Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17

Subpages

 * List of MH17 airframe parts
 * Dutch preliminary report ‎(talk)
 * Maps – (talk)
 * /Forensics
 * /BUK Tracking‎
 * /Debunked topics
 * /Cyber Berkut leak
 * /SBU Audio Evidence
 * /Archive‎

Brilliant Analysis of the Propaganda
American writer on RT.com Brilliant and funny. And sadly true. Well worth a read. KatKan (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it all, but it's excellent. A couple steps up from T.B. Hinchey-class writing. I didn't notice any lazy jet-blaming. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering Possibilities
Only so many theories have been seriously proposed for what happened to MH17. But it seems worthwhile to create a master list of basically all logical possibilities to consider -  what has and hasn't been proposed, by whom, why? Anyone can start or add to a sub-section below to conmment on that possibility. I inserted simple notes to many, hoping they're not too controversial - suggest or, hey, make a change as you see fit. I sign here for the initial list and notes only. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC) All possibilities: Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by (A Buk, B Jet, C Other) operated by (1 Russia, 2 Kiev, 3 Rebel) in an attack that was (a accidental, b intended, c intent + error)

A Buk/SA-11 (supported by some evidence, claimed by Kiev, presumed by Western powers)
 * A.1 Russian (Kiev's story - known stocks - border and logic issues)
 * A1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - possible)
 * A1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)
 * A1c - intent+error (SBU theory - intended to hit Aeroloft civilian flight, blame Kiev, invade - hit MH17 by mistake)


 * A.2 Kiev (known stocks, alleged movement at the time) (why: make seps/Russia look bad) (how: snuck in totally, approval snuck in too, or fired from outside rebel areas after all)
 * A2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing - not likely having snuck behind enemy lines to do it)
 * A2b - intended (most likely - going behind the lines suggests false flag intent)
 * A2c - intent+error (they aimed for the Aeroloft flight, etc. - possible)


 * A.3 Rebel (no known stocks, some evidence for, some against - rebel Buk is/was the Western presumption outside Kiev)
 * A3a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (presumed by intelligent outsiders who blame them)
 * (variations: launcher supplied by Russia, seized by separatists, brought by defector - crew came with it, or not - etc.)
 * (variations: sliding scale of culpability from drunk and negligent operators with all blame, to blameless but fooled by false signals and such)
 * A3b - intended (not likely, soft implication from Kiev against the "terrorists")
 * A3c - intent + error (intent of a criminal kind still seems unlikely, so all error options probably under A3a.)

B Jet (supported by some evidence, promoted by many revisionists) (var: used air-to-air missile, used auto-cannon/other, or combination)
 * B.1 Russian (had to violate Kiev's airspace without being mentioned)
 * B1a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing)
 * B1b - intended (not likely - Russia would stand little to gain and some to lose)
 * B1c - intent + error (triple unlikely - it's just a possibility slot)


 * B.2 Kiev (denied by Kiev)
 * B2a - accidental (intended legit/defensive downing) (of what?)
 * B2b - intended (implication of those proposing it - to make seps/Russia look bad)
 * B2c - intent + error (possible)


 * B.3 Rebel (no known jet holdings - no one proposes this)

C Other nothing seriously suggested. Lets not go digging for all outlying theories, but if one worth listing emerges, it can be option C and Other will be D, etc.


 * moved material to Category talk:Ukraine - theories might say "perpetrator unknown," and thus reason and motive ... but this list is all about actual possibilities more than theories. To the truth, the perp is known, and these are all poss. truths. Most people's theories will fit a slot here... --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions Raised
In the end of the day, we may not be able to pronounce a forensic conclusion, for the rest of the world to accept, as we may not have full information or all the needed expertise. Perhaps the best to hope for will be to RAISE (a rather short) list of main questions which we hope the official investigation will not ignore. I think it will be worthwhile to identify such questions (may be followed by voted answers or something of sort and some supporting arguments).

In my list, it would be questions establishing basic facts, like


 * impact coordinates
 * where blast(s) were coming from
 * confirmed evidence about launch and launchers (a.k.a " any high-resolution photos with known coordinates and times?")
 * navigation and control methods (a.k.a. " can it curl from forward right to back-left?")
 * land based or air based launch? (a.k.a "can satellite see well under the cloud?" )
 * anything to learn from radar data (publicized or otherwise)?
 * and any other relevant confirmed evidence to consider

Once all of that is in stone, will be good time for theories.

--Chingachgook (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Question #1, since it's looking like a Buk fired from Snizneh ... what does that really prove as to who was running it? Nothing. That's why the State Dept. has to add on the Youtube and twitter evidence where it doesn't even matter if those are the real people"admitting" it was them. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No confirmed evidence for a Buk, or from Snizhne, yet. Knowing who runs that would be perfect. --Chingachgook (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitions of "confirmed" might differ, but I've been recommending people at least prepare for that coming true, in case the SU-25 thing doesn't pan out. There's a burnt field, somewhere quite near where that supposed launch contrail photo was placed to. And that, I just saw, supposedly had its ex/if data verified as July 17, 16:25:48. So it might be that figuring who runs that becomes totally crucial. So far, just the fact of what it was and where it was fired is supposed to be proof it was not the party that was equipped for this - physically and morally - and has benefited from it. Anyway, we're on it somewhat - who controls the Buks, whose got moved - what does "rebel-held" mean when someone's trucking in a anti-aircraft unit just after Kiev primed the locals with a bombing of civilians in Snizneh two days before? Stuff like that I think has extra value to develop. I should get to it... --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is confirmed photo of launch, that would go under one of already listed items. With electronic evidence on social networks, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, but presume it is too easy to edit those to fit any agenda, easier than to refute. Government releases, like satellite photos, is different, as they can't change stories overnight and have something to loose if proven fake. Faking hard physical evidence would be fairly impossible. It is good to know who is to blame of course. (But most people would already have their own intuitive answer,which is not likely to change, so how exactly we are going to focus on such an issue?  --For myself, the best outcome will be for truth to come out, wherever that may lead).

--Chingachgook (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More Remains found
Photo journalist Graham Phillips has found a human bone on the burn site. Doesn't obviously show up on this video. While you're there, from playlist at right you can see he has about 12 videos about the crash scene. They're all just a minute or two long. Meanwhile Zakharchenko is offering for investigators to come back and clean up. Actually he should send a group of people to comb the burned area, not as if he's short on people who cab recognise body parts. Chance to shows up the Dutch who spent a few hours there picking up a token few pieces of luggage and not looking for bones,when they KNOW 12 or 15 people are still missing. HEAPS of belongings they left behind, too.KatKan (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Witness Accounts

 * BBC Russian video since pulled? Did they really even produce this? The locals all say there was a fughter jet that turned and left a different way. I put it here until I transcribe the subtitles. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …


 * Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.


 * Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.


 * Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

(that was easy - Gleb already did it) At that page is the video of the lady fighter in Slovyansk (so sad) a month before - June 18 - relating how the air force there recently had a jet hiding behind a civilian plane as it bombed the city. She thought it was to provoke a shootdown of the airliner and get the separatists branded as terrorists. This both offers a precedent for a real July 17 possibility, and a precedent for some folks to think that's what they saw or should say they saw. It will come down to what lines up. Most of this is vague, but witness 3 seems fairly astute and describes a turn I believe Russian radar also described. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Reuters: “From my balcony I saw a plane begin to descend from a great height and then heard two explosion," said one separatist from nearby Krasnyi Luch who gave his name only as Sergei. He denied the rebels had shot the plane down. "This could happen only if it was a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile (that shot it down)," he said, noting that the rebels did not have weapons capable of shooting down a plane at such a height."
 * Note, on seeing the video, this seems to be post-shoot-down. He probably saw it nose-diving as it "descended." Something booms as it falls (was it twice? or an echo?) - I suspect it's one of the wing fuel tanks., since one of the wings is fully on fire. This accounts adds nothing but a description of what we can see for ourselves already, and his assessment is opinion - a bomb on board could have done it for all he knows. --Caustic Logic (talk)


 * Daily Mail witness accounts emerge but they only share one, at the bottom of a huge pile of large photos and fat fingers pointing lazily.
 * A local farmer said: ‘I was herding my cows and heard a buzzing noise. ‘I lay on the ground and thinking only that it would not hit me and my cows. Then I looked and saw that something turns sharply and two big wings were flying. Bang. And something explodes. It came from eastern side, from the side of Sokholikha mountain.’ 


 * Paris Match reportage recorded two days after crash Paris Match reporter Alfred de Montesquiou traveled to Rasipnoye and interviewed two eyewitnesses. At 1:31 the second eyewitness seems to say: Самолёт, который заходил, он, видать, рядом с ним шёл, и потом зашёл вот так вот ему - спереди. Can some one translate this?  For various reasons this video seems to be an important piece of evidence.  It not only confirms the claims made by other witnesses, seeing another plane flying beside MH17, but also the attempt by the Western press to censor this interesting fact (see BBC example above).   --Pasparal (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "That (other) plane, which was (making an approach/manoeuver) (=заходил), as it appeared,  ( видать  ) it was flying nearby, and than (hand gesture, an arc) approached it like that, from the front." He continues that it was cloudy and he saw only part of the maneuver, than it was hidden by the clouds. Interesting. But MH17 was at 10 km height, clouds starting at maybe 5 km, so it is not entirely clear how much of  this is an observation and how much is a reconstruction. It is also not clear how high was that other plane (it's smaller plane, if he could see it well, maybe it was because it was lower). Maybe this guy can give more details sometime. Interesting, thanks! --Resup (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems all the eyewitnesses saw the Boeing flying in or just below the clouds during the (final) attack while clearly recognizing one or more (far smaller) fighter jets flying beside the airliner. So the assumption this was at cruising height (33K feet) must be wrong. But this raises the question why MH17 would have descended (just after making mysterious left and right turns and suddenly slowing down to 200 km/h, according to Russian MoD) without any distress call being made by the Malaysian pilots. Russian Air Force colonel Aleksand Zhilin speculated while flying at cruising altitude MH17 was first struck in the right-hand engine by an R-60 air-to-air missile, making it lose altitude and forcing the pilots to dramatically change course (Anna-News interview with retired Russian Air Force colonel).  But the absence of radio communication by the pilots made me question this scenario. This led me to the (admittedly outlandish) conclusion MH17 was somehow cyber-hijacked during its final moments. --Pasparal (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We know with quite high confidence that the plane was at 10000 m, because preliminary Dutch report, Appendix A, page 33 has plane altitude data showing it at 33000 feet all the way until it vanished. It is not clear whether witness have seen military plane and Boeing close together. As I understand, they saw military planes (and this is important to establish, e.g because a military plane is a legitimate target). Shortly after that, within few seconds, they heard 1-2 explosions, and shortly after that they saw a crash. I am not sure any of the witnesses actually saw Boeing before the crash (I do not remember a clear statement to that effect). --Resup (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That claim is based on the FDR data which was read-out by the British (certainly not an unaligned and neutral party). Question: have you ever heard of an FDR dying before the passengers? (Dutch Foreign Minister Timmermans says passenger wore oxygen mask) --Pasparal (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I read some comments, Russian pilot or somebody experienced, saying that one oxygen mask cannot possibly deploy, this is done from the cockpit (and apparently there is no record that oxygen masks were deployed). Somebody thought that it may be portable oxygen mask, some people with shortage of breath (or asthma) may need an oxygen mask handy. So it could be just that. But I don't know more than what was reported. I did not save link to comments suggesting it was medical-reason oxygen mask.--Resup (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ^ This reminds me of an episode of the RT selfie "News Team" I had intended to plug, Episode 32 where their reporter Roman Kosarev arrives very early at the scene. Episode 30 has some human interest stuff about how he went there against the fears of his wife. Both more for the record than for big revelations. --CE (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jet Wreckage
How did we miss this? From mid September, 50 minute video of the crash site, the burn areas substantially cleaned up. A lot of close-ups, walking around every angl of pieces (eg broken wing). Boring until about 38 min mark, when gets onto cockpit area. This is first area with voice, too, with someone explaining their theory of what happened (Russian) and showing shrapnel damage from angles we've not seen on any stills. "Ukraine" mentioned a few times, so I'm assuming it's a theory that blames Kiev. Can anyone translate please? KatKan (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A shorter video, just the part with the explanation, better audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2785 KatKan (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Shorter video: they guy says that the holes are small, and so he thinks it is air-to-air missile. (Well, we now know presumed size of buk shrapnel as it is on a recent photo with a ruler; 15 millimeters or smth; and what he shows appears to be like finger-tip wide; so it is not too much off as far as I can tell, and does not seem to prove or disprove buk). He also says that it is known effect that when pressurized plane is punctured, it falls apart. (Well, that certainly did not happen with Korean Boeing  over USSR, so it seems a bit exaggerated) . That's all he has to say, so what we gained is more video evidence --Resup (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * More new footage, taken about Oct 5 or 6 (just before OSCE visit) with someone who was there within first hour, interspersed with some footage be took at the time, never before seen English subs. KatKan (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Graham Phillips from the scene on October 16 in two parts. --CE (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Great find, good quality footage. helps set the spread of things ... hope the section re-org works for everyone (did destroy the original title, but I don't think much was linking here...) --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted it before I finished watching it. It has a lot of interviews, rebel leaders, experts. They're saying Kiev stalled and lied to scare off investigators. The rebels took over the bodies by force to make sure they go for proper investigation ie Kiev can't mess things up. The Malaysians came to get the black boxes against Kiev's wishes and got shot at on the way.
 * They say on TV that morning was Andriy Lysenko boasting about planning 8 bombing runs that day; after the crash he said they didn't have a plane up that day. Then they bombed the site to say it's too dangerous for investigators (they show some rocket craters). What were they hiding? KatKan (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A curious detail is that we are told at 9:34 that UAF was at Nikishino. That would be roughly on the line to Chernukino, so behind-and-left from the crash. That theme featured in ACLOS discussions already; there is nothing new to add. We also hear about two planes, and get some hand waving explanations. That was covered as well; perhaps now there is somewhat better idea where the witness is located. It is curious that a German guy says that Pechora missile system was located in Ukraine; as I remember, what was released was more vague; I am not clear why he says 'Ukraine' now. Indeed, we get a sense that Novorossia side is not trying to hide something; and we do get a sense that pro-Kiev side has something to hide. What is that exactly, would be a speculation. If they are serious about peace, perhaps some PR professionals can advise them as appropriate, that is, likely, to release whatever is there to hide. This appears to be rather popular method employed before elections. (Than after the elections, they can say, we told that already, and got elected anyway; but if something new comes up, somebody may say why it was hidden, and argue that it changes the balance). --Resup (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Nikishino reference is meant to show distance, ie that they were not close enough for any fighting to be happening at the crash site, therefore "too dangerous to let in investigators" was just an excuse. Definitely Novorossiya is not trying to hide anything -- they have nothing to hide, and did the right thing all the way through. The video is meant to show how much Kiev was obstructing all the way...this was obvious as soon as shelling started in the area the minute the bodies were gone. KatKan (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For example, one odd thing is that Ukrainian high officials are reported to make recent comments discussing 'that Buk' which shot the plane; and leaked document suggests the same, that they think it is "Buk', moreover very specific info on warhead, missile, and launcher. But how do they even know it was Buk? (if they just have some murky photo of the shrapnel piece? ) If they have shrapnel piece itself, not just the photo, why it was not sent to Netherlands? --Nobody in Netherlands seem to be certain what are those penetrating 'high velocity objects'. And how Ukrainians determined not only the missile type, but also  launcher type just from this warhead shrapnel piece?  Finally, after all that, why is that they are saying the launcher used is the one apparently only they have and Russians no longer use?(Buk M1 they claim  is the first and oldest launcher system from around 1979, no computer, etc. Russian Buk would be a more modern version, perhaps some 10 years older,  and may use some computer already). So, the impression is, that UAF is, kind of, saying itself, that it is us to blame, and than also keeps this secret for 2 months. But somehow we are supposed to keep believing it was not them. Well, I dunno, this appears to get harder by the day. --Resup (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's UAF saying about this rocket, the whole movie is from the Russian side. They believe it was a Kiev job; movie stresses how they blocked investigation. There was an interview by Joern Akkermans with the local fire brigade chief which also showed this, how they sabotaged the investigators getting the first responders' detailed notes. KatKan (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments in above paragraph is not about the movie, it is about leaked documented dated 2 months ago, we have it elsewhere discussing leaks  --Resup (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On "how did they know from the debris fragment, they'd say they know because they had a bunch of photos of the launcher driving that way, plus the supposed audio of people talking about it as "Buk" (covered in their spots here) Of course, they sure got all that submitted and analyzed a bit too quick, so it seems more of that strange omniscience that suggests they aren't just reading along with the story but actually writing it. In reality I guess they know because it was theirs and used by them, but officially they have at least the video and audio evidence besides the later debris. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You lost me there. What fragment do they have? they had no access to the site and who,in that mess, would anyway recognise a fragment the size of a coin? if they have a blurry photo, well, blurry means you can't see what's on it, and still doesn't prove where it came from, so....what are they on about? are they just saying "debris fragment" to mean those few skin sections with the lots of holes in them? from that they claim to know the model number of the BUK?
 * I'm back to thinking about the movie, the women saying the 2 planes. people said that on day one, too. All people used to the idea of planes being SHOT WITH ROCKETS, by then there'd been about 15 or 20 of those, so why would they suddenly invent or imagine this was NOT? KatKan (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected; they have the audio-visual plus, they say, this scrap photo. Point was the Buk claim isn't based on the alleged scrap but the other stuff, fake or not, which they had from the start. Numerous potential reasons it isn't what they claim, but again I've always suspected they would know and properly ID the murder weapon, so I'm not very doubtful that they will have consistent evidence sooner or later (and it's been a while now) --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Plane spotting story: could not detect any signs it was invented, sounded like simple folks telling what they saw, no signs it was forced on them to say, or tension/second thoughts in saying this, could be detected --Resup (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaked document is based on the photo, and apparently UAF do not have fragments
 * "остаточний висновок щодо належності .... можливо зробити при наявностi оригінали" means "final conclusion on the association can be done in the presence of the original."

Nalivaichenko (SBU) is said to make this comment recently on 5 channel, Ukraine (Poroshenko channel): "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk" - said Nalyvaychenko." (The latter comments may possibly belong to the humor section). C-B appears to suggest that photo may be from the Netherlands.
 * (Nalyvaychenko has a major in linguistics, so his "plan"  sounds  odd).
 * Nalivaichenko report appears essentially accurate, he did talk (in Ukrainian) about the investigation, starting at 7:30 timestamp; he did say "Buk M modernized" at 8:30, and "Buk" is even captured by automatic transcript (more->transcript ; but transcript is not working well overall. )

. --Resup (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys: he said "Ukrainian investigators need to execute the plan, developed in collaboration with the Dutch side and the other members of the international investigation, arrive at the scene and find what we need, - fragments of a particular rocket specific "Buk"" The collaboration part might be along the lines of, "Ukrainians should go there as it seems too dangerous for anyone else" (which Ukies have made sure of all along). Now I'll strip down the rest to the vital parts: execute the plan...arrive and find...what we NEED Not search for. FIND. How hard is it to find something you just dropped? of course if they now said they found it, the whole world would just belly-laugh. Luckily it's in NR hands so they can't get near the site. I do believe Russia may be keeping an ace up their sleeve so to speak.KatKan (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Investigation" would be the right word for what one should implement, while "plan" suggests something else, something one hatches in secret... With all this time to have been found and hidden by the separatists, he seems confident the smoking gun is still right there to be found. Maybe Putin's business card as well. Only Kiev's specially rigorous investigators can find it, and only after they've taken full control of the area. Indeed, "search for" would be a better term, if he meant "investigation," which seems hopeless But he said "plan" and apparently one that involves a pre-planned finding of the right clue, and is far from hopeless. Maybe they're just asking for help in conquering this area. No one will expect, need, or want them to follow through on such a plot, just to control more territory and have a fruitless look for good measure. Seems to me the US and allies probably already have enough evidence to blame Russia and carry out whatever punishment they can. It's always more about will than evidence anyway.
 * So... is the linguist just this sloppy? Or is he up to something dropping hints like this? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of what Putin once said about the Iraqi WMDs: "If I were the Americans, I would have found some". Maybe his CIA overlords told Naliwhatshisname about that... ;oP --CE (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, I didn't know that about Putin. Good on him for saying so out loud, too (tho that's a hint of menace as well). Ukraine police and secret services don't strike me as needing advice about faking evidence. oh, though on second thoughts, they're more used to just saying it and being believed, like the Big Invasion and 2 nukes on airport guys. USA has not said a word about Russia on this matter for ages, ie about the time the black boxes got read.KatKan (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tried to locate the origin of that quote but failed. Nothing in English and all the references in German indicate that they had it from the same source I have: German "comedians". It is in character though, if you add some "they can't even control their own plots" Russian humour. And I think he really said it, but at the current state of evidence don't reference it to me, please. ;o) --CE (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bloodless Bodies, Photo Proof?
Two days ago ANNA News uploaded a video of some kind of presentation of photos from the aftermath and clean-up operation. Camera shows a Laptop with an apparently rather large collection of photos, a woman is operating and explaining what is shown (in Russian). As to the nature of it, this is really gruesome stuff showing the victims as they ended up on the ground, and I only made it a good minute in. The video description seems to allege what Strelkov reported his men reporting to the outrage of everyone: Smell of chemicals, many naked, no or very few blood, in decay.

Doesn't fit there ("debunked topics"), because the photos are certainly not debunked and evidence independent of any conclusions. So it's here. Should be watched by someone who can judge what they see and have a good stomach. --CE (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It might've been flippant to put the theory right into debunked, but it made a fair point that it sounds really dumb on the surface ... but this is presented as evidence, okay. I had a look, indeed some horrible images - people broken and smeared in several different ways (look out esp. from 4:49-5:08). I'm guessing these are mostly next morning photos near the site? Ones further out, found later, will be rotting. I'm not expert enough to settle this, but fresh bodies normally should not have these signs we see: darkening skin, black lips, etc. - lack of visible surface blood - (heard about) bad decay smell.
 * But then again, bodies don't normally - suffer massive decompression / oxygen cut-off / etc. - move at high speed as they're torn up (smeared people = wiped clean?) - have all their tussues and guts torn up so badly - and do all this in mass numbers at the peak of summer. No maggots yet - they must have been pre-killed somewhere there were no flies, (or gassed with a pesticide-like poison!) or very quickly before loading ... no, my semi-educated guess is still some combination of these factors will explain what we see, even in these select photos. But at least, this lets us see more of it ourselves for comparison. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it sounds bizarre but Strelkov mentioned it himself saying he just relayed what he was told from the ground. Anyway, to speculate about it we first need more details about the claims. Went back to ANNA to see if anybody subtitled it ... but they don't seem to do that the same way as in Syria. But I noticed just recently they have a German team which produces little news shows. Didn't look into it yet. But hey, there it is, a German version with hardwired subtitles. Which means there is no transcript to copy & paste like with the CC function. Which means I will have to watch at least a bit of it. *sigh* Maybe later, maybe tomorrow.
 * From the German description I can already say that the woman alleges to be an eyewitness who arrived "immediately" at the scene. Description is written in sceptical language. Her claims: Very few Europeans (as opposed to Asians, I guess), disgusting smell, rotten bodies. They checked Laptops and USB-Sticks and found "no photos" younger than October 2013. Let me guess (I don't know out of hand), that's when the other MH disappeared? --CE (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm so not trusting this narrative - these are also people who were (kept alive?) from ... no MH370 wp was in March this year (that recent?) - All I can find October 2013 related is an alleged Israeli acquisition of the jet's twin (sale in Florida, October 21, 2013 per Chris Bollyn (quack) He speculates it would be rolled out for another false flag attack, unless maybe people were alerted. So ... maybe passengers bought at the same time at that plane, kept alive but not allowed to take pictures, for nine months, but killed long enough before the July crash date they were just then rotting ... lot of fake families implied for the missing new (alleged) victims ... lot of proof in the rotting bodies and nine-months lack of new photos ... --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FTR here is a detailed German language article about the claims in the video, which makes them more accessible per autotranslation than the embedded subtitles. --CE (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think the subtitles are worth it, you can cover the whole screen besides that and still even get time-stamps. Like, at 0:40 is she saying here are more blood free body parts, and the wet pavement under them is from the day's rain? (tried typing into Google translate - my High School German mostly catches "the ... of ... and" - but still "a "wet" aureole were umwolkt" didn't help enough) --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. Anyone who would go to this much trouble would surely EASILY put some more recent photos on the USB sticks.
 * As well as fake families,they'd have to create fake social media going back years, plus fake old school/work friends and neighbours. In 10 countries. Oh and a fake AIDS conference.
 * None of these idiots has yet come up with WHY? what benefit does anyone get from faking all this? If it was meant for putting the blame on one country or another, they could have got THAT bit right and shoot it in a way that 100% identifies that country.


 * Most if not all the passengers would have been killed by the shock wave of the missile detonation, causing internal injuries including mashing of the lungs and intestines. Black lips etc would be from lack of oxygen. Then while the plane was thrashing around/diving/spinning they'd get thrown around, among seats and luggage also flying around. This would cause numerous injuries. These would hardly bleed at all, because the hearts were no longer pumping. Blood in their veins/arteries would be barely liquid by the time they hit the ground a few minutes later.
 * This is consistent with what Strelkov's people were reporting - bloated blackening bodies with "no blood" where they expected to see blood. Any mangled bodies these guys would have recently seen were fresh killed in front of their eyes, a different result altogether.KatKan (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW Double plus that! Simple explanations win over conspiracy theories every time --Charles Wood (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not worth much without examination of the evidence. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Just saying. ;o) --CE (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose this one's been well-enough piled on. All points including the last seem totally valid. I'm still not inclined to pursue it, but it might be worth double-checking. If things besides decay can be ruled out or whatever, ... eh, I'll just have to see.--Caustic Logic (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What Can Forensics Prove?

 * ''Investigation moved to /Forensics

We're now getting organized, with List of MH17 airframe parts - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged (Wikipedia) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighter Jet?
This point is disputed, and thus not proven to everyone's satisfaction. But it's clearly a big question: was there, or was there not, a fighter jet trailing MH-17 before its shooting down? Russia says yes and has produced radar data they say supports that. Kiev says no, and may have supplied radar evidence (did they?) Some locals report seeing it, but no one believes "subhuman" "terrorists..."

Whether or not the jet brought down the airliner is another story, but obviously related.

(Russia's details for - forthcoming)

counter-arguments: Interpreter Mag offers what it claims are serious questions about Russia's fighter jet claims. They don't start out dismissing that there was a radar return the Russians followed, but question - reasonably - if it was really a jet. They latch onto the translation "hover" describing what the "jet" did for four minutes after, and note "to “hover” requires a helicopter," and "the fastest helicopter in the Ukrainian arsenal" is too slow to trail MH17, so ... in case he meant circle (obviously) the article suggests that it's all but impossible for a fighter to circle and loiter in that small area, so probably that also is a clumsy lie, which by the end they're forced to call "Moscow's Magical Mystery Jets." --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and James Miller added "A MAJOR problem with Russia's latest claim, that a Ukrainian Su-25 was tailing MH17. According to the plane's own manufacturer, who has incentive to inflate the SU-25's performance numbers, that aircraft can't even fly high enough to be 3 kilometers away as Russia claims﻿." My response to that is ... sorry what? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On that point, I understand the SU-25 is a ground attack craft, that normally operates under 25,000 feet, while MH17 was at 33,000. Still, it might be able to go higher, and could still be 305 km away plus or including 8,000 feet or whatever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Air-to-air missile?

 * Вот и первые признаки БЧ. Сбивал не Бук-М1 (Here are the first signs of warheads. Not hit by Buk-M1)

This is disproved. It's confirmed a Grad Missile was used. GRAD Missile downed aircraft :-) --Charles Wood (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Pilot confesses? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukrainischer Pilot gibt Abschuss von MH17 zu
 * I started out skeptical, checked, and didn't see where they explain just what he said, to whom, etc. Our readers will need more alleged details. I'm still skeptical, obviously. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's satire. Says so trilangually in bold red right there at the top. Original is here on a quite funny satire site. It's full of valid information but the premise of the piece is to show how propaganda would react and integrate such a confession into their narrative. --CE (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Пілоти збитого "Ан-26" кажуть, що їх підбили ракетою з винищувача An Ukrainian Antonov An-26, a military transport aircraft shot down above Lugansk near the village of Izvaryne on July 14 (just 3 days prior to Malaysian Airlines flight MH17) was, according to its bailed-out pilots, struck by an air-to-air missile (ракетою класу "повітря-повітря"). The Antonov was flying at an altitude of 6500 m at the time it was hit, far beyond the reach of most man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS).  Even before the MH17 disaster this event lead to speculation in the Western press of the east-Ukrainian rebels possessing more sophisticated anti-air weapons. accident description at ASN --Pasparal (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time it was "known" the rebels had a BUK since late June, 25 or 26th. Air to air would have implied Russian planes; as they didn't say they saw them, to identify, this claim was never made again. This was I think the one the videos were of, circulating in the first days as being MH17. As it happened in Lugansk, I'd say it was the BUK,as it was them that had it. MH17 went down in Donetsk territory and they've been truthfully saying they never had such a weapon. True that Lugansk prime minister Borodai said so too, but a PM doesn't necessarily know what the men liberated last week.
 * But as I say in the TEST section below, they'd need a backup plan, as they can't afford to leave the plane able to call for help or maybe land. In that case it would not be a Russian pane of course. The An-26 pilots' belief may have given them the idea though. This may ALSO explain why witnesses say they saw another plane and why they said they HEARD TWO EXPLOSIONS ... a BUK that did almost no damage and a coup de grace from a fighter????KatKan (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not following claims on An 26, but "Igla" (9К338 «Игла-С») has a listed altitude of 6000, so shoulder-fired system hit at 6000 is not out of question. There are also old surface-to air anti-aircraft systems less powerful than Buk: Osa (SA-8 Gecko, altitude 12000),  Strela 9K35 Strela-10, listed altitude 3500).   --Resup (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Carlos"
Okay, what the heck? This has been called a hoax (as noted even at the first link) but I'm not so sure. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 10:21 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos “Kiev Authorities, trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians”
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/spanish-air-controller-kiev-borispol-airport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/5391888

10:24 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros “warning! It can be a downing, Malaysia Airlines B777 in ukraine, 280 passengers”

10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba “Warning! Kiev have what they wanted”

10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev “[Miitary] has taken control of ATC in Kiev”

10:27 – 17 de jul. de 2014 El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado “The Malaysia Airlines B777 plane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed”


 * What really happened to MH17? Russia's media have the answer says the Christian Science Monitor,laughingly, on July 22. On "Carlos," they say:
 * 2. The mysterious Spanish airport controller source. A mysterious Twitter account, @spainbuca, purporting to be a Spanish air traffic controller at Kiev's international airport named Carlos tweeted out that two Ukrainian fighter jets had shadowed the Malaysian airliner and that Kiev was behind its downing. In May, the Spanish-language channel of Kremlin mouthpiece RT interviewed Carlos and blurred out his face because he claimed he was in danger for criticizing the Ukrainian government.
 * However, the Spanish Embassy in Kiev has no record of Carlos, reports Fox News Latino. “We have no knowledge of ‘Carlos’ having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him,” it said. Carlos’s Twitter account no longer exists.

Questions:
 * 1) What was he saying in May that was newsworthy? May 8, Espanol - says he's in Madrid at the time Does he seem shady like a possible disinfo agent?
 * 2) Was he back in Ukraine still (allegedly) working ATC on July 17, or is his knowledge supposed to be from the community?
 * 3) Does he claim direct knowledge the fighters brought down the plane, or just speculate based on their presence?
 * 4) Does his account deletion similarity to the Graham W. Phillips case mean anything? Or is this just a fakester who called it quits as soon as questions arose?
 * 5) How does the embassy know if they do or don't have a record unless they know just who he is? Isn't he supposed to have been anonymous up 'til now? (deduced from Spanish + ATC? = zero? That could work)
 * 6) Has anyone anywhere heard from him since? --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not following 'Carlos' story and it smelled fishy (why a foreigner working there; how do we know he is not a hired troll --lots of those posting somethings). But recently looking at Russian MOD presentation, it is likely that Ukrainian traffic control is integrated (civilian and military). USSR had a habit to make things double-use, and that may not change since. So, if somebody was there, he could see both civilian and military planes on such integrated system. Russia requested ATC information, that seems to be well-justified request, as there were several witnesses reporting plane sightings shortly prior to the crash. Witness reports were presented in Western press, so reports are not fake. Witness statements appear/sound sincere; no evidence they are not. Witnesses do get honestly confused, but there is no indication they are lying or are tense in making statements --Resup (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Escorts?

 * http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su-27s-escorted-mh17/
 * Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee believes the mistake was caused by the fact the Malaysian Boeing 777 was escorted over eastern Ukraine. Taghvaee is always very well informed and an extremely reliable source. Therefore, after he provided some details about this activity of the Ukrainian Air Force on ACIG forum thread about the war in Ukraine, we contacted him for some more insight. Here’s what he wrote to us.
 * “When the Crimea crisis began, the Ukrainian Air Force air command center quickly forward deployed six Su-27s to the Kulbakino AB. Since beginning of the crisis and the Russia intervention, the 831st TAB has the important task to provide air defense as well as security of whole country. Six fully armed Flankers have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine,” explains Taghvaee.
 * “But when the Su-25M1 was shot down by the Russia Air Force 6969th AB’s MiG-29 on Jul. 16, the situation and condition became more critical than previous days and more Su-27 sorties were conducted to confront Russian MiG-29s. I believe those two Su-27s were not in sky just for standard practice in that day [Jul. 17], I believe they were involved in HAVCAP (High  Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) mission sortie in that day.”

Hm - an escort patrol starting just that day? Did Russians even shoot down the jet forcing that decision right then? High value asset it was, once it was shot down and blamed on Russia. This could use some further searching, but one Q is why Carlos (or his sources) would be so alarmed at the fighter jets if they were known "escorts." And also, why would Kiev decide on this and then deny it? That looks bad. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did the Jet(s) Down MH17?
I don't think so, but it's possible. I hear now the evidence is conclusive, it's proven and all debate should cease. An OSCE expert said x was "like" y. OMG x is same thing as y proved!

Petri, I see in comments here your working theory:
 * MH17 was brought down by a frontal attack by a fighter jet. The jet fired a "machine gun" or autocannon through the left side windshield right at the captain. The direction of fire was from slightly to the left and slightly above. The bullets left perfectly round holes of about 20 mm diameter in the upper frame of the windshield. Further down the left side the holes became elongated and irregular, some with the appearance of exit holes. The smaller irregular holes on the side are most likely the result of fragmentation rounds mixed in with armor piercing bullets. Some of these may have bounced off the side and exploaded outside.

Not to be too harsh, but I just want to lay out all my questions, in the sort of aggressive way they just tend to run at such times. 1) 20 mm rounds - others have specified a SU-25 with 30 mm cannon as most likely. What are you proposing? A different craft, I guess? Fair enough - SU-25 doesn't seem to be proven, just a good guess. 2) Is there any radar support for a frontal attack from the E-SE (frontal)? The mentioned jet was trailing 3 or more km behind (W-NW) 3) altitude - that was a problem for SU-25, made to work below 25,000 feet while MH17 was at 33, and was hit slightly from above. But you're thinking something else - might well answer that automatically 4) why can't warhead shrapnel of about 20 mm explain this? Or do we know the SA-11 can only have a different size? Because round machine-gun-like holes seems to be just what they normally do. 5) What is up with the Buk launcher moved in that direction, parked right on the flightpath, and apparently having fired a missile towards the jet that would impact it just about head-on like this theorized jet attack? Did they set that up to create the appearance, while using a fighter instead to mimic it? I'd ask where did the missile go, but I guess you could argue the field was fake burnt, the tracks just made, and the contrail photo is from another day or something, 6) Is the jet attack theory really the best explanation for what we see or just the one that's overly tempting because it could smoking-gun pin it on Kiev? --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"The available images of the fuselage of MH17 support the conclusions of Mr Bociurkiw," he correctly notes, while mischaracterizing both. The OSCE semi-exprrt said the parts of the plane he meant were hit with a spray of small, high-velocity projectiles that "almost looks like machine gun fire," but not quite, to his untrained eye, having seen nothing like it before to compare to for sure. Why Mr. Quinn and so many others insist on pretending this proves it was a machiney-type-gun is just a mystery. Buk shrapnel should almost, but not quite, look like machine 30 mm auto-cannon fire
 * MH 17 Who Dunnit? Western Media Silent on the Evidence – Joe Quinn, Sott.net, 01 Sep 2014

"Regardless of the precise way in which MH17 was brought down," even if it's by a Buk missile as the best evidence suggests, he should point out how Kiev and its psycho false-flaggers were the ones with a known capability either way and the motive to do this on purpose. Instead, he says "at this point we can draw some reasonable conclusions: a BUK missile was most likely not involved." Oh. Well, to some, it almost looks like we can. Close enough? --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll just point out (again), 30mm cannon shells either produce individual 30mm or larger holes on the skin if they pass through undetonated; or produce an even larger hole or crater if they detonate on contact.


 * The panel damage seen is way smaller than 30mm and there are no characteristic surface splash marks indicating surface detonation


 * I'm guessing the persistence of this rumour is a combinaton of aggressive fake propagandising by Russian spinmasters (GB I'm looking at you) together with a characteristically dumb audience who are perhaps misled into confusing 30-cal with 30mm - though they may even be dumber than that and not know what 30-cal is or even what 30mm is.


 * For those still confused. 30mm is around 1 1/4" diameter. 30-cal is around 3/10 of an inch --Charles Wood (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of these experts never even looked at the available images. They just parrot theories they've read. At most they'll produce the image which originally accompanied the theory. Readers now just vaguely believe whichever one they first liked. I have not seen any new data or information for 3 weeks at least. KatKan (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The five (maybe even six) neatly aligned ovoid impact holes convinced me rapid cannon shelling was involved (if not 30mm shells, then maybe 23mm or even 20mm). One cannot possibly imagine how those can be produced by a fragmentation blast. At Bellingcat they obviously didn't agree.  But in my opinion their arguments simply do not hold water: Buk 9M38 M1 fragments. --Pasparal (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There would be no reason for Buk shrapnel to align on straight line, it will be random and, overall, evenly spread. What we see is overall random, but there is indeed something which appears neatly arranged and evenly spaced on a line, as Pasparal notes. For automatic cannon or machine gun, it can land like that. What is everything else we see, than would not be clear. We have not thought much about multiple events, for example Buk downing the plane, and than an attempt to finish it off from a plane, or other such multiple event scenarios. There needs to be more evidence to say something definite. If Bezler says his reconnaissance team spotted Buk, this is to be taken seriously. (But he did not say they saw it was used, or that they know for sure that nothing else was used). --Resup (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This 20 July reference makes a early claim that Buk missed and planes finished it off, referring to some leak from UAF. I would say, trustworthiness of the source is unknown and presumed to be low. There may be earlier essentially similar claims, I do not know who made it first. --Resup (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The leak is highly suspect. We've been over the holes a bit from different presumptions. I don't feel we have a firm measure on the holes so I can't say whether they are even large enough for one or small enough for the other. I've been leaning to Buk shrapnel, with roundness from their complex 3-D shapes plus edge melting (which you can see happened some on closer shots) But if the holes were consistently too big, all or largely over 30 mm, that would have to change. That photo of shrapnel sizes I've never seen (four types not 3? ... the arc looks interesting. If it's worth covering in details, best place to continue would be Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Forensics. A couple different sections might work to keep your work where it's best found. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Radar Details
I know we have much of the reportage and alleged details up on the various pages, but still I think a space here is good to outline the best-supported details from Russian or other radar used to support their even being a jet. I may pull that together if no one else does, in a simple bullet list below. Locations first and last seen, direction of travel, speed of travel, any maneuvers, anything about altitude, etc. Next step is to compare what that says with fighter jets, SU-25 or other vs., say, a high-drag fragment of the airliner drifting on winds as it falls, a helicopter, dense cloud formation, etc. Maybe I missed something, but on last review, it seemed the evidence presented is just vague enough either could fit and it seemed there was no clear case in support of this jet actually being present in the air ... --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian military showed screen shots from unified traffic control in Rostov, second part of presentation. 3 RLS and some unspecified military data used. Recording we see starts at 13.19 UTC time (17.19 pm Moscow). Crash is 13:20 UTC. We see MH17 slows down from about v=1000 km/h to v=280 km/h (speed in km/h goes after # ), at about 20:56  by the video time-stamp. At this time, we see one circle representing MH17 becoming two circles (by whatever method they use to process their raw data). The second circle parameters cannot be acquired, so it is either part of MH17 without transponder, or it is a military plane which does not talk to Russians; they interpret this as a military plane. MH17 stays on screen for a bit, (which may be interpolation of earlier received data or new acquired data--unclear); than it disappears (what  we see is another flight 351 only)  While new circle, orange in color, moves a bit in the opposite direction (and gets stuck steady for a while in the video we see, for whatever reason. Russian military interpretation of data is that their ATC system was in a regular, sleepy mode, and it only sees what is above 5000 m in that mode. They say, military plane showed up once it acquired altitude, and was not seen before as it was lower. I do not think anybody questions the fact that this is genuine screen shot, but interpretation does not appear too convincing. There is no further information to go by, so if there is more to say, THEY have to make the case, and have experienced and knowledgeable people as judges. --Resup (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Test Shooting to Demonstrate
They did a test, Russian fighter shooting at dead planes on the ground. Some interesting results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gzw363q1N3o As usual I don't understand the audio, but the images are good. I can't make out what he shoots with, I assume cannon (?) KatKan (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As he say, SU 25, with 30 mm cannon,was used, should be the standard armament. Looks interesting, indeed. But SU 25 will have trouble staying at such height (may be not able to cruise, can only leap there); and it is slow, like about the same speed as Boeing, so it cannot really catch-up. There were reports to the effect that it is not well-pressurized or have oxygen mask in default configuration. It would need truly extraordinary piloting, and realistically a plane should be a fast high altitude type. But that would show up on radars, including civilian radars... And the closest base for such a plane will be in Kiev, so it will likely show there on AVACS as well. --Resup (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Radar we cannot count on. ATC generally uses secondary, ie only picks up transponder squawks. Military aircraft transmit a "friend" squawk on their own frequency. They are just as invisible to civilian ATC as MH17 was to a BUK TELAR looking for a military "friend" signal. This in itself makes a lie of the "Spanish Carlo" ATC story that there were 2 Ukie planes escorting MH17....he would not have seen them.
 * The Russian "radar" claimed to see SU 25's or something? the radar would not say what they are, they could be assuming SU's if they didn't know Ukraine had just (about 3 weeks earlier) got two of its MIG's back into the air. MIG 29's easily handle that altitude.
 * Kiev denied having any planes in the air that day, although apparently that morning the had gone on TV to say they were planning 8 sorties that day. AWACS for sure would know, BUT as the story was "Russia dunnit"  with separatist BUK, they're not going to say, anyway it would point the wrong way, so.....  MIGs have/can use that R60 missile.
 * It MUST BE A MISSILE otherwise it can't be blamed on a BUK, okay? the fragments are much the same from various missiles. Some even have interchangeable heads. KatKan (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That early leak I mentioned actually say that Buk "missed" (which I interpret as not done the job, really), and air-to-air missiles from planes were used to finish. As for Russian data, I only looked once, and as far as I could tell, there was no other signal before the presumed impact. Than something showed up very shortly after, and they say, stayed there for a while. Objections were raised that there was nothing to be seen before, and what is seen later could be plane starting to dis-integrate. Other, experienced people raised similar issues, as well as that there was some computer issue, like it get frozen and next update showed plane moving at unreasonable velocity. I was not following this since, as I could not say much and experienced people made their comments. --Resup (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With Korean Boeing shot by USSR, it was hit possibly by 1 or two air-to air missiles, but it kept flying for quite a while after that before it crashed; so I interpret "missed" as not dropping it off air at once --Resup (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Smaller weaker missiles in those days. Another KAL kept flying and landed on ice or something. Both were hit above the wings, opening the fuselage a bit (and not too good result for some passengers). But the pilots alive and control surfaces and engines functioning, so really no worse off than the Aloha Airlines case in Hawaii where the roof blew off from decompression (metal fatigue). The one that crashed did have control surface damage.  MH17 had the pilots killed, and all the avionics (computer control) in the bay below them, went into a flat spin that peeled off the roof, then the cockpit broke off, so.....a fair few military craft have survived missile hits, too. Proximity ones from the side, not heat-seekers which always get the engine.
 * So actually, if it was a terrible mistake,they were very unlucky with where it struck. But if it was deliberate, they WOULD have to have a bird up to make sure, as the investigations would be much more thorough if the pilots could call for help, and maybe sort of land and some people survived. KatKan (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it was planned, surface to air the main plan, need some planes, perhaps as a taxi to do the bookkeeping, but (mostly), just in case for plan B, if there is job started but not completed. (As I understand, civilian radar watches above 5000 m, so it is consistent with low-flying 'patrol', doing something else if needed). --Resup (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Civilian radar is secondary only -- strictly not even radar, they just query the transponders (that's hows MH370 "disappeared" as soon as the transponder went off). Military uses primary, actual radar that sends signals everywhere to see what bounces back. They can also listen for a "friend" squawk ("foe" they never hear as they can't ask the enemy to signal itself, so response = brother, no response = enemy oh oops civilian is also no response, oh...) Anyway point is ATC was not looking because airspace was closed to civilian traffic below 28,000 feet and they were actually only sending them over at 32,000 or 35,000 (in peace time they'd be looking at all levels because of local traffic). But now, could be a whole squadron in formation there and ATC would not know.
 * Russia might know, as they've been looking that way. With the curvature of the earth and radar strength, what they'd see would depend on distance and altitude, so this is an unknown to us. They do claim to think they saw something. The AWACS over Romania and Poland may have similar blind spot problems. They would be looking for the threat (Russia) not the Kiev machines, which would be on bombing missions they approved of (blocks of flats, kindergartens and so on).
 * brand new conspiracy theory they are practising radar aiming, but ooops, the button is not locked. Fighter with bird's eye view sees rocket coming, thinks he'll be a hero and help out if needed. Ooops. Well it's gonna crash anyway, better make a good job of it, dead men don't talk. But no, if it was BUK+plane, it was no accident. KatKan (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Slightly informed comment on air defences
See vineyardsaker. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --Charles Wood (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.

- US Satellites tracked the missile

- Russia did it (at least morally)

- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)

- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down

- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion

- add your rumour here

What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town. --Charles Wood (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Tin Foil (Hat) theory of Military Chaff falling in crash video
Video shows man explaing that long streamers in crash video are actually military chaff from a Ukranian fighter shadowing MH17

Military Chaff Theory

Simple debunk. The stuff must have been a metre or more wide and hundreds of metres long to be visible at that range. No such military chaff system has that sizing, least of all one that can be carried by a fighter jet.

The only foil in this video is on the guy's head.

--Charles Wood (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what "military chaff" is, but I saw someone mention the streamers, connected to the plane having a cargo including textiles. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, It seems to me the chaff is falling in the foreground while the smoke cloud is kilometers away. A lucky shot just got them both in the same picture. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * just to belatedly clarify - chaff would be emitted by the plane before being shot down, in the hope of causing the missile to home onto the chaff ather than the plane itself. This is the purpose of chaff. So the chaff could be many kilometres behind the plane. The images in that video most likely WERE chaff, because that video has since been proven to be NOT MH17 but a Ukrainian military plane that was downed 2 days earlier. KatKan (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A Rebel-Held Area
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again. It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.
 * P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WSJ has a crappy map: How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Defector Theory

 * U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector” Paul Joseph Watson, July 23
 * In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.
 * As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.
 * The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.

Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, This from July 20 seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else on July 17. What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:
 * What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
 * The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.

Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone is trash talking everyone else. I'm not believing any of it. It was partly cloudy that day and you'd have to be very lucky to have a satellite pass overhead just when a BUK gets launched. It is much more likely that whatever the US has it got from a spy plane, such as the RC-135 they have operating in the area.(On July 18 some Russian MIGs approached it and it had to fly off over Sweden without permission). https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5 Sorry can't find it now, but another story said land radar had locked onto them, which is why they left in such a hurry. KatKan (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Russian press conference: "As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time." That will be 16.06 to 16.21 local. _If true_, this is likely to show at least part of the trajectory. No need for satellite's beer bottle photos. -- Chingachgook (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I recall, somewhere on the news there was a claim that there is no US radar data (too far) --Chingachgook (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * US: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from."  (Hope not on a fake photo)?  --Chingachgook (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The photo that popped up for me showed lots of flowers and photos of Diana, Princess of Wales, i.e from 1997. So in true The Australian tradition a fake. FYI The Australian is one of the least accurate papers in Australia and runs a very heavy anti-Russian and pro-Israel line. --Charles Wood (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Andriy Parubiy again?
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.
 * It was Putin’s missile! – RT, July 19, 2014
 * ''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in his July 20 article, and mentions:
 * It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.
 * Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.” --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Andriy Parubiy resigned yesterday. Same day the following came out. --CE (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko
On August 7, SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko introduced a new narrative (release on SBU website / archived snapshot) apparently contradicting their released audio tapes that early on helped form the narrative of an accidental shoot-down of MH17 by "rebels" who thought it was a military plane. Now the story goes that the Russians planned to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false flag operation blaming it on Ukraine, to have a pretext for invasion. But the "Russian mercenaries" moved their Buk to a different location than planned and mistook MH17 for the Aeroflot machine with their own people they wanted to kill. What exactly they prepared to blame it on Ukraine (maybe Ukrainian uniforms or something?), or why a plane full of AIDS researchers and Dutch children couldn't be used as a pretext (Russian people don't care about Dutch children?), is not explained. Nalyvaichenko has been implicated by his predecessor in the sniper killings on Maidan, together with Andriy Parubiy.--CE (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Human Rights Investigations, Aug. 7 - In Ukraine, the lunatics have taken over the asylum This relates a SBU statement of earlier in the day outlining their latest theory. As said before, Russians did it, with a system they brought in and took right back with them. Most people have presumed there's no motive for Russia to shoot down an airliner into the separatist's area on their behalf, and it must have been an accident. The SBU's thinkers decided it was intentional, but with an accidental part too. They meant to shoot down a Russian airliner, but set themselves up in the wrong town, so they hit MH17 instead. The original plan was to use dead Russians blamed on Kiev as a reason to invade Ukraine, but when it was other people dead, he said never mind. Awesome theory, no? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Beat you to it, put it here where it belongs... bizarre. Interesting that Parubiy resigned (see above the subheadline) the same day this came out, isn't it?--CE (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome, tag-teamed it with similar technique. Parubiy, huh! That gave zero reason, didn't it? It's not 'to spend more time with my family.' No, he notes on the way out, he still belongs at the "forefrongfront." --Caustic Logic (talk)
 * FTR RT says "On Monday, reports appeared in Ukrainian media about Parubiy’s resignation. The Local Zn.ua website, citing its source, said that the security chief is due to resign due to diverging opinions with the country’s president. The media stated that Parubiy decided to resign after he was ordered to declare another ceasefire in Kiev’s military operation in the southeast of the country, but he refused to do so." --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This article announces an investigation into the "Southern Cauldron" disaster and calls Parubiy the "main author" of the plan that led to it. Maybe that's the reason. --CE (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ukraine@War views the theory favorably --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And not impressed with one de-bunk effort but rather more convinced!


 * Yeah, we got it the first time already. The guy is a knucklehead. --CE (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cyber Berkut leak

 * Kolomoyskiy assistant’s Facebook account hacked - the Boeing downed by junta!

SBU wiretap video

 * ''Moved to /SBU Audio Evidence

Corbett report
Petri just put this on the main page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4

I ASSUME it is going to be a false flag nonsense. After 8 whole minutes of introductory waffle and advertising, he still has not started on the topic, so I am not watching any more of it. It is titled "MH17 FULLY EXPOSED!! You Won't Believe The SHOCKING TRUTH About the Ukraine FALSE FLAG ". they are right, I won't believed a word of it. Don't bother with it. KatKan (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A False-Flag Defector Theory
Here's one way the facts might wind up going: an SA-11 was fired from outside Snizneh, as alleged, and that's what killed MH17. The Buk launcher was even welcomed in by local commanders, heard saying so in audio communications that could prove true (or not), was sent to the spot by them, and then disavowed in embarrassment. And also the launcher came from Kiev's arsenal, the shootdown was not a mistake, and the crime carried out by pro-Kiev false-flaggers in the proud Euromaidan tradition. Here's how that could all be so:

Some secret Right-winger in the army playing a disgusted defector makes contact with local rebels on July 15. He heard about the apartment bombing that day in Snizneh, and about the junta's plans for another run at the same place two days later. But, he said, he could get access to a launcher at the base north of Donetsk, a disloyal guard who'd take a bribe (small, covered) plus even a couple local defectors trained to run it, and even a truck from his part time job - the boss wouldn't notice it missing, he's such a clueless junta-supporter... Yeah, he could have it all mobile, drive it himself, make all the contacts, have their guys check it out, it works! It'll shoot down anything. They can get it put in place and wait. In this version, the "SBU wiretap" audio was maybe their defector's own phone - he was undercover the whole time, "wearing a wire" - the launcher was a trojan horse, and its crew were evil and knew just what they where they were and just what they were doing.

On the rebel end, having no clue there will be a mass murder ensuing, and seeing nothing criminal in preventing a second junta air force atrocity, happily waved the thing in. They were supposed to meet someone in Snizneh, but drove off mysteriously. Then MH17 came down and, in dread and shock, the rebels decided to dis-acknowledge the whole deal, and no one's simply come clean about it yet. But the "defector" meme coming out might be spurred by its partial truth, along lines kind of like this, and not from some satellite photos. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey CL, apart from your vivid imagination, do you have even just a whisper to back this up? And if we're speculating, how would you like to forget Snizneh and look at Chornukhyne as the launch site? At the time was on almost no man's land, under Don Cossack Control. KatKan (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do I have evidence? Yes. There are these pieces we're considering, supposed to point that way, that might or might not. This theory here is sort of a "worst case scenario" where all those come out true, or an idea for those who believe all those clues, to show how alternate explanations still exist even then. Im am fairly convinced of the core parts, much less on the calls, but this is more a though exercise than "my theory," although it's not far from my working theory and become it if the audio is genuine after all. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, similar to KatKan question is bugging me as well . Why not to look, let's say, perhaps somewhere else? (hopefully without creating sudden burst of fighting or urgent land management work just right exactly there, if possible )? --Chingachgook (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah, early intercepted call said ""These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those Cossacks who are based in Chernukhino." and nobody's ever looked there. It is same distance as Snizneh and  90 degrees to the flight path so an easy shot. KatKan (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly would not know why a reputable news-maker would pay travel expenses going to Snezhny but not this other well-flagged place nearby. The only new comment I have to make here is that this is a big expensive truck, not a flag costing one grivna/ruble {nor is it a can of some chemicals).  It is your best air defense, and there aren't many. So it is either off front line or it is there, somewhere, for a real strong reason.  --Chingachgook (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, the other town being named is one clue for another site, and no one looking could be why there's nothing else. I'm not sure how Chernukin connects - If the burned spot is up there, or there's another one... maybe the defector made his contact with those guys, and so his little team was called part of theirs - Miner brought them. As for why the other area, it was indicated and they say it had burn marks at the end (can't be checked and ruled in or out), so they went and it appears to have been smart. In the other direction, a mention the responsible people are from there, not even that they fired from there. But at least it's not pulled out of thin air. If there becomes more to support it, I'll consider more. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We may want to put the audio story in order separately, someplace, if it was not done. I was following it initially, but now references are hard to find.


 * Agreed. This happens here sometimes. Hoping it helps, I made a page for that subject and moved comments from both of you guys over there. Hope I didn't mess anything up in the process - please review. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You did indeed delete a whole bunch of stuff instead of "moving" it. Restored here. --CE (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I recall (but do not have links saved), this is Bes recordings, glued together from genuine pieces. (I believe Bes said pieces are genuine early on himself) The first piece, mentioning Enakievo, is about a different earlier episode--as he himself responded. His response about second piece, mentioning Cossacks, was much more evasive, something like 'if every block post has a Buk, than I'll be in Kiev'. But it is clear that at the time of event, he had reason to believe that  something was going on over there. That does not say this happened as he thought, Cossacks may be shooting pistols not Buks or whatever; but it may looked like something is launched from there, or whatever the case might be. This does suggest some notable event at that location. I do not see genuine evidence pointing to the current official version; it is more consistent with somebody trying to put a false flag there so that all attention of social networkers go that way. Chasing this flag further is a waste of time in my opinion, and is unlikely to produce anything new which is not known already.  Looking the other way, even pointing out there is SOME other way, might. (Actually, it looks like attempts were made to place SEVERAL false flags, and than whatever was picked up, was supported by some further noise).    --Chingachgook (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (Coincidently) just above I posted an alleged proof of audio fakery of some SBU-released audio, likely from the first batch. As I said, I didn't look into it really closely. Maybe worth doing so. Claim is that it was cut together from several audio tapes. --CE (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Bes in the audio (perhaps glued from pieces) does say Cossacks from Chernukhino block post shot the plane down, those Cossacks _standing_ at Cherknukhino. Why everybody is looking the other way just beats me --Chingachgook (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This brief piece on Chernukhino Cossacks is disconnected from the first piece (about Miner, apparently another rebel) and from discussion of discovering that it was a passenger plane and of the bodies. Chernukhino piece is timed at 16.33 on the crash day. First piece (Miner) is timed earlier, actually,  at  16:40, and talks about a different location (really bad gluing skill here; this miner thing is most likely from another day, and I recall that was claimed in discussions which followed. )  Gluing is beyond any doubt; but individual pieces sound genuine for my ears.  So he does not actually say it was his Cossacks or what they shot was a passenger plane; just that (some) Cossacks standing at Chernukhino shot (some ) plane, and than it cuts off;  rebel blame is rather what this  gluing order is trying to convey on us.  I would certainly check this out.  --Chingachgook (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone back to early things to refresh my memory. And the whole tone of voice was different then. Today it is all propaganda and fantastic stories from everyone.The first 2 days everyone sounded genuine, spoke unthinking,not for effect. So I am thinking, things said early are more likely true. Yes that video with the telephone calls was from 3 separate calls, and at least one maybe not from July 17. The one about Yenaklevo I think is another day. KatKan (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Debunked topics

 * ''Moved to /Debunked topics

This link http://adam1baum.blogspot.fi/2014/08/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false.html

just added to the main page under "Analysis" is FULL of items already debunked. Are the "analysis" items being added without comment? just to collect them? KatKan (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically the main page is for pre-scrutiny source material. Analysis is mainly to collect them. I had a quick look at the blog post, but noticed most of the topics were debunked long ago. Or should be debunked. For example, it seems that MH17 may have flown a different route on previous days, but there were plenty of other Asia flight in the Donetsk airspace. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Warhead damage

 * ''Moved to /Forensics

Radar Evidence

 * ''Moved to /Map

Cockpit Voice Recorder
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671
 * The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,
 * "The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.


 * July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded
 * On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.

AAIB Analysis
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "Tom" Thurman (see The Political Scientists of Lockerbie. I might have been overly fair - Dr. Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative.  --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The crash investigation of Lockerbie was fine. It was the criminal investigation that was messed up. They didn't do that, FBI got involved, same as in TWA800. Some facts seem to depend a fair bit on who is looking at them. KatKan (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times - CVR
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.

A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).

“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.

This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.

The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.

In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.

However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.

Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.

The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.

It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.

The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.

The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.

The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.

Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.

The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.

DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.

It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.

This is to allow them to search for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.

The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos and video clips on their server set up to piece together the mystery.

The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.

New Straits Times CVR report --Charles Wood (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ATC recordings
Initially it was reported that the SBU confiscated the ATC air-to-ground-communication. After weeks the Malaysians asked the Ukrainian ambassador to their country about this, and he denied that it had happened. He said he had no idea what happened to them and no formal request of any investigating party has been made. The Malaysian Attorney General then announced that he will make a formal request to get the recordings. This according to: --CE (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes, New Straits Times, August 8, 2014

Investigation
talk moved here from accidental location on Main page KatKan (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 Donetsk – Dutch Safety Board 21 Aug 2014


 * Interesting list of countries involved. I wonder how Russia and Germany got on this list? from the above report


 * "The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia. The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion." KatKan (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Germany, maybe just provided radar data for the stretch that flew over them. Russia, maybe because they were asked to tell the federalists to let investigators do their work (a stupid but real way of thinking, as if Putin hired all these people). Maybe they were asked for their own radar data too. Indonesia's connection is not too obvious, but I suppose there is one. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Buks--which were widely reported to be suspected rocket and which Ukraine is known to have, is designed and manufactured in Russia, and ONLY Russia would know exact technical details, if those are at issue to the investigation. It is NOT having Russia is what would make zero sense.  --Chingachgook (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point there. We could use more detailed specs here too (though reliable airliner measures and hole size needs settled first anyway) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It says " on the days following the incident (when Ukraine was still leading the investigation), several Ukrainian aviation investigators visited the crash site briefly several times for investigative purposes."  They must have sneaked in disguise as rescue workers collecting bodies. And maybe it was they responsible for some of the "cutting up and removing evidence" and maybe they decently handed it over to the Dutch, whatever they found useful.
 * Are you SURE the BUKs are made in Russia? I know they ere designed there, so were the Antonovs and helicopters which Ukraine not only makes but exports to other countries. They make radar and big rockets too. Mostly in the south east...8th largest arms manufacturer in the world.


 * I do not have means to verify that no plant in Ukraine is producing books, but my understanding based on press reports, is that production is in Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow. That makes logical sense and I do not have a reason to think that this report is not accurate  .  There is no way for me to check this 100 sitting on my chair. Did anybody even claimed that there is a plant based in Ukrain capable of producing Buks? I have not seen such reports. It is possible that some components were normally exported from somewhere else in former SU, but it looks like final assembly at least is near Moscow . (That would also make logical sense, and I do not have grounds to dispute the report     --Chingachgook (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway this is only Air Safety report. Criminal investigation if any has to be done by different department (but could be in any country involved). There won't be criminal charges. The finding will be "missile fired by persons unknown". KatKan (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on MH17 Crash Probe – RIA Novosti, 23/08/2014 -- Petri Krohn (talk) aug 24 not signed


 * This story looks like for domestic consumption,


 * Maybe in small part, but mostly it is more like you accused us--where is the proof? With intention to have the matter dropped, not to escalate the matter. This is not working very well, it just gets stuck, because the other part is not paying much attention. They are not trying to work together at all, and so it just reflects that there is a lot of unresolved tension. --Chingachgook (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * to make it look like the "West" is hiding something.
 * A bit of that, --certainly they want to recieve as early as possible all available evidence, and they were saying in the past that they had not. But in terms of tone, the reason is concern with insufficient respect to Russia, so the payback is, hey,go bring us some pointless paper. So there are tone problems, not just substance problems, --Chingachgook (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It refers to

Resolution 2166 adopted by the UN Security Council in July calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into the MH17 tragedy and requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation progress reports". which is nonsense, as Security Council has no access, will not do own investigation, and it is being done under international laws by the Dutch. Furthermore, as a member of the investigation panel, Russia knows this. KatKan (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The original story is that separatists shot it down with a BUK. The physical evidence only points to a proximity fuse missile of some sort, several types of these available including air to air ones. USA claims but has not shown satellite evidence of a BUK being fired frm "rebel held territory". This is UNTRUE as satellite would not show the type of evidence they claim to have. So to produce evidence they would have the show what they really have, which must be off a spy plane. Domestically they want to hide that they had enough interest in the area to operate such a plane there, though everyone locally knows. They will not produce this for a criminal case. No criminal case is possible without proof of who (what person or unit) shot it. Anyway the consensus also was that they were aiming at a legitimate military target, so was accidental.
 * Several other accidental "wrong target" scenarios are possible, and almost as equally likely. If there WERE Ukrainian aircraft near MH17 (and witnesses said there WAS a fighter there) they may have been the target, of separatists OR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT which of course are not meant to be in Ukrainian air space -- but would not have to be, to be close enough to shoot a missile at one. Alternatively a Russian one may have been the target of a Ukrainian plane. Either way the much larger and intervening B777 would have captured the attention of the missile.
 * The Russian "radar proof" of SUs being there were fake. But based on some knowledge that there WERE some there. If their own planes saw them, they can't admit to that.
 * There is enough doubt for all parties to NOT WANT a thorough investigation. Nobody can do one with hopes of blaming the other, without potentially incriminating themselves.
 * So it will not happen. Whichever way it was, the missile was aimed at a legitimate target. So at most the charge could only be negligence. Discovering whose negligence would only escalate hostilities. Nobody wants that. KatKan (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All signed and should-be-signed chit chat should ideally be on a talk page, not front (article) page. Friendly reminder. (and I say ideally as I and others have done this before and sometimes never fixed it, but it's not ideal) (good talk though) :) --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry, I started it there, fixed now. KatKan (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian demands

 * Russia proposes appointing UN special envoy for MH17 crash probe — Churkin – ITAR-TASS, 20 Sept 2014
 * ''He said that Russian delegation has seen no will on the part of the secretariat to display any initiative to promote international investigation of the crash. “We think it important that the United Nations Secretary General should analyze the state of things on the above problems and deliver a detailed report to the Security Council, including his suggestions about additional measures to promote the investigation,” he said.
 * ''“It would probably be expedient to look at establishing a post of a secretary general’s envoy on that matter and sending, in collaboration with the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], a mission to the crash area,” Churkin said.
 * Russians are annoyed by disrespect, and by sanctions. During the meeting of the UN Security Council, Churkin urged his colleagues to work together to clarify the tragic story of the airliner "without any hints and insinuations" and references to the evidence which has not been submitted. "If you do not submit (any proof) than this is not evidence, but just as we say," фига в кармане  " ("the 3-finger gesture exhibited in one's own pocket"- basically meaning bullshit).  And such things to investigate such serious situations is completely inappropriate," - he stressed. Russians support the official investigation, -but still emit some noise indicating their annoyance.  Also, they may have some beliefs regarding the circumstances.
 * At the time, it appeared that sanctions and MH17 are linked ; and despite a progress towards peace, new sanctions were imposed. --Resup (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * UN Ambassador Power Addresses Security Council Meeting "we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel" "If indeed Russian-backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. Thus, it is extremely important that an investigation be commenced immediately."--Resup (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany Decides Rebels Dunnit
German Intelligence has decided for definite that the first story was correct - MH17 was downed by a BUK operated by separatists after all. Not really surprising, as this is (a) the easiest result based on Occam's Razor and (b) comes at a time Germany would like to do something to help Russia in the sanctions mess but Merkel can't back off yet (and/or different parts of Germany have different degrees of friendship with The Bear). It may also be a smack on the fingers for Ukraine for the neo-nazi mess. KatKan (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We also covered this elsewhere BND leak. (As for positives, they seem to say Ukrainian photos are fake). As for rebel Buk, Bolotov said on 20 July that his Buk is broken, and offered anybody to come and check. --Resup (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And Kiev also agrees the rebels had no Buk of their own, saying Russia (not Kiev) brought it in on their behalf and fired it. How does BND think it can just make up claims no in the region believes or supports? Will need to have a look, especially at their take on the images used to support Kiev's version of the "not separatists" narrative. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's nothing for you to take a look at. This "presentation" was towards a fig leaf secret service control instance, and even one of the few people on it, a kind of German Ron Paul when it comes to argue against the grain, said he doesn't buy it. And another one of those "kleine Anfragen" made them admit that "no own insights" went into that "leaked" statement. --CE (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence' --Resup (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Joost Bosman photos
This one is interesting. Also this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Other MH17 analysis
Half-way decent analysis of the known facts on MH17 in Q & A format. Use Bing translator as google gives up half way through.--Charles Wood (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

R-27 long-range air-to-air missile?
Work in progress, please leave alone for a an hour. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * R-27 (air-to-air missile)
 * Official: Russian military aircraft to blame for shooting down Ukrainian Su-25 plane – 7 July 2014
 * NSDC: Russian aircraft shot down Ukrainian Su-25 plane – July 17, 2014
 * Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine – Interfax-Ukraine / Kyiv Post, July 17, 2014

Disinformation?
Chris Harrison on Facebook:
 * Overlooked....the mysterious imprisoned US spy who gave the Daily Mail witness testimony about MH-17 – Clarity of Signal, Aug 16, 2014
 * ''Needing a little help form Novorossiya blogging investigators in regards to this individual who I put a thread up about back in August. He is a very intriguing character that supplied the Daily Mail UK with information that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the ATC to plane transmissions for MH-17 (the ones released by the Dutch Safety Board). The Daily Mail quoted him as saying that the pilots of MH-17 "felt bad". However, this quote and conversation is missing from the DSB's preliminary report. After having performed some minor investigation I found that this same individual was also a key source of misinformation for last years false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria. I'm curious if any other Novorossiya blogging investigators want to attempt to dig deeper on this guy and bring more info to light? He could be somewhat of a 'smoking gun'.

Radar jamming and spoofing?

 * Proof of NATO false flag attack on MH17 – Patrick Roddie, Jul 22, 2014
 * ''Just one month before the Malaysian airliner was shot down, NATO ran a live exercise using fighter jets to jam the transponders of commercial airliners and spoof them as military jets by broadcasting a military transponder signal at close range. NATO forces seem to have made the doomed Malaysian 777 appear to be a hostile military jet and forced the separatists to open fire.
 * ''The video evidence of military chaff falling at the crash site reinforces the argument that military fighters were very close to MH17 when it was shot down.

The Russian civilian radar data however shows that the MH17 transponder was not jammed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death?
Up to now it has generally been assumed that the pilots may have died from the "high-energy objects" hitting them while the passengers died almost instantly from hypoxia after the explosive decompression of the cabin. This rapid death might explain the odd "bloodless bodies".

Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans now says that at least one passenger was found with an oxygen mask on.
 * Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger found with oxygen mask on — Dutch FM – ITAR-TASS, October 09, 2014
 * ''The latest finding questions the earlier theory that the 298 victims on board the tragic flight had been killed instantly and indicates that they may have remained conscious after the Boeing aircraft was shot down.


 * MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask Zero Hedge, 10/09/2014
 * ''The mask found around the neck of the unnamed passenger, one of 88 Australian citizens and residents on board, was tested for fingerprints, saliva and DNA but produced no forensic evidence, De Bruin said. "So it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim," he said.
 * ''The discovery of the mask and the implications it raised about the passengers' final moments were conveyed to the Australian's family before Timmermans' interview on Wednesday night, the prosecutor's office said. But information was sent out to other family members of the MH-17 victims only on Thursday morning.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia Blames Buk, Secret Info
"CyberLeaks" on russvesna claims 9H314 warhead of 9M38 missile,  Buk M1 system. --Resup (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Kiev secretly received data from MH17 crash investigators – Ukrainian hacktivists RT Oct. 11
 * Ukrainian CyberBerkut hacktivists claim that they have penetrated the internal network of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and found proof that Kiev is getting secret data from MH17 crash investigators, including information which implies its involvement.


 * A document, posted on the website cyber-berkut.net, and allegedly downloaded from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry network, dates back to August 7 and appears to be signed by Colonel Igor Zorin, the chief of Ukraine’s air defense forces. It is a report which maintains that a fragment of a projectile found together with the debris of the crashed flight MH17 is in fact a damage agent of a 9M38 surface-to-air guided missile belonging to the mobile air defense complex Buk or Buk M1.


 * ... CyberBerkut claimed that the documents are evidence that the MH17 crash investigation commission and the Ukraine Defense Ministry have “special relations.” --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site RT Oct. 10
 * ''Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.
 * Because:
 * “It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.

However, they might have also said it was a certain type - Soviet-era but modernized. I'm not sure if that's so, but if so, Russia's military says they use only "modified" not modernized Buk M-1 and M-2, and only Ukraine has the ones it "modernized."
 * When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.
 * And a couple weeks later:
 * On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.
 * Therefore:
 * “The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”

--Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no analysis, only conclusion, which is said to be based on the photo. The first question about the photo is where it is coming from. The Netherlands investigation? (Than why it was not also sent to Moscow)? From SBU office? (It is too easy to fake a photo, and with so many fakes already THEY have the burden of proof it is not a fake) --Resup (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's supposedly analysis behind the match, and my guess is it's all valid. But, that's a guess. Why would it not be sent to Moscow? Apparently its being sent to Ukraine is an issue or scandal, so apparently it's not supposed to be sent to anyone (?) Later it'll be seen by others and us, and our guesses can get better. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bezler Account
Bes: " I do not have weapons to shoot Boeing at 10,000 m. Boeing was shot by 154 anti-aircraft regiment of UAF stationed in Artemovsk, using Buk system. My reconnaissance team has spotted "Buk" as it left. Former Defense Minister Geletey knows about it. It was a provocation. The day before the accident, we shot Ukrainian SU-25, two pilots ejected and we went to look for them. My conversation was intercepted and mis-represented as a talk about the downed Boeing. --Resup (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Of all the people making statements in this matter, Bezler was probably the only one actually there on the ground to know what was where. The area he claims is borderline for distance, but not impossible. KatKan (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, what he says needs to be taken very seriously --Resup (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A straight line S-SE to the approximate impact point (as we've narrowed down) is 61.5 km. That's significantly out of range, isn't it? The line on Wikimapia for second thoughts on that. Clearly, center of downtown was not the firing spot, but even presuming a bit south of town (and not north) this doesn't readily line up. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Launcher can drive around easily. While personnel is better of sleeping in a city, not out in the field (even if they do, one would not say 'stationed in a cornfield'). There is nothing to defend in the city itself--Novorossia does not use planes. And also, the range is approximate, it has listed ceiling of 20 km, actual range would depend on height and other things.--Resup (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actual range depends on the actual rocket used, not the launcher. Nobody is suggesting they were defending anything, he's saying it was a provocation,ie deliberate. There have been other reports of Ukies starting to test/train on BUKs,perhaps preparing for a war with Russia directly involved. Now, practice, I've had it from numerous ex-military (various Western nations) that they used civilian planes to practice the BUK type radars on as (a) always available and (b) less likely to knows you've lit them up so won't retaliate. That is meant to be radar practice, not actual shooting, of course.
 * There was doubt about why "rebels" would be taking this BUK on a scenic tour, especially in mostly KIEV-held territory. But if it was a Kiev BUK?? carted around on a very conspicuous truck to be later identified as having been stolen by rebels? (in interview with very anti-Russian Lithuania's reporter??)
 * The Kiev story was, rebels were going to shoot down an Aeroflot, to fall onto Ukie territory, to give Russia excuse for war. However, if looks like rebels shot down something, falling on their territory, Russia can still be blamed and NATO might come help Kiev obliterate the subhumans. Hitting an actual Aeroflot was too risky in case Russia does come in but NATO doesn't. KatKan (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, as if "stationed in" changes anything from a presumption of "firing from" ... lol. Obviously. I sit corrected on that, unless that is what he means... Good points on Obviously no real reason for air defense to be doing anything. True claim or not, it's worth considering these units were just sitting around with no use, freeing up their schedules for off-the-books work.   --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)