, 2015 at 5:56 am //

            By the way admin, I resent your remark about picjing things to fit my agenda.

            In fact all I am doing is giving a logical explanation why the Bcat/U@w conclusions cannot be drawn that way.

            If you see more in that, its all about your own conjecturing.

            You know my agenda: its an anti-anti-Russian one. I am convinced the UKie/Bcat/NATO site – which is trusted in our countries by more than 80% of the people and 100% of the media – is fraudulent. So its my missions, as I feel it, to scrutinize their propaganda story and disclose the fraudulent parts.

            What is wrong with that agenda?

  19. I may suggest some translation corrections:

    Мне что сказали, что я и передала. Про танки в Снежном мне тоже не поверили, пока Тымчук не сказал.
    I pass over what I was said. They didn’t believe me also about tanks in Snizhne until Tymchuk said [the same].

    Важко, потому что я не в зоне АТО.
    It’s hard because I am not in ATO zone. [важко = hard in ukrainian]

    Когда я написала про танки в центре Снежного, поднялся дикий ор, что это неправда и вброс. Кому не нравится инфа без фоток, ждите Тымчука.
    When I wrote about tanks in the сentre of Snizhne, everybody started shouted on me that this is not true and it’s fake. If you don’t like information without photos, wait for Tymchuk.

    • Thank you okutw, it is always nice to have added input and fact checking better then translating programs can.

      Many of us do not have an exact grasp of Russian speaking and what it means literally versus what was actually meant by the speaker.
      Or a Russian or Ukrainian friend who can ask any time.

      And in literal versus implied, the Russian mind can work differently then a Western one and vice versa.
      Russian language has as many quirks to it as English does.

      I may be wrong, but your first English statement should be not be –

      I pass over what I was said.
      They (everyone) passed over what I had said.

      Or in other words
      They ignored me when I spoke (gave testimony).

      The rest look correct to me as much as I know.
      Thank you for your help and be sure to speak up again when you see something in error.

      Fare thee well

      • Prosto Tak // October 5, 2015 at 11:58 pm //

        Boggled, actually, the phrase in question is a very un-grammatical Russian, so when we render it in somehow normalized English it would just be: “I’ve only been conveying what they had told me” (or, in Yoda-speak: “What they had told me, that’s what I’ve been saying.”)

        • Very ungrammatical Russian but maybe correct Ukrainian dialect for the region?
          Not so sure your right or I am.
          It could be you are.
          I could see you being right if he was talking about in general his statements from social media that he passed along, and he
          was not responsible for the veracity of it, he just was a middleman.
          Oktwu statement would then be more or less right with the minor grammar correction – I passed along what I was told.

          I thought I gathered a little something different there.
          Oh well, I have been wrong before.
          Anyways, it was support and welcome to a new person I have not seen on the boards.

          Fare thee well

          • Prosto Tak // October 6, 2015 at 11:22 pm //

            I’m both Ukrainian and Russian speaker and I also use non-textbook forms when speaking casually to native speakers like me so I am sure of the meaning of the phrase.

            Actually, there are lots of completely wrong translations in the work by Arnold Greidanus, however, I just don’t have enough time to look through the dozens of pages so I won’t either endorse or criticize it.

          • Well if you have time to conclude translations are wrong I kindly request to at least show the correct translations of two Tweets. That will not take more than than your reply above took.

          • Maksym Ponomarenko // October 19, 2015 at 6:47 pm //

            Boggled do you speak Ukrainian or Russian?

        • Arnold Greidanus // October 7, 2015 at 8:50 am //

          I have adjusted the translations for the tweets suggested by @okutw and Prosto Tak.
          Prosto: if you can comment on the “completely wrong translations” – i.e. the ones where the meaning has changed significantly – this would help a lot!
          However, it’s a bit lazy to suggest there are “lots of completetely wrong translations” and not providing any clues.

          • Prosto Tak // October 8, 2015 at 12:35 am //

            Well, sorry, just a couple of things I happened to notice when giving a slant look through the long text.

            In several cases, you give too literal interpretations to a casual and informal Russian speech of persons with some part of post-Soviet mentality.

            For example: “morning” (“утро” in Russian) means anything between about 4 am and at least noon (or even an hour or two later). The day is generally portioned into the “morning,” “day” (afternoon, which may only begin at 1 or 2 pm as this is the general lunch time, and until about it gets dark), “evening” (from the dark till about midnight) and “night” (from about midnight till at least about 4 am — but possibly even later until the dawn, and that’s when the “morning” can start at about 8 am in the winter). So, the parts of the day are different than in the West and very loose. There is also a division into “до обеда/после обеда” (“before lunch/after lunch”) but the limit between them is generally about 2 pm.

            The same ambiguity is there with military hardware. Any military tracked vehicle is almost automatically and inevitably called a “tank” especially when it has anything looking like a “gun” or a “cannon” (to start with a small machine gun). More advanced commentators may use more sophisticated words like “self-propelled artillery piece” (not necessarily knowing what it means). Speaking of a “Buk” before everyone began speaking of it should have been a claim of a profound knowledge of the military — but, again, not many people could then tell how a “Buk’ should look like, either with the missiles or without them.

            Another example is speaking about an “awning” (тент) or of something being “covered” (зачехлен). While a camouflage net would invoke another word with a specialist, a regular layman would easily mix them, so the words used here do not exclude either a tarpaulin tent or a netting.

            Also, the Russian (and Ukrainian) word “район” could mean both a formal administrative district and an informal local territorial division that doesn’t exist on paper but only in people’s minds(and in bigger cities like Donetsk, residents of some parts of the city may never know such local place names in other city parts in their lives). Besides, the same word used in a phrase “в районе” could mean both of the two notions mentioned above (“in a formal/informal district/neighborhood”) or could also be a phrase meaning “in the vicinity,” “somewhere near, around, or in the area” etc.

            “запалю осведомителей” — a jail term widely used informally, meaning “I’ll betray the informants.”

            “если и есть, то их ни кто не опубликует из соображений собственной безопасности” — an answer by @WowihaY that you call “contradicting” to his interview; however, the phrase is an intended ambiguity to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the photos. While the translation “If even they (the photos) exist no one will publish them for the reasons of their own safety” is technically correct, it doesn’t directly mean @WowihaY confirmed the photos didn’t exist.

            And one more thing that sent me “bursting into laughter under the table,” as we put it: “до этого днроевцы носились” being recognized as “днроевцы = днр овцы = DNR sheep.” Well, “овцы” as a separate word is “sheep” (in the plural); however, “ДНРовцы,” “ДНР-овцы,” “днр-овцы” or “днровцы ” (the word is highly colloquial and has no standard spelling) means just “members of the so-called “DPR.” “носились” has a general meaning of “were moving around quickly but in a disorderly fashion.”

          • Prosto: thanks for taking the time to translate some sentences!

          • Thank you Prosto. Дуже дякую
            Just when I think I have a grasp on it, I find out a few things I thought right are incorrect.
            I appreciate the time you took for writing out, identifying and clearing up some of the items.
            Мені треба протизастудне.

            Fare thee well

          • Hector Reban // October 8, 2015 at 5:57 am //

            Prosto: “The same ambiguity is there with military hardware. Any military tracked vehicle is almost automatically and inevitably called a “tank” especially when it has anything looking like a “gun” or a “cannon” (to start with a small machine gun). More advanced commentators may use more sophisticated words like “self-propelled artillery piece” (not necessarily knowing what it means). Speaking of a “Buk” before everyone began speaking of it should have been a claim of a profound knowledge of the military — but, again, not many people could then tell how a “Buk’ should look like, either with the missiles or without them.”

            Thanks for reiterating the Necro Mancer sightings can be dismissed altogether and confirming the Mystery of the Eighth Vehicle, the Ural, as an signal there might something be very wrong with the AP testimonies.

          • Arnold Greidanus // October 8, 2015 at 10:42 am //

            First of all: Prosto, thanks for your comment!

            Your explanation on the parts of the day is interesting, but the only tweet where the word утро is significant is the one by @Sergei_Shavnya replying to the @WowihaY 12:16 EEST tweet on the BUK travelling through Torez at Snizhne. What sense does it make to reply “It was in the morning” if the tweet concerned was sent shortly after noon? In my view Shavnya is suggesting that the BUK already entered Torez before noon.

            It seems to me that the next two explanations in your comment are primarily aimed at refuting arguments in my report instead of translation issues as such. Refutation is welcomed, but your arguments are not convincing:
            1. The people reporting on military maneuvres on Twitter may not be military experts, but they do show to have some basic knowledge. If they had no knowledge whatsoever, how come they mention names or terms like Strela, Smerch, BUK, APC? Besides, if someone is reporting on military vehicles day in, day out, it’s reasonable to assume such a person has delved into these matters to some level. Many of the tweets presented in my report were sent by people who report on military movements on a regular basis, so it’s too easy to just dismiss them. In essence you are contradicting yourself here: before July 17th, 2014, most people indeed had no knowledge of a BUK and weren’t even familiar with the name. So, if an observant mentions a similarity to a BUK launcher, he or she must have had at least some knowledge of this type of launcher.
            2. I would like to see comments from other Russian native speakers on the common usage of words like тентом in contrast to сеть, сетка or вязание. I estimate your argument is weak since every layman can notice the difference between a camouflage net and an awning, and is therefore likely to use the appropriate word to denote what is seen. There’s no military expertise required for using these words properly.

            As for your explanation on в районе: this rather confirms my translation with the neutral term “area” of the 10:13 EEST @666_mancer tweet (a translation that was checked before publication of my report by a native speaker). It also confirms that @Buzzing_Rook’s later tweet is only a clarification to those who are not familiar with the Gruziya area in Donetsk.

            Thanks for clarifying запалю осведомителей with “I’ll betray the informants”!

            As for your comment on если и есть, то их ни кто не опубликует из соображений собственной безопасности, I wrote: “This seems somehow contradicting”. Nevertheless, I will adjust this.

            Thanks also for the correction on днроевцы. The translation with DNR sheep (as an insult or mockery) was suggested earlier in another comment, but I will correct this.
            Thanks also for the description of носились as “moving around quickly but in a disorderly fashion” for which I have not found one English verb combining both aspects and therefore the translation given is using more words.

  20. One thing I am not clear of admin and others, and maybe you can clear it up for me.
    As far as timing the tweets and other posts.

    IF they were made from a laptop or mobile phone or tablet that originated outside of Donetsk and had the time set up in the nation of origin or timezone of origin but maybe a posting from Donetsk, does the mobile device automatically adjust to their time, Moscow time?

    If they do not, does the Twitter adjust and coordinate with the antenna the wifi uses and use that as opposed to the devices date and time?

    Also, since Donetsk and Luhansk, I believe, were originally Kyiv time zone and the separatist forcibly took over many of the media, wifi, and communications, to only allow Kremlin approved broadcasts, and were attempting to change them over to Moscow time (which they declare is the time there now) ….
    What day did ALL of them change to Moscow time?

    Were only a few utilizing it at the time of MH17’s destruction?

    Fare thee well

  21. both bellingcats brief and this over long report are making something simple into something very difficult….a question

    Russian BUK or Ukrainian BUK

    no one has found a Ukrainian BUK running around in Ukrainian held territory….no time and date stamped picures taken by Ukrainian people at the road side with three of four missiles on board ….

    Just this one….a Russian BUK….From Russia…..not Ukraine…Russian BUK in Ukraine with three of four missiles on board

    so dont complicate it….RUSSIAN BUK MISSILE SHOT DOWN MH17….get it!

    • It is not as simple as that. Can you tell me who did a crosscheck to find out movements of Ukraine BUKs? Bellingcat for sure did not. So if there are no reports on internet it does not mean it did not happen. And there reverse is true as well. Photos and videos do not 100% prove the story is true. What about the dates of these photos and videos?

      • admin said “if there are no reports on internet it does not mean it did not happen”

        using that argument, you can’t even discard the theory that MH17 was struck by a meteor.

        admin said “And there reverse is true as well. Photos and videos do not 100% prove the story is true. ”

        Correct. And neither does ANY evidence prove that ANY story is true.
        Including any and all convictions in any and all murder trials.
        After all, the scientific method can never prove a true statement to be true.
        It can only prove a false statement to be false, if there is enough evidence.

        Maybe the problem you are having has to do with the Dutch language, where “bewijs” can mean either “evidence” or “proof”.

        There is a profound conceptual difference between these two terms that have only one word in Dutch language.

        And that is why murder trials get decided based on “beyond reasonable doubt”, not “absolute proof”.

        Think about it.

        • Antidyatel // October 20, 2015 at 4:40 am //

          Rob. Your fake intellectualism has no boundaries. The father of your scientific metho, Aristotel, thought that Earth is flat and due to power of authority gullible sheep, like you believed it for 2000 years, while just 100 years after Aristotel, Eratosthenes already calculated Earth circumference with good precision. Aristotel was also wrong about multiple things, particularly in science. The issue is that your scientific method can bring you to predefined conclusions if you pick and choose evidence. Due to power of authority this trick/fraud can hold for very long time. DSB and JIT are precisely attempting this. One thing we can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Kerry declared that they’ve seen the launch, trajectory and hit. They refused to provide evidence, but we know that Americans had confidential meeting with their NATO ally heading DSB investigation. And what we get is a 300 km^2 area for possible launch location. Beyond reasonable doubt USA lied. Based on past incidents we can conclude that they always lie in such laud cases. If you want to counter that Russian MOD lied as well, that is fine with me. But you see, Russians are bad guys and it is not a problem. Americans are the good guys and they lie, like Russians or worse. Hence, using scientific method they are bad guys as well, if not the worst guys.

    • Taavi Teder // October 20, 2015 at 2:54 am //

      No one has a time and date for any buk in anti coup territroy either.

  22. So many well-informed comments, I’m almost ashamed to plug my own theory on the Paris Match photographs. Surely if the turret of the Buk is reversed, somebody else would have noticed? http://bowlingdog01.pen.io

    • sotilaspassi // October 13, 2015 at 8:52 pm //

      I think you got it all wrong. (no time to go into details for now)

    • Hey Bowling, nice attempt.
      Ramp cannot be seen in any of the PM images, just the shadow of one of the two ramps.
      What you think you see is a finger wipe across the windshield that defines an illusion, which I think is what you see.

      The missile nose cones are pointing to the back of the trailer.
      They are white.

      So the securing brace you would expect to see would be at the other end by the front of the trailer, where the driver looks out his peep holes.

      The spot you locate at the other end as a loading ramp is the squared rear end of the BUK as seen here –

      Missiles are usually transported with the engines into the wind.
      BUK is driving up onto the trailer with main driving controls going toward the semi, then it is backed off with auxiliary controls or a guide backwards off the trailer.

      typical trailer loading – http://www.infoukes.com/russia_invaded_ukraine/images/mh-17/bellingcat/buk_enroute_to_ukraine.jpg

      Fare the well and yes you should be ashamed.

  23. Arnold,
    About the ParisMatch timing, you seem to rely a great deal on Michael Kobs’ shadow analysis and his 3D model suggesting 11 am as the time that picture was taken.

    Michael Kobs states that the Volvo cabin is 3.49 m high, and one lane is 4 m wide.
    Yet in his 3D model, the width of one lane appears to be twice as long as the hight of the cabin.
    That makes the shadow of the cabin look short w.r.t. the width of one lane which is how he incorrectly concludes that the picture was taken at 11 am.

    In fact, if Michael Kobs would have been less biased, he would have noticed MANY other clues that the ParisMatch picture was taken around 10:20 (the time that light shines exactly perpendicular to the road.
    For example, there is a thin band of light noticable directly left of the Volvo chimney. That light could only appear there if the sun shone through the small opening behind the chimney, meaning that the light shone exactly perpendicular to the position of the Volvo at the time the picture was taken.

    Thus 10:20 am +/- 10 minutes.

    • “less biased” A lot more of that is needed, indeed.

      (btw. I spotted DSB did borrow one of their images from Finland’s worst/graziest pro RU propaganda web sites (verkkomedia.org). So at least it shows they have gone through all material, if possible.
      The main author of verkkomedia.org is now some kind of “head of DPR press”.)

      • Which image was that ?

        • appendix-x figure 55
          (little edit of the Finnish BUK manual image)

          • Thanks sotilaspassi.

            I find it interesting that that image from verkkomedia.org highlights the “secondary” fragmentation pattern that fires forward, and likely caused the damage to the left wing tip and the left engine cowling.

            And this after the pro-Russian trolls have spend a lot of energy arguing that that damage was evidence that the missile came from Zaroshenske.

            Maybe the DSB just wanted to rub their mouths with their mouths with some some of their own soap.

            Classic, and very classy by the DSB.

    • @Boggled; Thanks again! You are dead right. What I thought was a ramp is just the light shining across the top off those box thingies.

  24. I estimated time of the Tores Buk photo 12:12 local time (EEST) = 9:12 UTC from Strojdom porch shadow. Trigonometric calculation (in Russian):

    • I don’t think many people would bother translating and understanding your derivations, given that you did not even care to specify whether you are measuring angles (such as BAC) “on the picture” or “in the 3d-world”.

Comments are closed.