File talk:MH17 cockpit left side hole closeup.jpg

Exit or entry holes?
Are these exit or entry holes? However they're described, to my non-expert eye, the outer skin says exit, but the holes themselves say entry. I'd favor the latter and chalk the former up to other, less relevant mechanics. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exploding shrapnel? It would punch in and kick back at the same time. Otherwise, punching in still wins for me ATM. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When photos of this side panel first appeared, the Western media was screaming Buk, Buk! These are exit holes! The theory was that Putin's Buk had exploded on the opposite side of the cockpit, destroyed everything else and this was the only piece that was left. Analysts clearly identified them as exit holes. Later when it was shown that the whole cockpit was intact, with the pilot still sitting in his seat next to the intact control panel the story was changed. The same analysts were now saying they were entry holes and the Buk had exploded on the left side of the cockpit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think those holes look clearly punched in, even if others changed to that stance from a stance I'd disagree with. I wasn't following then, no stake in it - let's ignore it and focus on the visual. I mean the underlying metal - the light curve proves it, right? This is the outside, isn't it? The left hole looks almost flat, arguable, but the center one curves right in pretty clear, IMO. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now closely inspected these holes, and one more to the left and up using multiple high resolution images. I think they are fully consistent with the round "bullet" holes on the upper frame of the left side windscreen. The projectiles are round and of size somewhere between 15 and 20 mm. Here the holes are at an angle, the shape could be best explained if the tip (= bullet) pierced the skin instead of bouncing. Further down the side you would see different effects due to the narrower angle.


 * Both sets of holes are consistent with the same angle of frontal attack, from the upper left. Both sets of holes are in a cone extending through the windshield right at the pilot within a radius of 25 cm. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe that can be mapped out graphically. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Entry hole: this guy says the same as me: "Now some holes do superficially look like exit holes, but look at the hole in the green substrate here: (same photo) "That looks like an entry hole. It also looks like it's steel (there's some rust around the edges). I think what is happening there is the projectile, combined with the aluminum skin, partially exploded, and pushed up the skin. Compare with these videos of bullets hitting various things, note the extreme blowback even when the bullet passes through the target. " But how does shrapnel explode? I guess the videos he posts below might explain. Someone else: "Could it also be the result of the explosive decompression pushing that metal out?" Yes, that would be less relevant mechanics. I think that's it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Two Side Attack Means What?
And as far as which side was hit and it maybe being both sides - that doesn't go against even an exclusively Buk attack, unless the forensics already do, or it's specified to be only one missile used. It could just say it was hit twice, once on each side. It's said two missiles were missing from the one launcher. Is it said two were fired? That's sometimes done when engaging aircraft (Iran Air 655 for example). Witnesses report two explosions, with no note of sound difference between them. Only the second one during the fall was recorded. Can a radar-guided missile hit a falling target? Fired by a sick enough bastard, I think so. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I originally misidentified the window frame as the right side number 3 window. Kivimäki and Moses have correctly identified it as the left side windshield. All the hits are thus within a narrow cone aimed at the pilot through the windshield from the front upper left. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? From the front? What about the wing damage? I decided that looked like an airborne injury. Maybe the two sides are left-front and left-rear. The front hit makes more sense coming second if so - while falling, a vertical head-on collision. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Charles already called the wing damage as debris hitting the wing. I concur. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Size?
As for the size, how can we get/show accurate measures? (I could whip up a graphic or two if I know what to do) And to be rigorous, it would be good to know the "caliber" of the type of shrapnel that would be in that warhead (if Charles' image is exactly it, then we have our model) and consider both. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)