Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/BUK Tracking

Kiev's Holdings

 * Ukrainian Buk in ATO area, 16 July 2014. --Resup (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Twitter users found an announcement on the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense website detailing the transfer of a Buk-M1 system to the Ukrainian military over a month before the MH17 disaster--Resup (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * wowihay И они говорят у них нет #БУК'ов ? Еще 08.05.14 в #Краматорск=And they say they have no Buks? Already on 08.05.14 in #Краматорск
 * google gdata no longer seems to work--what happened? but a user posted gdata earlier: Олег Гинзбург 10 months ago Опубликовано=published 2014-05-09T03:02:09.000Z (но деревья голые=but trees have no leafs) Обновлено=reposted 2014-07-19T12:29:10.000Z. Has Ukrainian style markup 121.

и еще= and also
 * Ukrainian-style markup 332, and one more Buk in his company --Resup (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Captured map of 1 battalion of UAF 95 air-mobile brigade, dated beginning of July 2014, show location of 2 positions of Ukrainian Buks. Basurin points them on the map; but video resolution is insufficient to see those. --Resup (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maps can be faked, but still I'm curious what it shows. I imagine there might be a flat image of the map somewhere. Resup, could you maybe have a look? It's too slow for me to try an image search with translated words. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not seen the map in news reports mentioning the finding; and now I see it says explicitly that they are not going to make it public,  until MH 17 investigation is completed--Resup (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a press conference report--with video but not the map --(Basurin press conference)--Resup (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to understand what it means when they say Ukr army controlled territory. But what is rebel controlled territory. Even if we take the maximum estimate for rebel numbers in July 2014 of 10,000 fighters, it gives a fraction of a rebel per square km, if we assume uniform distribution. In reality rebels very concentrated in Lughansk, Donetzk, Saur Mogila, 2 cauldrons. So everything else is free for all territory. When MSM declares rebel controlled territory, they just rely on Kiev's maps. Very reliable source. --Antidyatel (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)-- Antidyatel June 6
 * That's a good point that really came into play with the Mariupol market shelling incident - turns out all this eastern fire form rebel-held areas is from areas listed by Kiev as places they don't have full control over, that any crazy thing could happen from and it's prob'ly not them. Might even be a section on that here, if not, could be. There is an apparent pass right through a checkpoint, basically where the Pari Match "photo" was taken. That at least is a problem for a simple slip-in op, but it can be done and otherwise the theory could explain a lot (like, everything maybe) --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

BUK 312 and comrades
Part of the material the Ukrainian SBU released to suggest that "rebels" shot down MH17 with a BUK, was photo material showing a BUK TELAR numbered 312 on a trailer, alleging it has been photographed on its way back to Russia. This was quickly shown to be extremely questionable as evidence surfaced showing number 312 in Ukrainian hands. The SBU then removed the photos from their website while other material like a suggestive photo showing a "plume" remained there.

This was outlined (and a screenshot saved) in more detail over at Human Rights Investigations. A video embedded there shows BUK 312 in Ukrainian hands back in March. The other two TELAR's seen in the video are numbers 323 and 321. BUK 321 has been seen in Ukrainian hands just two weeks before MH17 crashed, transported close to "liberated" Slavyansk.

Interestingly enough, one of the tweets spoon-fed by Ukrainian loyalists to imaginative Dutch blogger Ukraine@War to suggest that there have been eyewitnesses for a "rebel" BUK, is then followed-up by the alleged eyewitness with a picture of BUK 321 to illustrate what he has seen. --CE (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * yep, he is a conduit for Kiev but seems to have outside info, too. Like originals of photos he can get geolocations off (he says). But also has good collection of very early photos etc which have since become hard to find.Not sure I trust him though. KatKan (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that before, thanks. I'll be considering... --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * More photos: 321 - 312 - 321 --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anatolii Sharii version of events, shows that Buk blamed on Russia has number 312 and was earlier photographed as part of Ukrainian convoy. --Resup (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharii interviewed a Ukrainian soldier who served on Buk 312; this can be found on Cassad. The guy does not know about MH17; but recalls SBU claiming it was this Buk 312 responsible. From this interview, meaning of 312: 3 is division number, 1 battery number, 2 unit number in a battery (there are loading and command vehicles, not just launchers). This UAF Buk is initially from Luhansk; than relocated to Kramatorsk; than places in a field. A serviceman took it on a ride with hand break on, leading to a small fire affecting electrics and requiring repairs. So it was traveling on a trailer at some point. It was than moved to Dnepropetrovsk, village of Novogrigorievka (apparently for repairs, and after trailer photo was taken, but exact date was not given). Buks from Luhansk which were not broken were moved by UAF elsewhere (and according to the soldier, were photographed in variaous places including Gorlovka; while 3 broken Buks remained in Luhansk) --Resup (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I see that the "has been seen" link to the Montreal Gazette is dead by now. If anything I'm surprised that it lasted that long. Minitrue at work. --CE (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here (and mirrored here) is an English translation of the interview. --CE (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And here is the video itself with English subtitles. --CE (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What you said about the accident and the photo showing the damaged BUK on a trailer is about the very photo the SBU showed on their website as "evidence" and later removed. Also adding that he says friends in Lugansk saw "rebels" trying to repair the units they had left behind, but he knows that "whole equipment units" were lacking so the remaining stuff was "unusable". And that he says that he asked his ex-comrades still operating the BUK if they dunnit, and they said they didn't. --CE (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to see this section expand. Interesting additions from the alleged operator, and reasonable-sounding (the photo might show smoke stains to the back left side). But in the end, this issue might be not so relevant. I doubt it was Kiev's unit 312 that was used, and seeing how Kiev always was eyeing a supposedly Russian unit 3x2, maybe 312 ... In fact, if the middle number connotes unit number, and it's done the same, the launcher is always 1 and it would be 312 (or is that mixed-up?) So maybe all this really shows is how Kiev knew but didn't want to say all along, implausibly picking their own 312 to illustrate that knowledge with an embarrassing but harmless "error", while awaiting ... as it turns out, the independent Bellingcat investigation that finds 3x2 somehow in Russia... That tracked this ludicrous Buk field trip, as presented and followed on this page, which almost seems tailor-made for them, but Kiev wants us to know they they were secretly on the ball too from the start. (all thoughts in progress, a bit distracted too) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If SBU wanted to point out they knew the TELAR had number 312, why would they publish the photo in such a low resolution that the number could not be read? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As Resup summarized, 1 is the battery number. The leading 3 means it's from the Lugansk division. If this is true, the fact that 312, 321 and 323 have been seen together on video in March perfectly fits with what the alleged operator said: That they were removing units in usable state from (all batteries of the division) Lugansk early on, leaving the crap behind. And the view that the SBU just published everything they could find to fit their tale that the "rebels" used a BUK to down the plane, including this photo, cut-together and taken out of context audio tapes and that ridiculous "plume" pic, and the 3x2 bellingcat nonsense from lately is meant to distract from these facts, is much simpler and straight forward than what you tried to come up with here on the fly. --CE (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see it now, not when I was typing, sorrys. Middle number could be anything, bust mostly we always see low numbers, so odds are good it was a "1". 3 means from Lugansk if that's true (presuming so) and it's Ukrainian. Diff. number paintjob though, as noted below. But I'm sure the Ukies just faked this exact 312 to a different style of 312 and then painted it out partly, and just let it slip with the one photo of how it looked before...? We'll have a hard time agreeing here, as the stuff you just dismiss as "nonsense" looks kind of like possible evidence with details I'm sort of trying to consider. I don't see how you can just ignore it as if it must be wrong somehow, and all made up to distract from ... this 312 disguised as 3x2 theory? Where it wasn't even at the end of that fake plume anyway and might be totally irrelevant or entirely fake? Or, what am I missing? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't you say that you haven't even watched the videos and checked the geolocation/origin yourself, if they really are from Russia etc.? Well, I certainly won't. Because I have no reason to believe that the sources are more truthful with the "evidence" than they have been before, and that track record is well established. --CE (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, which is why I'm neither in a good position to say they aren't wrong/fake, nor to go against my usual presumption it will be sound (has been so far, on this subject anyway) And by the supposed stills compare to supposed satellite imagery, it looked like a good match (I did skim the site once I could). I don't like the implication either, and I want it to be wrong. And it may well be, but I'll want to see how. And hey, there's a whole other section or two about this below... --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I watched the video with the Ukie BUKs in March again. There are actually more than the three I mentioned earlier. It starts with 323, which is not a TELAR. Followed by the two TELARs 321 and 312. Then comes what is also not a TELAR but what looks differently than 323: Number 301. Followed by two more TELARs, 331 and 332. So they could all be from the Lugansk division, parts of batteries 0 to 3. But one would suspect that the batteries are internal always numbered the same way. "A" says:
 * BUK is a complex of 4 specialized military vehicles: command post, mobile target detection and assignment station, loading and starting station, self-propelled fire installation.
 * So if 1 and 2 are TELARs, why are there two of them and why is 301 what could be the detection station with a radar? Is 323 a loading station? --CE (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Too rusty, but good questions. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think we can sort this out thanks to wikipedia:
 * A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.
 * So our "A" didn't mean that a battery consists of 4 vehicles, but that the whole BUK consists of 4 different kinds of vehicles, some more than once. From this I deduce that "0" is for command and detection units (here our main radar 301) of the Lugansk division 3, and the batteries 1,2 and 3 each consist of two TELARs (numbered 1 and 2, here 312,321,331 and 332) and one TEL (numbered 3, the first vehicle in the video, 323). Makes sense? --CE (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Russia said Ukraine had 27 BUK launchers in the crash area, i.e. one brigade, or what ever comes in the hierarchy above battalion. If all units are numbered the same way, from 101 to 333, then one TELAR in 18 should be numbered 312. Maybe not. Russian numbers seem to reach higher. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good find. The existence of 114 and 115 makes it more complicated. The German Wikipedia article says, contradicting the English one, that one battery consists of one command vehicle, one main radar, four TELARs and four TELs. But if that's true, there's no logical place for Radar 301, and why would one TEL be number 3 and the other three TELs numbers 6 to 8? --CE (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How to read BUK numbers This is how you decipher 312:

3 stands for the third (Lugansk) division, 1 stands for the battery number, ours was no. 1, 2 stands for one of the 2. service units in each battery, ours was no.2

according to a Ukrainian who explains it was "his" bUK (but not in his hands at the time)that shot down MH17. One of th many reports about this interview This claim is now superceded by the Capt Voloshin air-to-air claims. KatKan (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That solder knew nothing about who shot the Boeing. He was talking to Sharii, who previously made a video showing that Buk shown on SBU website is actually Ukrainian Buk 312. Later, the soldier emerged, saying that Buk 312 was his. (Claim of this one shooting Boeing is not his, it is SBU early claim) --Resup (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While Voloshin story may be a play on destroyed by SBU evidence. There is supposed to be a log of flights, missiles fired, likely those logs  no longer exist. Also before they claimed SU 25 were lost on 16 of July, but SBU denial of Voloshin story had SU 25 shot on 17 of July. And that Dnepropetrovsk airport traffic control lady vanished without a trace. --Resup (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Supposed 321 belonging to KIEV
 * video shows three BUk sets from 0.31 mark but I can't really pick the number, they say it is 321. at Gorlovka in March. One on a white lowloader. KatKan (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Russian claims
As part of their July 21 presentation of evidence, the Russian Ministry of Defense published satellite images allegedly showing Ukrainian BUK positions around Donetzk (RT report). It's no secret the Ukrainian military maintains a base with anti-aircraft units. The facility shown in the Russian presentation (best seen here) I located - it's south of Avdeyevka, 3 km north of the airport, about 5 km north of Donetsk like they say. Visual match first, then noticed the label could have found it for me ... on Wikimapia. Labels, translated: Anti-aircraft missile battalion (in / h A-1428) One of the three anti-aircraft missile battalions ("Buk-M1"), located in Avdeyevka, Mariupol and Lugansk." BUK-type launcher photos included. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The counter-arguments to this at least sometimes fail. Interpreter rag decided "the presence of Ukrainian government air defense systems is something of a red herring, not least given the clear evidence that the separatists had deployed at least one Buk system in the area." The side with a motive and clear, moving and likely operating units of the things on that day (see below) is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered because there's apparently also proof the presumed bad guys also had the units they needed to be so presumed. The very fact that separatists aren't ruled out means the other side should be free of any danger of being ruled in, and the separatists should ruled in just as automatically as they were before this social-media verification came in. This is clearly an irresponsible suggestion. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Kiev's Buks Shuffled?

 * From Russia's military press conference: RT, 10 Questions - in more detail
 * 3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?
 * “As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”''
 * 4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?
 * “We have satellite photos of the places where Ukraine had its air defense units deployed in the southeastern parts of the country. The first three photos were made on July 14. The first photo shows Buk launchers 8 km northwest of Lugansk. You can clearly see a TELAR and two TELs. The second photo shows radars 5 km north of Donetsk. You can see two TARs along with other equipment and technical structures. The third photo shows air defense systems north of Donetsk. You can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures.


 * “Here’s a photo of the same area made on July 17. Please note that the launcher has disappeared. The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left.”

Note: the latter fourth photo of July 17 has substantial cloud cover, but unless they happened to hide the launchers in those areas (or Russia's satellites waited until the area was covered) it appears the noted vehicles have left to go do something - on/by the 17th, where they say launchers appear and then disappear in a town closer to the crash on the 17th. Zaroshchenskoye on Yandex maps - 13 miles SSW of the crash sitel, 9 miles W-SW of Torez..--Caustic Logic (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

On July 30, Vitalyi Naida, head of Ukrainian Security Service SBU’s counter-intelligence, came up with a series of slides (short article, announcement on SBU website with link to youtube-video showing the slides (presumably Ukrainian language)) allegedly showing that the Russian material was "faked". He points to a patch of trees, claiming they had been cut down shortly before the 17th, while Russia's images show the trees intact. On August 1, the Russian Ministry of Defense published a rebuttal advising that
 * Instead of presenting hastily doctored evidence to the international community, the SBU could do with better control over all the mercenary units in the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk organized by Kolomoisky, Lyashko, Yarosh and others, who shell Ukrainian territory without any control from those in charge of the anti-terrorist operation.

The trees probably are cut down by now, but we'll have to wait for the true details of just when they were and when the image showing that was taken, or if the image shown is even of any one day and not a composite - "doctored" as Russia says. Other clues suggest launchers moving out of this area at that time: The - ostensibly from the morning of the 17th - shows the infamous launcher-loaded truck seen in Lugansk, or one just like it, being carried on a truck belonging to a company just south of the missile base in northern Donetsk. That was seen carrying the launcher east out of town at 11:15 AM, purportedly on July 17 (and with the location completely fudged to say Snizhne, when it was only headed there).--Caustic Logic (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Russian military press conference said "The fifth photo shows a battery of Buk missiles at the village of Zaroshchenskoye 50 km east of Donetsk and 8 km south of Shakhtyorsk on the morning of the same day. The sixth photo shows the same area on July 18. As you can see, the battery has left." (#5 inset) The Ukraine@War blog's analysis decided this image as well was fake. That's mentioned here if not elsewhere. The reason: "the shadows of these BUKs have a different direction for all three of them. It means these were pasted into the image." I have to admit, it looks a bit like that. The trees have consistent shadows to the west, in a morning image. The furthest vehicle to the left has a visible shadow about like that. The other two don't seem to, and the one furthest right seems to have a shadow on the wrong side (looks like early PM). I wracked my brain just a little thinking of other explanations aside from just low resolution. Nothing much came up. Anyone else? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * New video proves UKIE BUKS ACTIVE
 * video has surfaced, posted to Youtube on July 16, taken a few days before, showing a Ukie BUK radar being rotated. The reporter is taken somewhere in a helicopter and proudly shown the BUK. Segment starts around 4.17 in the chopper, BUK shown briefly at 4.45.  Label does not say where exactly, just reads "Officers of Ukrainian Armed Forces patrolling in the ATO zone".
 * This ties in with claims that they were doing anti-aircraft exercises, probably in response to claims/fears the Antonovs were brought down not by the rebs but by aircraft from Russia. KatKan (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We had this July 16 video elsewhere, but here is a good place... The other video, from March,  was not seen. There were few more early sightings of Ukrainian Buks, uncertain locations, with those 3** numbers;  maybe should get a good place to keep them all --Resup (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Location of sighting is unclear. But according to some reports (LifeNews), on July 16 UAF SU 25 was shot down from a height of 6 km by opolchenie MANPADs. That was near Russian border, --reports say the plane actually crossed into Russia, not far from Marinovka. It could be suspected by Ukraine that a Russian plane was involved, so it will be plausible to have Ukrainian coverage of the accident area by BUKS. On July 14, it was  reported that AN 26 was shot down in Luhansk --Resup (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is strange twist of Logic in Bellingcat's report about satellite photos. The photo with Buks in the field is claimed to be manipulated.They found that July 17 image was manipulated but only in the region of clouds. They don't say that BUK was removed by software (there are 4 more vehicles missing). But on all Google earth photos BUK never moved (and those 4 vehicles). So did it move ever or not? Manipulation of Google earth photos or likely their source is not new.

Surprising Google earth have more updated photos on the BUK base location and nearly nothing for the location where Russians seen BUKS. There is something strange about RUSSIAN supposed fakery. Doesn't make sense to me.--Antidyatel (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Separatist Holdings
While much certainty has been shown it was a separatist BUK system responsible, everyone seems to acknowledge that ordinarily, they didn't have any, that were known of. Fresh sighting of them in the field, supposed admissions, and existing presumptions remain the strongest evidence. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Open Newsroom team have latched onto a June 29 message from a Twitter account associated with the Donetsk People’s Republic, @DNRpress claiming separatist forces had conquered a base with anti-air BUK missiles. This is apparently the A-1402 base, as an Itar-Tass report specified. That report noted ... It seems to just cite the tweet which, it was found, used a dated photo online since mid-2013. In essence, there's no good evidence they ever did seize this place. But it was referred to by some as "Deleted DNR tweet confirming Russian rebels indeed have a BUK-M1." The crew at large seems a bit vague on the status of this base:
 * June 29 Seizure?
 *  It appears that the A-1402 military unit was moved into the Donetsk region in 2007 from Odessa, and reports note that the unit was based near Donetsk airport. Local reports from June 29 cited ATO spokesman Alexei Dmitrashkivsky as stating that separatists had attacked the military unit.

As we just found with geo-location, it's 3 km north of Donetsk airport, and it's the same place Russia believes is firmly government-held. It's the place they say at least one BUK-type launcher was removed from on July 17 for some reason, by Kiev's forces who run it. If this basic Wikipedia article on the battle for the airport is correct and/or in line with our page on it, the airport and anything military-related north of it would probably be government-held continuously to the present time. It's possible some launchers could have been lost during a brief seizure of the base, but this too seems doubtful. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Social media published many photos of the "liberated" Buk missiles. I searched for them on Google Image Search; all were old photos from more peaceful times. I have no idea what really happened. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't looked into it myself, but recycled images made sense given the other clues that they never did take that base, or at least get anything out of it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Something in English on Facebook, with links to Russian souces. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your geolocation is wrong. The former SA-2 launch site to the north of the runway is called A-1428, at least according to the map by Komsomolskaya Pravda. The site was rebuilt sometime between 2002 and 2009 with new garages covering part of the SAM ring. Tactical maps say today it is still held by Ukraine, but may have been in NAF hands earlier. Base A-1402 is located south of the new terminal building along Stratonavtiv Street.

When looking at the latest airport battles I noticed that Military Maps already shows structural damaged to the new terminal building. I did not expect Google to provide any relevant satelite data. In Libya we had almost daily satellite images of Tripoli, but in Syria we have seen no new photos of the battle-effected areas.

I opened Google Earth to see what has changed during the war. It seems that the war has had no effect on either base. There is still a lot of military hardware parked on both bases. Most of the trucks and whatever are parked just where they were last year, or on many cases in 2007. I did not see anything that I could identify as a BUK launcher. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The US embassy in Kiev said in a press statement of July 19:
 * Held by July 14?
 * Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems. (also quoted at the Guardian)

As "Corporal Frisk" aptly responded:
 * Having perhaps the world’s best intelligence network, and then using easily faked videos of separatist communications posted on YouTube as evidence sure has a degree of ridicule attached to it, but is also an inidcation that US intelligence believes at least some of these transcripts are real.

That's totally apt if one suspends the usual definition of "believe" (to include "wants to appear to believe," etc.) In the same piece, the author apparently gives more "credibility to the charges that the Buk-M1 is indeed Russian supplied (and possibly crewed), as opposed to stemming from captured Ukrainian stocks." As covered below, this I can agree with if we suspend the usual definition of "Russian" (to include "allegedly Russian villains," "the Ukrainian version of Libya's African Mercenaries and Syria's Shabiha," etc.) this would be spot-on. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(more allegations to cover?)

Whatever the evidence rebels had Buk systems by the 14th, Kiev also has suggested, and many have accepted, that the one that mattered at least - the launcher unit that shot down MH17 on the 17th - wasn't theirs at all, but brought in and operated by Russians for the day only. If only for that reason, all the above is likely moot. See next section. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The One That Matters

Russian Buk Field Trip?
The Kiev regime's narrative also suggests separatists had no BUK systems of their own. Rather, someone else brought one in to their area, took it on some kind of tour through several towns thought accessible only to rebels and allies, and got it seen in each place. Then these people shot the airliner down themselves on the separatists' behalf. That party is the Russians, they say. This is perhaps best encapsulated by "counter-terrorism" chief Vitaly Nayda's early assessment. AP's July 25 report summarized it, saying "the account was based on information from intercepts, spies and resident tips."
 * Nayda laid the blame fully on Russia: He said the missile launcher came from Russia and was operated by Russians. ... According to Nayda, at 1 a.m. on July 17 the launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck. He cited communications intercepts that he would not share with the AP. By 9 a.m., he said, the launcher had reached Donetsk, the main rebel stronghold 125 miles (200 kilometers) from the border. In Donetsk it is presumed to have been off-loaded from the flatbed and started to move in a convoy on its own.
 * Nayda said the Buk turned back east toward Snizhne. Townspeople who spoke to the AP said it rolled into Snizhne around lunchtime.
 * ...As for the Buk, Nayda said, intelligence suggests it went back on the move shortly after the attack. That very night, he said, it crossed the border, back into Russia.

This is full of details that don't line up with the emerging record, but the gist including a grand-circuit tour including both separatist stronghold/capitols Donestk and Lugansk plus the disaster zone, seems about right. But the evil they allowed came from and returned to Russia.

This does however jibe with the Kiev allegation (I learned of through this excellent and relevant HRI article that Russian jets violated Ukrainian airspace to bomb an apartment building in Snizneh on July 15th, killing 11 civilians. This all makes a bit of sense in context; that false flag attack was blamed by locals on Kiev'a noble Air Force - almost understandably! It "created the conditions" by which people might accept apparent a team of apparent Russians with a Buk launcher in their town two days later. The best guess for any single firing location is a field just southeast of that town (see below). The locals might smile at, and later even cover for, this poisonous gift. But a trojan horse is a trojan horse, of course. They should have looked it in the mouth better, and been more aggressive with their questions. Because Russia has it in for the separatists, Kiev implies, using its skilled and well-documented team to murder 298 people in a horrific way on the separatists' behalf. This is not an accident, Kiev must know, but proof that Russia and its "inhuman" terrorists they must hate (and who do not seem to have any Buk launchers of their own, BTW) are the new global menace du jour. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Markings and the Mystery Launcher
A serial number on the launcher's side is apparently standard in Ukraine's arsenal (see above). Inset, an image comparing the side of the unit seen in, the one blamed for the shoot-down on the 17th, to TELAR unit 321. The side panels are easy enough to correlate and see the unit in the photo lacks a number, but does have a sliver of white paint (or similar) in one corner. Whoever was moving this painted it it out before this, so there is some attempt at concealment. Is this color of paint only available in Russia? The white sliver here could be part of the number, if it were painted higher up/larger than Ukraine usually does. I can't say yet how they do it. I did a Dogpile Photo search, lots of pictures, context unclear, different vehicles from different sides, mainly Vitaly Kuzmin photos so app. Russian military parades and such: --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Number shown, diff. vehicle: #1(loader?) - #2 same?
 * Launchers with no visible numbers: #1 - #2 - #3 - #4 - #5
 * Same vehicle, Buk TELAR launcher with numbers: not found.

At the moment, the lack of a number almost makes it look Russian. The next panel over seems to have smaller numbers, or characters anyway. Nothing yet tells me the Russians add a smaller number on the panel behind that, with or without special stencils available only in Russia. Is that even a number, or does it say return to Putin? --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bellingcat and 3x2

 * moved from 

Adam: somebody's favorite Bellingcat is now saying, I understand, that he is capable to read off the number of this Buk from this blurry low resolution Paris Match photo, using unspecified colored magic and some expertly fitted proprietary boxes. Well actually this is so proprietary that he can ONLY read the first number 3, and the last number 2, but is completely unable to read the middle one. Because, he does not want this to be this Ukrainian Buk 312, nah, noway. He rather want it to be the Russian Buk 3 X 2, where X stand for Russian, and for secret, as somebody is said to unearth this dirty monster in Russia, as he says (I guess). This looks too much baloney as far as I am concerned; you can read any number you set in advance from this blurry photo, and fit there any other crap, boxed-shaped or wiggly, all essentially at will. Just recording this latest saga page in case somebody has more enthusiasm to chase it than myself. --Resup (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't quite understand, but thanks for the tip. An interesting twist I wish I'd caught sooner. First, this helps the West at large get in synch finally with Kiev - it was Russia, not the separatists, who owned and perhaps ran that unit. Second, it seems to me the match is at least as good as they say, but there's at least one aspect of it I think is hilarious and I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to miss it. I'll be back - this one deserves a quick blog post. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Resup, this stinks of baloney designed to divert attention from the story. The worst thing about Brown Noses and cohorts is the amount of coordinated promo they get in pre$$titute media. SPIEGEL today has a op-ed piece by a particularly douchebaggy example on those independent genius investigators as well. --CE (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to brush up on what that 312 story is... because it looks like this used to say 312. Ultimately I suspect its some kind of baloney, but just where it breaks down I don't know. It is amazing how they get such praise for investigating the right things (never did get back to the Houla Massacre) and finding the right truth... Daily Fail says "The authors said that 'our investigation was made possible by the examination of open source material overlooked by other organisations'." Oh goodness, that technique they must have invested ... maybe if we started doing that we'd get praises too! --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The report and whole site was not coming up when I tried (might be a problem on my end), so I don't even know what's behind their pay-wall. In the interim I checked around. Here's a critical blog article I like that mentions another article praising the report. But what was useful was the Daily Mail's Australian promo article with the cover and a few images from the report as well as a summary. The 3x2 ... This lets me quickly see what 3x2 refers to. And actually, it looks like a good description and even a good match. The number is not from Paris Match photo but from footage I haven't noticed, they say from inside Russia - presumably a Russian unit then - seen conspicuously moving towards Ukraine in late June. (the source of these images and details might be worth checking into) ... --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/

Bottom is Paris Match, skewed to match. Top is the new (to me) Bellingcat June 23 image As I just put together here, they seem to be onto something here. It's something silly. But it's something strongly suggested by real paint in recognizable patterns.

Implied: Russians wanted to hide this thing's identity, maybe because they were about to do something secret with it. So first they painted out the number in the middle - I think it was a one. Except they left one little corner of white visible. Just got tired. It's identifiable (in both images).

Then before it appeared in Ukraine, it was rendered totally unidentifiable: they boldly blacked out the 3, and perhaps at the same time even, the 2 - except for a larger identifiable sliver. Just got tired. It's next to the other dot.

Haha, no way to connect these now! Also a light patch next to the small number (and the number, as far as we can see) matches, as does a light patch along the lip below that. My guess: this is the same suspect vehicle seen gettin' hauled all over on the "stolen" truck with the phone number left on. Was it actually in Russian territory as well as near so many rebel checkpoints around dawn? For how long was it there? Bellingcat cannot confirm that Russian unit 3x2 ever returned to its base in Russia ... nor, I guess, that it ever actually left, or was ever Russian, or didn't have its truncated paint job simulated and expanded on another vehicle... --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He got some photos of an actual convoy, almost certainly in Russia, fairly hi-res photos, no 3*2 there. Than out-of-a-blue-or-elsewhere, he gives photos from convoy made by 'local residents', now with discolored 3*2 photo(s) there; I could not spot details where this photo is now coming from. He claims it "shows on 8 out of 16 videos", but I do not know where is a single one. He also compares tank track and plate above profiles for these 2 photos; details are blurred (and also those profiles change from use), can't say how much they match each other by eye; don't trust his fitted lines, or his conclusion accepting those,  but did not try matching myself (no tools to do it quickly; or enough photo resolution to feel strongly motivated).  This is doable but doing it tool-free takes time; and not knowing that second photo is definitely in Russia, I am not convinced spending a lot of time is worthwhile. This is clearly a well-supported operation, so the burden of proving their own version is on them; and they did not bother even linking the videos, no clue where are those.  His report downloads without problems at this time.
 * Also details such as dirty rear skirt and a bend there likely are common; dirt is because exhaust is through the opening above; skirt likely is bent when there is servicing, or example changing tracks or doing something else, like maybe servicing engine. Buk 321 above on this page has dirt and bend, for example. This bend is something which can be easily produced, same goes with the painting job, both things together can be done in well under 1/2 hour. If they had an example of how something in Russia looks like, not difficult to do it for a blurry photo. Clearly, with phone well-displayed, etc, the purpose of all this is a demo job.  --Resup (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a publication Ukraine defends Donesk from Russiam attack, missile complex Buk takes positions, with photo, video of Ukrainian BUks, numbers 323, 321, 312, 301, 331,332. (Some of them have dirty skirts, e.g. 301 looks dirty and bent...). Ukrainian radio is playing on the video. --Resup (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I get the lack of motivation, and the ambiguity. That #312 I'll compare later ... looks like a different number style (thinner) with vehicle color less clear ... I guess this could be innocent dirt instead of black paint, but it's some thick dirt, and by the end almost totally covering the numbers on this particular unit ... or two that can seem the same. (?) So it still seems most likely paint, that is deliberate obfuscation - that was also comically slow and incomplete (with clean edges to the white parts and no visible parts of gray half-covered numbers) . It must be a problem with my system (updating soon) but I still can't connect to the site or get the report. I'm not mad motivated myself, but will want to check the alleged video source and geolocation eventually. Before I was seeing this as a Kiev unit simply snuck across the internal line. So the big wrinkle of course is it being in Russia. Options if the geolocation of June 23 is right:


 * it wasn't there (faked match-up - As you say, all matching features could be faked, not just the paint)
 * or Ukraine snuck theirs across (with a whole convoy?) just to get it seen there
 * or they snuck over and stole this one while it was near the border
 * or Russia willingly sent it over, with or without a subsequent theft by people intent on misusing it on the separatists' behalf. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is actually a 3*2 Buk in Russia, he put links to videos on his map, I looked at 06/23 Troitskiy (Odnoklassniki)  goroskop odnoklassniki ru/video/14723648043?fromTime=25. But I doubt it can be concluded that Paris Match is a match (number itself can't be read, this is just bogus). For example, that dot in the Russian version appears to be a bit further to the right (60 % of total panel length), while Paris Match is closer to 50 (I got 52 %). Also, in Russian version, it is almost level with protruding to the right part of number 2; in Donetsk photo, I'd say it's a bit lower (but blurriness creates problems to measure). Panel to the left of number panel appear to look very different; in Russian case, clear horizontal line above the main bottom line; not so in Donetsk, a messy lower line. As for the skirt, it it dirty but actually does not look broken in the Russian version, just some frames create such impression. In Donetsk, hard to know (to blurry to tell crack from dirt) but there is serious change in angle there somehow; (could be the windshield playing some tricks). (Also, in Donetsk, it is dirty windshield, not actually certain what makes the dot; but it is roughly where expected, so I can go with this being paint assumption).
 * No point for the rebels to display it prominently in Donetsk (not far from UAF BUK base), than go towards Snizhne; this just has no point at all. --Resup (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the one, ironically, claiming to see things in that griny mess. I'd never do it unless I saw t spot well whiter than the others AND seen in another view ... didn't even notice until then. To note, your descriptions are of the first version of the graphic, now updated. Becuase of overall problems, I cut what seemed just the number panel (including shadowed edge) and put it on top of where it should be. Same proportions, within a pixel or two, "find edges" to mark the white patches, and it remains lining up. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

At right: it can't be the embarrassingly misrepresented Ukrainian 312 they're hiding, unless that was painted over before this other one .... FWIW, the middle dot would still line up with the serif on that "1." As the updated blog article notes, if "the Russians" were smart, they would have painted this slender 312, or other recognizable number and style, on there. Instead, this nonsense....

I suppose that Ukraine might have known about this 3x2 video and match in advance (and never mentioned it?) and that's why they found a photo of a Buk 312' (not checking what it actually showed, and just claimed they knew was en route to escape into Russia, after parking for yet another photo?) No, that doesn't make much sense. But I sense a link. Maybe that's because I'm seeing 312 when maybe it's 872, for all we really know. Maybe instead of partly painted out it was just left never fully painted in. Too many unknowns and now I'm unenthusiastic about it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks of this graphic comparison and interpretation, the strange and suspect thinking it implies is consistent with what else we know about how this "secret" operation was carried out. If true, it would fit this broader pattern (real or reported clues left by whoever, all open to interpretation, and here couched in the terms of allegations by Kiev and supporters):


 * Recalling that this whole weapon itself would have no normal business in the area and would be denied later, it should have been kept secret. Instead, it was driven around in broad daylight on the same day as the crime, just partly covered with a tarp but revealing all clues needed to identify it, its hidden ID number, and its full rack of missiles.
 * The truck it was so displayed on was stolen in Donetsk, and kept with the huge sign on its side with the apparent owner's phone number on it. When the media called that number, little surprise, the owner told them pro-Russian "fighters from Slaviansk" who took over his whole trucking company on July 8 (see here) Put lightly, this is a stupid way to secure a rig one intends to use for a secret operation like this was supposed to be.
 * They loaded the truck in Donetsk, likely at the commandeered site in the north of Donetsk, near the Ukrainian base with Buk launchers, in a coincidence. This truck then got seen leaving Donetsk on the 17th, parked pointing east at the east outskirts, then seen driving in convoy (a couple civilian cars with the operational crew moved with the truck) past Zuhres and then through Torez to the east. They were seen arriving in Snizhne around noon, then the Buk unit seen off the truck and driving in stand-alone, and it was then seen again driving south out of Snizneh, towards the apparent launch location.
 * The people running the convoy made sure AP journalists saw them in Snizhne just before the shoot-down from a bit south of there. The convoy stopped, and a man in unusual uniform "approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t" filmed that secret missile launcher there, but had noticed it, and their intention to remain sooper seekrit "the convoy moved on." All this was made quite clear to the media and apparently published even before the news that MH17 was shot down. (AP Via Washington Post)
 * After the disastrous attempt to secretly provoke a Russian invasion, with utmost discretion the operators put the smoking gun, its rack of one-less missiles left uncovered, back on the same truck and drove it and the phone number back to Russia - by a strange detour on a long route towards the other easily-recognizable smoking gun rebel capitol, Lugansk ... when government ATO forces had just battled their way to the edge of Lugansk ... and got seen there passing at dawn on the main highway south, apparently having come from the center of town, and then presumably drove to Krasnodon (rebel-held) and to Russia....

The fail delivery here is almost flawless, with no mistake left unmade and hardly any reasonable gaps to call for deduction. Letting multiple camera views on both sides of the porous border capture and track the gradual move to this stealth mode seems pretty consistent to me.--Caustic Logic (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: the implications of this contested finding, and the visual basis for it as well, is continued below under --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think one point is still not discussed here. Look at this video from 26 June 2014. You might have seen it before. But what is striking, all the Buks shown do not have numbers painted on them. Not only it will allow to paint new numbers or any clumsy painting on the side, using video of a known BUK, it also means that those BUKS were not accounted for when Ukrs presented evidence, if they ever presented, about the location of all the existing and operational BUKS --Antidyatel (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

General Observations

 * It is clear that pro-Kiev side produced early and persistent stream of fakes, misrepresentations, or selective half-truths, all aimed to place the blame on Russia and/or "separatists" as a part of well organised and supported information warfare. This information warfare did not establish an objective to prove the blame of Russia or "separatists", as any of those media creations will not survive a rigorous scrutiny, and there is nothing to bring to court in particular. However it successfully altered Western perceptions in early days past the catastrophe, and helped to impose sanctions and other 'increased costs' on Russia, bringing the world on the brink of another cold war. It brought situation in Ukraine closer to perpetual chaos, and kept closely related people to continue killing each other every day. Although those fakes and misrepresentations were later realized to be such, those costs and calamities were not reversed. --Resup (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * After moving equipment close to border, why would Russia send just a single TELAR to Ukraine in a highly visible manner as it was alleged? For meaningful operation of Buk, one would send at least 1 TELAR, 1 TEL (to be able to load missiles), and 1 command vehicle (as radar on TELAR gives only poor basic operation)? There are also lots of support vehicles seen, in case of something meaningful all that is needed. So moving single TELAR is all but pointless from military standpoint. Single TELAR is mostly for a show of sort. --Resup (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reported SIghtings
(consider along with the visual sightings below) AP via Washington Post shows the separatists strategy to not be seen as they rolled the murder weapon around:
 * Even before the plane was downed, the AP had reported on the presence of the missile launcher in the town July 17. Here is what that dispatch said:
 * “An Associated Press reporter on Thursday saw seven rebel-owned tanks parked at a gas station outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Snizhne. In the town, he also observed a Buk missile system, which can fire missiles up to an altitude of 22,000 meters (72,000 feet).
 * AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars.
 * The convoy stopped. A man in sand-colored camouflage without identifying insignia — different from the green camouflage the rebels normally wear — approached the journalists. The man wanted to make sure they had not recorded any images of the missile launcher. Satisfied that they hadn’t, the convoy moved on.

That kind of pro-Russian sooper-seekrisy aimed at the media in front of the media should stop them being seen, right? No, oddly, it didn't. See below. The clumsy bastards could hardly have implicated themselves any more thoroughly than they did that day. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

One interesting post at the Ukraine@War blog mentions two tweets, both from July 17 and before the crash, mentioning this BUK launcher on a trailer at places consistent with the video record. One of them (translated) sounds perhaps too informed, and says "Was driven missile system on the tractor cover + two cars after Thorez (Torez) in snowy (Sniznoyeh) in 12-10 (at 12:10? Too early...)." The other one says "(someone this) morning wrote that (the truck) stood (parked for some time) on b.Shahtostroiteley not intersection with Ilchicha, aside (heading towards) Makeevki. waiting to see (to be seen?) If that's an intersection named, it's a different parking spot identified as being here on Google Maps, one km west of the spot it was parked for the "Paris Match" photo. Otherwise, it refers only to the same place. The contributor noted "Another interesting detail in that tweet is that “it was standing” and “they were waiting”. My understanding of that phrasing is that the #Buk was actually parked there for some time. Meaning there might be witnesses." There was a witness with a camera, and a photo sent to the Western media. That almost seems to have been the idea - to get witnessed like that. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

SBU Wiretap Clues
I just had a look at the SBU wiretap transcripts, ones released July 19. In it is a segment tying in with the above stop or stops in Donetsk, the exact spot of the, and the general orders to drive east with the launcher. I'm not up on the wiretap stuff - if this is the same material said to be corroborated by the US as the real people talking. But briefly, know that parking spot in just past a roundabout, by a motel and a bus station, well short of a crossing Hornostaivska street halfway to Makiivka. Important clue to why it was here this thing had to get seen and talked about: one source claims this roundabout at the edge of town is "a big separatist checkpoint established on Jun 3 at the road circle." This is supposed to all be pretty damning, and I must say it's at least looking like a pretty slick plan may be going on here, with pre-scripted parts that come into play later, etc. From Kiev mouthpiece UaToday, parts of a transcript they ran with the video and other allegations, on the 19th - How credible is this evidence?
 * Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.
 * “Buryat” – militant of terrorist organization “DNR” (to be indentified).
 * Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?
 * Khmuryi: Which one? This one?
 * B: Yes, the one I’ve brought. I’m already in Donetsk.
 * K: Is it the one I’m thinking about? “B…,”M” one?
 * B: Yes, yes, yes. “BUK”,”BUK”.
 * K: Is it on a tractor?
 * B: Yes, it’s on it. We need to unload it somewhere, in order to hide.
 * K: Is it with a crew?
 * B: Yes, with the crew.
 * K: Don’t hide it anywhere. She’ll go there now.
 * ''Khmuryi: – Tell me, have you brought me one or two?
 * Buryat: One, one. Because they had a misunderstanding there. They didn’t give us a tug. We loaded it and went at their own pace.
 * K: Did it go on her own or on a tug?
 * B: It crossed the line (border).
 * H: And now have you brought it on a tug? Don’t put in anywhere… I’ll tell now where it should go, it will go together with “Vostok” tanks.
 * K: Sanych, the point is that my “BUK–M” (modified Russian SAM system) will go with yours, it is on a tug. Where should I drive it to put in a column?
 * Sanych: There, behind “Motel”, not reaching Hornostaevka.
 * K: Just after the Motel, right?
 * Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).
 * K: Just after the Motel, right?
 * Khmuryi: Listen to me carefully, behind the circle near “Motel” there will be you know what. Call to “Bibliotekar” (Librarian).

The next part, to me, suggests that as far back as the 19th or earlier, people talking on tape were seeding, or working by, the SBU-proposed Aeroloft plot with the town mix-up. In that light:
 * ...Bring inside only those, who just came back, only as much as you need for the convoy. Leave everyone else here. Not far away there is Pervomaiskoe, look at the map.
 * DNR militant: I got it. (Or did he not quite get it?)
 * Khmuryi: Settle somewhere in that area, bring there those who are left. Your task is reserve, plus protection of this piece (BUK–M), which you will drive now. “Giyrza” will come there too. If anything, I’m on line.

--Caustic Logic (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The veracity of that recording needs challenged well now ... the day too early claim did not pan out, so it won't be that easy. Has anyone really done a good analysis tearing it apart some other way? Could it even be half-legit, with some local rebels tricked by some undercover (wire-wearing, not wire-tapping) supposed defector delivering it "with a team" coming "from Russia" (meaning Parubiy et al.)? Who knows? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Imagery Mapping
There have been quite a number now of photos and videos showing BUK launchers ostensibly in separatist strongholds, on July 17. The geo-location of these in such towns by social media networks has been the subject of some recent media commentary. These purported placements are worth collecting and considering here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

One somewhat comprehensive and updated/evolving page: How Social Sleuthing Uncovered Evidence of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems in Eastern Ukraine Inset is a small preview of the interactive map they made of all placed images (as it stands at the end of July - full-size presentation with links, on Google Maps) Note that one of them is way up in Lugansk - which one is a little unclear at the moment - the site may be wrong ) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * List of Scenes, placed or not
 * Billboard Video: released by Interior Ministry, filmed in Krasnodon before dawn, the Interior Minister says. Russian military analysis places it in  Krasnoarmeysk, and the Open Newsroom crew contradicts both and decided "collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.''
 * Surveillance Video: located to Snizhne by Eliot Higgins, date unclear.
 * Zuhres video: Pre-geo-located by the uploader here in Zuhres. Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Driving east.
 * Torez square photo - located by an associate of Higgins - filmed app. 11:40 AM in central Torez. See below.
 * Another photo placed: Snizneh, nearest the shoot-down area (f/c)
 * Paris Match photo - allegedly Snizhne, reportedly placed in northern Donetsk city. See below.

Billboard Video
(to be condensed) A video released by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is highly dubious and worth some analysis. It shows what seems to be a BUK launcher loaded on a truck driving some direction in some town at what seems to be early twilight (or pre-dawn, depending). The original posting (with almost 2 million views already) gives no details: "Militants take out missile system "Buk" to the border with Russiam" the title translates. "No description available," it says below, and no comments allowed. From what I've seen no one knows where this is filmed. Daily Mail says it's a "separatist stronghold," unnamed, and headed south, back towards Russia. "Ukrainian spies reportedly filmed the launcher used in the attack being smuggled to Russia - with two missiles missing." Eliot Higgins was cited by the Guardian with his new team of fundraistigators as geolocating some video and photo but not, apparently, this one. As explained at the kickstarter link they give, Higgins writes:
 * In the above video, posted by the Ukranian Ministry for Interior claiming to show the Buk missile launcher being driven towards Russia it was possible to match the transporter in the video to the transporter in Torez, details of which... (you have to subsidize their operation to see) --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Avakov's Placement: Krasnodon or Lugansk
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in a Facebook post of July 18 Google-translated:
 * Covert surveillance units of MIA of Ukraine today July 18 at 4.50 am was recorded caterpillar tractor loaded with missile complex, moving in the direction through Krasnodon, toward the border with the Russian Federation. The video can be seen uncovered missiles. Two missiles in place - the average is not visible. 
 * There is an analysis of this and other information gathered. Presumably this is the missile system "Buk" that made a last shot at a civilian plane from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur .. 
 * Criminals try to hide the traces of this heinous crime. Not succeed. Security Service and Interior Ministry of Ukraine has collected and collects more irrefutable facts and evidence, the author points out the tragedy of the terrorist organization DNI / LC and its Russian backers Putin.
 * The investigation of events MIA issue a comprehensive report on the information. This fragment consider it necessary to publish immediately.

By the 22nd, "online sleuths" had placed it in Lugansk (see below). Avakov then confirmed this - he was wrong the first time. One article makes it sound like he wasn't just echoing the sleuths:
 * On July 22, Ukraine's Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, gave the exact coordinates of the video’s location: separatist-held Luhansk, about a 45-minute drive from Krasnodon. Locals quickly verified this claim by photographing the scene, which perfectly matches the landmarks seen in the video. (article by one of the sleuths)

Krasnoarmeysk
One source venturing a guess is the Russian government and RT witrh their 10 intriguing questions:
 * “For example, media circulated a video supposedly showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine to Russia. This is clearly a fabrication. This video was made in the town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.”

There is a sign, but I cannot make it out just yet, if ever. Can they really? Even if that's so, surrounding towns might be good places for a dealership in Krasnoarmeysk to advertise. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

At right now is a still from a video claiming to show this, I still don't see it. They seem to think the gray span says that, perhaps from seeing a clearer view of this ubiquitous sign elsewhere. Opps. There's no reason to say a dealership in one town can only have billboards in that town. This alone fails. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

on Google Maps as Krasnoarmiis'k - not to be confused with the Krasnoarmeisk not far away in Russia. Distance: about 100 km almost due west of the crash site. Panorama, possiblt location, directions/implications forthcoming. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dnepropetrovsk Street is the main street of Krasnoarmeisk, leading northwest to Dnepropetrovsk. It tried matching this to the street corner where the car dealership is located. Yandex Maps did not provide a street view. It could be there, but too few details to make a positive match. Whatever this is, it is not evidence for anything. The least the SBU could have done is provide the location and some corroborating photographs.
 * The same applies to all so called "evidence" provided by Ukraine and the US State Department. As far as I can tell it is only cut-and-paste of unrelated footage to illustrate the claims made. A perfect example of this illusion is the "satellite photos" of Russian artillery shelling Ukraine released on Sunday morning. A photo of Russian GRADs on some unidentifiable field was placed next to a satellite image with an arrow pointing "Here Be Monsters!" Purely illustrative and no proof. There is a difference between legerdemain Hocus Pocus and outright forgery. The Russian video presentation displayed screen capture recording from the ATC radar, usually stored for two weeks. For this to be a hoax, Russia would need to create a forged tape of the radar data. Highly unlikely, as the the claim of authenticity had support of the full authority and prestige of the Russian Armed Forces. If the US presentation turns out to be hoax, State Department will claim the photos were never meant to be evidence. Some internee was told to prepare a presentation using stock images for some facts they knew to be true – trust us! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You must have missed this, Petri! ;oP --CE (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an awesomely perfect picture for this sorry episode so far. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be neat though if we could show where this is and thus which way its's headed. The Kiev authorities, I think, know what happened. They say it was this exact launcher missing two missiles. It could be. Where is it at filming time and where headed? If it's true this same one was in Torez (dubious but possible) we'd have a direction traveled until that point also, and a rough time, 8:30 or so. The Guardian again citing Storyful's open-source investigation:
 * “There are now four pieces of content – three pieces of video and one image – which, in the case of three, conclusively show a Buk [surface-to-air] missile within rebel-held territory and in the case of the fourth, almost definitely in their territory,” says Storyful executive editor David Clinch. “Of those four pieces, individual groups or companies probably verified in or around the same time one or another of them.”
 * Open Newsroom verified three pieces of content and is investigating the fourth, thanks to its 900-strong network of journalists and experts. ''
 * The fourth is this video. Wouldn't it be a coup if we were the first to place it? Force that intern excuse and then laugh at it. That said, it's not the most likely to place but you, Petri, especially, might be able to. I think I might. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * James Miller Google + July 21 "Was a Buk sighted in Krasnoarmeysk or Krasnodon (continued analysis)? We've taken a new look at this video which has been debated since it was posted days ago. We're fairly confident, though not 100% confident, in this geoanalysis, but we're making significant progress. Any more information would be extremely helpful. " Cited: Russia This Week: Defense Ministry Claim on Buk in Billboard Video Doesn’t Add Up
 * ''...As we reported on our Ukraine Liveblog, the Buk was spotted before the shoot-down of the Malaysian airplane and ultimately geolocated to the town of Torez, near the location of the crash in Grabovo. Then the video, taken early the next morning on 18 July, showed a scene in Krasnodon,...

--Caustic Logic (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Earth has one photo [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55329278 from ул. Днепропетровская.] The street has about the same width. The streetlights are not quite the same. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That image doesn't help a match, especially since by now it looks like Lugansk. For the record, there was a go by pro-rebel social media people at identifying a spot in town to explain the video scene, but it didn't do that either. this spot on Wikimapia is what they pointed to - filmed from the marked building, they say, looking southwest to the mall. No matching anything. --Caustic Logic (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Placed in Lugansk!
Storyful's rundown states of this video:
 * The footage is not the original, however we believe that the first instance of this footage was removed by the uploader and the version below is the earliest we can find. Ukrainian Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, made early claims that the video was filmed in the Ukrainian town of Krasnodon near the Russian border, however collaborative geo-location was able to place the footage in southwestern Luhansk.

It links to "Bellingcat," which you have to pay to see much of. James Miller passes on that it's "Mystery SOLVED: Video released by Ukraine's Interior Ministry does in fact show a Buk, possibly missing several missiles, in Lugansk headed east from the MH17 crash site and in the direction of Russia.﻿" The spot they think matches the video (better panorama coming) is here on Google Maps. Was that a highway? Where's the cross-street? I see elsewhere they have a high view showing the same basic billboard there, but that's going to be true of several spots in this area. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression of the scene - based on the panoramic view below - is far from matching with this. That does not look like a highway, and it just seems like a small town. However, I finally saw some of the supporting images (see here and here - source of the inset image.) It seems a likely match after all. I won't say I confirm it with any certainty, but I don't think I'll be challenging it like I was preparing to do. Note the different billboard in the right spot, and the matching one over there. There are other images, apparently more current, showing that that they moved the one sign over to the right spot They don't point to the pinkish roofed building beyond the red-roofed one, but that adds to the match (compare to below). Whenever this video was made and whatever it really means, it seems quite likely it was at this spot in Lugansk shortly before dawn. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is another video from June 2014 showing the same billboard with the same car ad: The video shows a column of BMPs with one 9K35 Strela-10 short-range surface to air missile system passing the intersection in Lugansk. I suspect they came from Russia, as I specifically asked for Putin to send in the Russian tanks that morning. They passed exactly when I expected them to, at 6 minutes past 4 am. (I estimated it would take 2 hours 6 minutes from the border.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Луганск 02 07 14

ACLOS Review
As noted above, my review agrees with the placement agreed by the others. For what it's worth, the huge panorama I made (the middle is full-resolution) and starting notes from before I realized no work was needed. --Caustic Logic (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC) It seems to be filmed near the edge of town, or edge of a hill anyway, with a clear view ahead, two vague homes/buildings seen down the slope. Otherwise, very non-descript. The angle of intersection will be one of the better clues - it looks to me not 90 degrees ( |- ), but with the road the truck is on either slanting or curving somewhat towards the camera ( /- ). One important observation: there's no logical reason he should have been just happening to film this area unless he knew something interesting would drive by at just this odd time. That's clarified by how he zooms in just before it enters frame - he was waiting for that truck. How did he know about it? Informants on the other side of town phoning ahead makes enough sense, I suppose.

Another issue: If this is dusk (sunset 8:20 PM local), isn't this facing roughly northwest? If so, this vehicle is driving roughly north, not south. And we might start looking on the west edge of town. There's a highway out to the northwest, back towards Kiev. This street is too narrow and unmarked to be the highway, obviously, but it might be driving that way, for example. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, alternately, he's facing towards the sun about to rise, early on the 18th, as alleged by the Interior Ministry) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That he happened to be filming just before dawn is even less likely than dusk. He clearly knew this was coming, whatever that means. --Caustic Logic (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Above is the composite scene without truck. At left is the truck without background. Besides lightening the scene, it seemed worth getting the clearest details from different frames into a composite view of the truck and its load. This helps compare to the launchers seen in other areas and different times. So far, they all seem to look the same and perhaps be the same. --Caustic Logic (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

HRI
Pretty good points from Human Rights Investigations:
 * To sum up, the statement of Avakov, the film and its location suggest the Ukrainian authorities had advance knowledge of this BUK and trailer’s movements or control over it. It is also extremely strange that this BUK, allegedly after shooting down MH17, is supposedly filmed by a Ukrainian surveillance team in ostensibly rebel territory, with its covering missing, as if to show the world a missile is missing.

--CE (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paris Match Photo



 * Originally published by Paris Match on July 25, with the claim the picture was taken by their own reporting team near Snizhne at mid-day on the 17th. Note the prominent, apparent, telephone number prominently centered in the picture - (050) 471-41-80. The truck and launcher, as far as can be seen, are quite similar to or the same as the one seen in the billboard video anyways. How many of its missiles the unit has at this moment is unclear.


 * Human Rights Investigations: "it turns out to have been taken in Donetsk, 75km away" (citing someone else's geo-location - site link given.
 * ''We know this because the phone number on the truck panel (050 471 4180) leads straight to this hire place (photo):
 * According to Paris-Match, the proprietor of this establishment claimed “rebels” had stolen a number of his vehicles earlier in the month. If we go from here to towards Snizhne we find the location of the Paris-Match photo, near a car dealership on Makiivske Highway on the outskirts of Donetsk:
 * After informing Paris-Match of the mistake regarding the video location, the author of the article Alfred De Montesquiou has now got back and explained:
 * Hello, indeed, it appears there was a mixup in caption : the picture was taken leaving Donetsk on road to Snijne, not in actual Snijne



Questions: Was it a caption mix-up, or did their team really not know where it was taken, and just believed the real source when he said Snizneh? Who is the true photographer who knew to catch this picture near the company's base, apparently at the outset of a rather epic journey? Why did the rebel thieves leave the prominent phone number on the stolen truck used for such an important task? It wound up leading to man who pointed right to the rebel thieves, and prove yet again separatists, not Kiev allies, were the ones driving BUKs around. Was that so hard to foresee? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To Do: Verify the geo-location - set a time, presuming July 17, by sunlight and that location - establish which way it's traveling relative to the government-run anti-aircraft base just a few km north of here and relative to the other places and times this truck and others were spotted rolling around prominently and getting filmed a lot by the right kind of people, in areas presumed to be impenetrable to any such frame-up operation - look into this company, etc. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Location: I can't confirm it with certainty, but it's extremely consistent. Two standard but distinct pole types that close together on the right with a pull-over lane ending at the blue one, and consistent-scale foliage behind. Proceding on the location as likely enough to warrant the work. The stretch of highway identified runs northeast, heading 33 degrees. The truck is most likely not driving at the moment, as it's in the pull-over lane. But it's pointed as if ready to leave Donetsk as soon as they finish doing something in theis spot. All we can see they're doing is getting filmed, and maybe that's just what they're waiting for. Ahead would be the an industrial area, the eastern suburb of Makiivka, then Khartsyzk, etc. and further east Torez and Snizhne (driving times unsure, date also unsure. Russia claims the one launcher left the northern base sometime between in August 14 and 17 images.

There is more to consider about this truck, its company, its owner, and his story. But other than this photo's extra-clear view of the phone number and apparent proximity to headquarters, those are better covered in the section below.

Time?
Time: I'm not sure how exactly to set this up, but the shadows appear to stretch almost right across the highway, with only a slight northern shift. The azimuth thus appears to be fairly close to to 140˚ (reached at 11:09 AM). As for solar altitude, trying to line up the launcher's corner with its shadow gives a reading of app. 56˚ (= 10:50 AM, with azimuth 133˚) or perhaps 59˚ (= 11:18, az 143.5). The graphic shows both readings. Which is better? I used NOAA solar calculator, with coordinates: lat 48.017102 long:37.9037626 time=GMT+2, DST +1 --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Bellingcat was originally claiming that photo was taken at 9 am. 

Then they were claiming 11 am as an obvious time without retracting previous 9am claim. 

Seems like 9am was more comfortable for them to match to photos from Zuhres and Torez.

Sorry, using smartphone. Not very easy to comment --Antidyatel (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like you put the same link twice, -it says 11 a.m.--Resup (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Antidyatel, welcome! Resup, thanks! I'd like to see any 9 am citation. But otherwise they agree on it being around 11? Good. The significance below is if the Zuhres square photo was taken at 11:40 AM as they say, it's basically impossible these images are from the same day as alleged - 69 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive between the spots, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images. However, fudging it - let's say this is 10:50 and the other is 12:00 as I read it - that's 1:10 between, almost a perfect match. So maybe this isn't a great lead (I was never convinced it was). But 9:00 is way off and suggests they were fudging it to fit at that point. Would be good to document. BTW, on talk pages you can sign with --~ or the sign/scribble button. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * First archive.org snapshot from the day after publishing (edit: a good three months after you called it :o)) says 11 am already. --CE (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, the links were fixed once or twice and the November report says 11 am, not citing an azimuth or anything, just Paris Match saying it was "about 11 am," which doesn't count much for verification. The earlier report from Sptember might be based on something else when it mentions "a well known image from Paris Match, which shows a Buk in Donetsk at 9am on July the 17th." Neither one sounds like a firm final version. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot from dashcam video?
It it possible to identify if the photo was made by dashboard camera, smartphone, or other type of camera. Paris Match claimed that they made the photo. There are no date markings on the photo, which is strange. Position of the camera is such that it was either dashboard camera or the driver was making a photo (front and left side of the car). Paris Match was also implying in their report that it was a group of people in the car. "A sytem BUK missile launcher is photopgraphie by the team of Paris-Match in the suburbs of Donetsk, on the road to Snizhne the morning of July 17, hours before the flight Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash."

Why would they ask driver to make a photo? Dangerous or uncomfortable - illogical. If it was a dashboard camera, why not to release a video? And most importantly it would have a time stamp.

Also in this report gives a new, a bit extended photo. Surprisingly the back of the BUK is nicely in focus, same as the truck cabin. While middle of the BUK is defocused. No wonder Paris Match cropped it. Bellingcat, that likes being so strict about photos, totally ignores this part. -- Antidyatel (talk) 23:55,, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The two photos are crops from screenshots from a dashcam video. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those must be two different shots at close-by time --look at position of street lamppost with respect to the truck cabin, one has it over black pipe, and the other more to the right from there. Can't think of a natural way for camera to focus on two different distances (maybe dirty and curvy windshield can be blamed but on tricky side here)-- FWIW. Usually dashboards have short focal length so that anything appear to be in focus; don't know why not the case here --Resup (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RESUP, you are right. Those are two different shots. There is cable reflection from the windshield. Probably the cable is another indication of the dashboard camera.--Antidyatel (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I heard somewhere that it was a dashcam still, and I thought probably so. We all agree on that. As for the two images, I didn't know, will compare. Might compare. Why no video is a good question with at least o-ne true answer. Keep an eye out for possible ones. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the link name for the Paris-Match photo https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014.jpeg Why would they name this photo from Donetsk using the name Snijne? What is PM2? Was it some folder that only consistent the storyline with focus on Snijne? Did Bellingcat have other options to fall back after they can’t defend it anylonger

Funny thing about Bellingcat’s questionable standards of research. So much effort of looking for manipulation in Russian MOD photos. Let’s do the same trick with Paris-Match photo. Here http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=17a82272d17dbbb2abb0b784f10b3c64d5870562.186081 BUK is very distinct from other objects in the ELA picture. Does it prove that photo is fake or photoshoped. Don’t know and don’t care. Just enjoy exposing Bellingcat hypocrisy. Why weren’t they interested to do the same if they are so confident in that tool and that picture is so critical for their story --Antidyatel (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those b-cats used their monies to produce another  opus. Not sure I have spare time or enthusiasm to look much into this; after a brief look, clearly different viewpoints, different squeeze distortion on some photos at least, and different image quality -for example, black field with small variations in MoD may be not inconsistent with roads in that field seen in higher quality color photo; etc.  Not sure how accurate is timing on either of the versions; do they really have photos of every place at every hour/ half hour/etc at DG? If Buk was moved, it was moved at certain time, and shortly before that time it can be photographed staying put there--need to have enough accurately timed photos for a conclusion. Now with MoD doing press conference, they would not through their best photos as they are at the journos; need to look at what they released officially to the investigation for saying anything meaningful. --Resup (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Torez Square Photo
This is another image geo-located by the Brown Moses network (ally Aric Toller) to central Torez, here on Google Maps. Like others, it was initially stated as in another locale - Snizhne - and that had to be corrected. I can agree the location pointed to is either the photo's site or one strangely like it. Mashable noted "Toler and Higgins were able to establish that the photograph was shot around 11:40 a.m. local time." I tried a quick azimuth measure, eyeballed relative only to the blue car, and got 165 degrees (yellow line, read backwards). This equates to a time of almost exactly 12:00 noon (about 30 minutes before solar noon, and 20 minutes later than their estimate). Seeing they're close to right, I'll presume they're closer than me and defer to 11:40.

If this photo is taken at 11:40 AM, and it's the same truck seen leaving Donetsk around 11-11:20 AM, it's impossible these images are from the same day as alleged (Gmaps says it's 68.8 km, 1 hour 14 mins drive, when there's only 20-40 minutes between the images). That would mean multiple mobile launchers with multiple "Titan" trucks, or just one but with some date fudging. The company says a number of its trucks were stolen, so matching multiples are entirely likely. But so is date fudging, multiples or not. If that's so, I suspect the Donetsk photo was from July 15 or 16, and this one more likely from the day of the crime. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Zuhres Video
Again, a truck of that same type loaded with the same apparent weapon is briefly seen driving east (detail at right). This one was never reported wrong and was in fact pre-geo-located by the uploader here in Zuhres. Higgins confirms, 100% sure, and others concur. Zuhres location: on highway H21 halfway between Donetsk and the general disaster zone - 36 km east by road from the position of the truck in the Paris Match photo. I agree with the location, refined below as I lined up in the still used here - the blue line runs between the blue thing and the building corner (footprint, not roofline) to the front of the truck as it passes.

The sky is fairly overcast, so solar angles can't be measured precisely; the differences in facet lighting are clear but not massive. A broad and inclusive azimuth range of 167˚ to 214˚ (rounded) is shown by the yellow arrows below. This yields a range (to the nearest minute) of 12:09 PM and 1:45 PM. The best middle is a bit early - 185 degrees. That would be 12:44 PM. Altitude, at solar noon, helps little. 12:09, 12:44, and all times between round off to 63˚. if that simply looks too high, we're forced to the later end of the time frame. - 57˚ at 1:45. My super broad-estimate: 12:45 +/- 50 minutes. Weather at this time on whatever day - as noted, it partly overcast, and it's windy. The clouds are moving fast, with slight lighting changes visible in just these few seconds. Winds by the swaying trees are from the southeast, perhaps, blowing northwest - at least at the building with a face running that way.

The Truck Owner's Story
The apparent owner of the white truck so important to the MH17 operation was of course tracked down via the giant phone number for his compant on its side. Interviewed at least twice now, first by Paris Match, then by Lithuanian agency Alfa, this businessman has been anonymized as Vassili (then Vasilijus). Thorough summary of the related, alleged facts, from each (translated) report:
 * Paris Match, July 25:
 * Photographs of Paris Match showed that the rebels had failed to remove the billboard on the truck they had stolen. Thus we joined the owner of the vehicle. Vassili said the rebels occupied warehouses on the outskirts of Donetsk since July 8. "They are fighters Slaviansk. They landed and told me they loved my premises and we had to escape. They shipped me a dozen large vehicles, including the white truck. I do not know what happened to them, "admitted Vassili, distraught. (that was actually just what they published, aside from context material)


 * Alfa.lt, July 29:
 * This person's testimony is crucial. After it becomes indisputably known that anti-missile system, which shot down a passenger plane was precisely the Kremlin-sponsored terrorist hands. 

Here, separatists are throughout called "terrorists" (Bezler is "the "People's Republic of Donetsk" terrorist gangs ringleader"). Vassili says these took over and occupied his company premises on July 8, taking the white truck - they said because it was needed He says they stayed in control of his facility for 8 days, apparently departing on the 9th day - July 17. Becuase of this, he and his staff - especially his drivers - were unable to do anything that whole time. He's entirely certain it's his truck in the videos (the phone number says so) as it's the only one of its type in that part of Donetsk (Žinoma, ji – vienintelė tokia Donecko srityje, tokios kitos nėra. Tokios „Volvo“ su tokia kabina). He says he still hasn't seen it since.
 * ...more and more irrefutable evidence that Russia supported the terrorists shot down over the temporary control of the territory in the east of Ukraine aboard passenger "Malaysia Airlines plane, and later sought to hide evidence.

But as Paris Match noted, they couldn't be bothered to detach the phone number to the guy with the whole dang story.
 * Alfa.lt knowledge of the personal data, company name, knows his responsibilities and phone numbers (one is (050) 471-41-80), but because of the danger to his life that can not be published. "Stop saying my name, and I already have enough problems," said new horrific crime witness Vasilijus.

This is valid; of course his best defense would have been to simply not implicate the separatists mostly running Donetsk, but it's too late now. DPR authorities might want him for questioning. And especially now that he's been publicized as a "crucial witness," others will want him to appear to have been brutally murdered by them (he will have served his main purpose by now, perhaps). I hope someone's able to arrange protective custody quickly enough, or that he can arrange his own vacation, or convince his friends (he'll know the ones) of his continuing usefulness to them alive. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Further bits on the business: Wikimapia has labels. One for the front building is generic. In English writing: Ochakivska vulytsia, 19. Beneath: Category: safety, private security company. Around this, a bigger labeled area including the back building and surrounding lot. Label: Территория службы охраны "Титан" Translated, it says "Territory protection service "Titan" (Donetsk)." Beneath it: "Category: Do not display name, fenced area." (не отображать название, огороженная территория) Below, their gate area as it appears in Human Rights Investigation's still, and three versions I've seen randomly changing over the last day or so with different parts that could be the name blurred out (most recently back to not blurred). Is that unusual? I predict further twists in this, with the truck found somewhere bolstering the Kiev story, and with the company's "outing" being manipulated somehow. Feels a little spooky. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Assessing "Vassili's" Story

There are a number of problems with and interesting questions about this witness' story and how it meshes with other allegation (details forthcoming).

In Vassili's defense, I'll say the world needs to hear more. What happened in these eight days? Were Russian officers coming and going? Poring over air charts in the side room, before closing the door with an annoyed look? A lot could have happened - this could be a gold mine of direct evidence for war crimes trials of these terrorist gang's leaders (as understood). --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) An apparent support: as HRI found, New sighting of Volvo linked to BUK? August 7 - One of those provocatively deleted tweets, quite recent with a supposedly same-day (dawn or sunset) photo from somewhere in Donetsk - outskirtsy, like where rebel I mean Kiev junta forces proudly claim to almost be. this photo (saved by HRI) shows "a truck" carrying a tank, driving behind another tank. The posted thought it was for a new roadblack/barricade (concrete slabs were also being hauled). It appears to be the same truck Vassili says he lost, or one just like it. And this does look like the type of thing seaparatists would do if they had seized it, and still didn't realize how famous it had become. This thing likes to drive at dawn, doesn't it? How are checkpoints then, a little sleepy maybe? Hmmm... --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (added later: inset image - from the photo, color-corrected and cropped on just the truck - for full view see the article or below) --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FTR I took up HRI's challenge to identify the truck on that picture and did so with almost 100% certainty. It's a Volvo FH second generation (2001-2013) with low cabin. Like this one which has a higher cabin but other than that is quite a match. Also FTR, I noticed that the twitter account has "Donbass Bandera" as location, which can but must not mean anything. --CE (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bandera might mean something, in context, but no time to puzzle too much. Good ID work there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The article passes on a geo-location I can confirm: Here on Google Maps, photo taken, as described, from "opposite the Vostochno-evroppeyskiy restaurant & lounge “Atrium” in Makiivka on the H-21." A site photo of the "Atrium" is included. The graphic I made at left shows the approximate view, including the stairwell (to a subway station?), though the billboard is less clear. The view is roughly towards the rising sun northeast - a rough azimuth measure suggests the sun is shining from about 66 71 degrees from north, for a time of around 5:24 5:52 AM (elevation: 1.8 6 degrees). --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC) and corrections --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I went over to militaryphotos.net and scanned the thread about Ukraine starting on page 200 in very early July, up until page 225 when all the known truck/BUK info and disinfo was posted. Watched countless military convoys, including a whole bunch from Donetsk in the time between. Not a sign of the truck in question. If it was in "rebel" hands since July 8 like the alleged owner claims, they used it only for "special ops", alone in the early morning or so, not in their larger relocation operations. Two things remotely interesting: in an operation reactivating a WWII tank from a war museum in Donetsk, a similar trailer is used, but the truck is a different one. And in this video from July 5 but without given location, the Ukie army does some operations and two BUK TELARs are seen. --CE (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Launch Sites

 * Launch site discussion here is based on a photo of disputed provenance, said to be made near Torez, showing a plume of smoke (see on the right and below). Exact date is disputed, but it was posted shortly after the accident. A late update or second version of the photo emerged in December 2014; this is further discussed in the talk page for the photo. A different launch location in Artemovsk, based on Bezler account, is discussed elsewhere (link)..

What do we know?
Questions about the photo, --if it is genuine-- include:


 * What is shown on the photo? (Likely a missile launch, but can be MANPAD, or some other launch; raising fire smoke not excluded though less likely)
 * When was the photo made? (Claimed to be couple of minutes after the MH 17 shootdown launch; but could be made on earlier days)
 * Where was the photographer, and where is than the 'launch site" Photograph claimed to be made in Torez (4 microdistrict?) . Claimed launch sites locations are  SE or NE  from the photographer. --Resup (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A site, or maybe a couple of locations, have now been forwarded, based on compelling evidence, as likely SAM launch sites of July 17 or thereabouts. This is worth careful consideration here. To start:


 * UK Telegraph, July 22 This report with some detail and a photo visits a few areas where signs of possible BUK launcher movement and firing occurred recently. Caterpillar tracks, mostly light, signs of burning, various debris left behind, all or mostly "in the area of the town of Snizhnoye." These details might suggest whoever did this had multiple launchers set up in different areas that left as soon as the operation/accident was done. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, signs are saying it was just the one. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Below: The site shown on video, stitched panoramic view (with confusing curve). This helps get the fullest set of geo-location clues. I may even check if this is the same spot identified by Ukraine@War, below. It should be, or we might have two firing locations pretty near each other, which would be odd. The firing direction from here would be northwest, almost directly along MH17's flight path. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine@War: Launch location detected of missile that brought down MH17 The photo at right, cited by Kiev as proof of a BUK launch in the right area, July 17. The anlysis here looks good on first blush and lines the filming to northern Torez, plume on a line including a supposed patch of cat tracks just revelaed by fresh Google/GeoEye images of some fields here by Snizhne. As traced, the tracks look realistic to me. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is (a disappeared) BBC video suggesting that smoke is from a direction of Saur-Mogila (= constant fighting) and a coal mine.
 * Thus smoke may be unrelated to the launch. Also timing of photo is unclear.
 * Buk trail from unrelated launch videos appears considerably more impressive than on the photo, and traces well visible trajectory, likely attracting attention of many people . But there appears to be no witness reports.
 * Buk appears to use proportional navigation method, and if so, its navigation control will try to guide it on a straight path to impact.
 * Unless it was doing something else (but can it??? the answer requires expert knowledge), it was most likely on a straight line trajectory which can be deduced from the impact direction.

--Chingachgook (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, an odd video. I'm not certain they even picked the right view, but it looks about right - I think she and Oliphant (Telegraph) point to the same monument as a landmark - a place of fighting. Seems like they got close, but didn't have a specific spot like U@W picked, and didn't find anything. As for angle, I think it can maneuver around, but would prefer to fly straight (not an expert, don't know what "prefer" means here). And if it was hit head-on like the impact marks suggest, then it probably did fly just about straight into the jet. Obviously if it came over the wing, and was fired from here, it would have to curl around, but I don't think that's the case. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The satellite images cited at Ukraine@War are available if you have Google Earth. As explained here, there's a .kmz package you can download here that loads on Google Earth new, murky images from July 20 (but the display still says August, 2013). The tracks he highlights are visible, faintly. There are a couple sets perhaps connecting - some could be local paths - there's no recent enough images to say there weren't there July 16. One important missing thing is a patch of burnt grass it seems should show up up differently - it's not identified there, and not evident right around these tracks. From this, it's not a great fit, except that line of sight pointing here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So is the Telegraph site and the Ukraine@War site the same thing? Well, the Telegraph article says they went to the spot identified on a blog, but found, as the image suggests: Two possible launch sites – a rundown collective farm and a nearby wheat field – showed some track marks but no sign of any rocket launch whatsoever." It was a farmer plowing his fields there who pointed them to a field nearby that burned the other day, and that 's the unclear site they show. "The location of the fire lies on the supposed flight path of the rocket, and track marks – though indistinct – are present. Some unidentifiable bits of green plastic littered the site of the fire." There were also discarded bottles (type unclear) and apparently this oddity, shown in a photo but not mentioned - soft bakelite-type plastic ... thing, with years in the 1980s and 1990s stamped in it. It's all near enough to the rebel town, the Russian border, and concealed rebel positions that they think only rebels could operate there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

First, let's note that author "P. Martin" connects these possibly relevant tracks with the surveillance video showing the Buk launcher driving south The Telegraph spot, from the burnt grass, must the spot the exhaust pushed off from, and the burn line should probably be to the northwest. There's no sign of that alongside these track marks found on that visual line. That's a problem, as the exhaust never said a luncher was driving around thataway, but rather launching from thataway.

Rather, it's the nearby "Telegraph spot" - not quite on his line but close - that Martin thinks is the EXACT location That, he thinks, is in the next field south. It should be visible in the updated imagery, but it turns out this is just off the edge of the area they provided, so it can't be verified or ruled out based on that. The inset graphic shows this cut-off line, his previous possible firing locations (track-based, seemingly un-burnt, in yellow) The spot yields a best placement with coordinates already noted by Petri in a section here. (I picked out the spot myself, best guess, and got the same but 3 seconds east) It can't be checked like that for the telltale stripe to the northwest, but it looks pretty likely to me. The main view down the tracks (left half of the panorama above) would be looking south, and the near line of trees on the right running west. The pretty obvious tracks he identifies as likely launcher tracks, and they do seem to curve in where it stopped. Otherwise, to me, this has more the look of a pre-travelles semi-road on the line between fields. Either way, it probably drove that way, and fired from here, and not from the un-burnt spots north. All the tracks he notes, none certain in themselves, are supported in their possible relevance by this being what's at the end of the trail. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) and Caustic Logic (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Added in November, the image below that. I noticed Google Maps had new post-crash imagery up, and re-checked the spot for burn marks, since it was just off the grid before. This replacement - overlayed with translucence - seems too late. The strip most likely to show the signs has apparently been harvested/cleared before this image Some will say that constitutes a coverup. And it might, but probably just out of stupid reflexive nervousness. I just wanted to measure its angle and stuff. There is a nice track right up to the spot, likely pre-existing and just unclear before, and what they used to get there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Location Challenged
The above stuff, as of now and as I've been running it mainly, seems to bear out the vaunted "social media sleuths" placing the launcher and probably the launch in "separatist-held territory." I agree with all locations provided, and times too. Everyone acknowledges date is less sure. There are compelling clues pointing to concrete firing spot, that seems to be lined up the hit the jet head-on, as it's starting to seem the airliner was hit. In this narrative, the questions people should be asking is who was really running that. But readings differ, and some differing views can be considered here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * MH17 Analysis – CDN

Petri posted this to the front page, a 25-page report with many graphics and explained reasoning. One of its conclusions, based on range to impact, mainly, meant that "the missile that downed MH17 was not fired from Snizhne." At the moment, I disagree. Petri, who is CDN, and are they soliciting feedback? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The anonymous PDF was published via Saker's blog: Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing "CDN" has responded twice in the comments. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think these might be part of what threw the author(s) off: --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the heading seems to be off, too southerly to trace back like that. At the end, maybe close enough
 * 2) possibly too-wide debris field starting too early - final breakup likely E-NE of their spot (ie closer to in range)
 * 3) Wrong presumed angle of impact
 * 4) Lack of knowledge, specified on page 23, of this contrail image or, obviously, the supporting clues pointing to what might be "the Telegraph site" excluded here. "Why are there no images of the rebel missile and its impressive launch contrail?" Oops, there is and it point there.


 * I just skimmed it before coming here. It was posted over here where you can join the discussion (which I haven't read yet just saw that Petri is there chiming in in comment 2 of currently 93). I think it's first valuable in presenting the known capabilities of the Buk etc. If your stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations, then it shows quite conclusively that the Telegraph position can not be the launching point, because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument. My 2 cents for the moment. --CE (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, not directly related to the critique, but driving around with a huge phone number that leads to a Titan security of all places is more than a bit suspicious, I'd say. ;o) --CE (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "the Telegraph position can not be the launching point" if my "stuff above is true and it is one single truck with one single TELAR that was seen in the different locations" - how? "because even if the Ukie claim of disappearance from Radar 50km from the Russian border is not true, due to the position of the debris it could only be further away, not closer, which adds to the argument." Huh? I think the field is placed really vaguely in that report, and that's what sets the impact point - it looks maybe kilometers off, to the west. Placed right, the implied impact point is further east, ie closer to the launcher. It is a valuable report, but that point should be re-checked more carefully before I could be convinced to write off all the other evidence pointing there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a careful look at pages 9 and 10 of the PDF. Place the spot to where you think it's "right". Think how that would change the picture. The argument is based on the empirical location of the debris and unless I've missed some serious flaw in the numbers and basic calculations made on the pages leading to that, I think it's by rule of thumb a very sound argument. --CE (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do my own soon - I can say it would end further east, relative to the border there, and probably start further east too, but maybe I'm unaware of some outlying debris - but first a though on the debris field I just had, even more relevant than size and placement - what does it actually say re: the plane? He presumes it would follow the trajectory east. Not much, really. With only so much momentum and breaking up, with five miles to fall, the main factor will be wind. Even a breeze has five miles to act on it. That was so with PA 103 - the wind was about perpendicular to the path, and that determined just where stuff scattered on a line across the borders area right to the north sea - only the cockpit and a few things were off much from that line. Here, if it blewa along the flight path, the reasoning would work fine. If it blew back, to the west, the plane was probably shot further east than the field suggests. Ie, closer yet to in range. The Zuhres video above shows wind apparently to the northwest, and pretty strong. Worth a review and re-think in that light. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With an initial speed of 907 km/h I see no reason to take wind into serious account. I see no reason at all for going into more detail in this rule of thumb argument, not on the debris, not on the alleged launching point. But I'm as always looking forward to what you can come up with. ;o) --CE (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * btw there's no exact calculation of the traveled distance of the falling pieces, it's just found plausible resulting from other data. --CE (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's good reason. past precedent. I did read it wrong - the blue oval is about right, I thought the scale by it, which is way off. That's the 20 km drift - if the wind was blowing due east at the right speed... to the near edge of the oval and 30 km to the far edge... --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)



Debris fields as shown in MH17 WSJ data combined.jpg. The two tracks, 118 per Flightradar24 and other sources, and 111 from a Russian graphic (see label C), just in case. They cross at point E just to look cool - superimpose wherever to visualize a track-back on these or any line between.

The four red "last points", eyeballed onto the map as shown in the various graphics used here (all pretty approximate):

A: last return, flightradar 24 (erred, I think, way too far along - I suspect some inherent offset...)

B: Russian ATC last return, '50 km' from the border (vague description, likely close to accurate)

C: end of 111 track shown in MH17 radar 1.png (maybe arbitrary, lower resolution)

D: report, deduced point of impact (presuming 20-30 km flight due east after impact, wind app. not considered at all)

E: My guess for breakup point, where the damaged front came apart (should maybe be further east, right over the south part of the first orange blob). Actual impact point, an unclear distance back. probably not very far - downward flight could start anytime after that, decreasing the lateral distance traveled).

The cockpit, aerodynamic, shows the most like forward trajectory of this, relatively minimal wind complication. The heavy forward parts had more drag, wound up NW of there. A bit further NW, the light, high-drag, punctured upper fuselage. That these parts aren't spread further out suggests the jet managed to descend some ways before the front totally fell apart, and/or that the wind was fairly light. From there, most of the plane remained together, kept more momentum and little wind effect, and crashed kilometers east. The last part of this plummet, about one minute seen on video, it was nose-free and essentially nose-diving. A slight north trend, perhaps curtailed eastward progress, largely just down, leaves it all hitting together by Hrabove, scattering woth the fireball trajectory and wind deciding where these bits landed. That it only got so far from the forward parts again suggests this breakup was fairly low in the fall - maybe just before the start of the one video. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say forget point D, it is way too far west, this plane was not going to fly 25km once hit. On debris, I'd put breakup where the "f" is in your word "forward" and impact not very far NW of that, lifting the whole 118 line a little northwards. You can't bring breakup below impact and count on wind pushing wreckage "uphill" because that first group of wreckage included 37 bodies, which would not "sail". The impact would be enough to knock the course slightly south, to drop the cockpit at Rozspyne, where it turned NE to end up at Grabovo. KatKan (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. D is the presumed point used to rule out this launch location, the original point of this sub-section. That dot fails by a good margin. My E and your guess are both north of the flight path, along which all the red dots are (this graphic is confusing, needs updating, if I didn't flatten it). I was thinking a NNW wind did the north and west spreading, but the records say the wind was flat "east" (to the west). I'm left suspecting now the plane banked hard left just before it started breaking up. Actual impact, just before that. The "C" label is pretty arbitrary, but it keeps seeming about right. On the imagined red line 1t 117-118, I dunno, maybe 20-30 pixels back. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Winds are described as 'from' not 'to. So a wind blowing to the NNW is reported as a SSE wind.
 * A slip - I'm trying to say it that way now. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting on to the wind. The actual breeze direction is usually a function of altitude - veering or backing from ground level observation. It can easily be 90 degrees out from ground level. You need to look at the vertical profile used in aeronautical soundings to see where debris will in the main blow to. --Charles Wood (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a real headache to map. There's also changes over time, where east at 5:00 may change briefly ten minutes later, or 10,000 feet up. All that seems can be counted on is easterly winds in general - no exception to that. And generally, even if they measure it at the airport, it must extend up to the clouds, which can be seen swirling east over the area. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't extend to the clouds except by accident. Major direction change can happen in hundreds of metres altitude especially at night. Examples of wind shift between ground level and 700 millibars (9800 ft) in day time can show a direction change of 90 degrees - e.g. North to West. This is significant with MH17 where the breakups occurred between 33,000 feet and probably a few thousand feet for the final disintegrations. --Charles Wood (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI Here is all about Veering and Backing --Charles Wood (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the spread issue, I'm re-thinking it. As for the bodies, it depends on a few things but I take your point - bodies are dense. And I didn't know that detail - worth considering. Also a sad side-note: most bodies would be alive and aware, from what I learned looking at Lockerbie. Lack of O2 would black them all out at first, but gravity makes it so there's enough in that final stretch those not dead already (the lucky few) would probably "wake up" in time to both feel their injuries and their fall, and to see the "separatist-held" fields rushing up to kill them. :( ---Caustic Logic (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My indications are they were all dead when they hit the ground. That's not to say some didn't suffer from the first blast up there. Using my (very long ago) rescue triage training, I examined all the body photos for type of injury. The main findings were (a) almost no blood (as the separatist intercepted call rightly claimed) (b)a lot of legs at angles suggesting hip/pelvic fracture (a very common injury in air crashes to people wearing seat belts) and (c) all the bodies appear swollen (in first-day photos). We are thinking of what happened as a decompression, a low-pressure event. But that was preceded by the blast detonation of the missile just outside... a high-pressure event. The very high pressure shock wave compresses the blood vessels and severely damages the lungs. Blood pressure and heart rate go sky high trying to compensate. In 1/2 a second the blast wave is gone and they are in decompression.The heart can't adjust fast enough. The lack of blood flow makes the brain and liver swell up, too, so normal blood circulation cannot be re-established even if the heart recovers. The Lockerbie bomb, and various exploding fuel tank cases, were lower pressure explosions; sadly many would have survived those until ground/water impact.KatKan (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So there is evidence of blast wave, not _just_ decompression alone? But no shrapnel wounds? --Chingachgook (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (cut my comment - I had misread - taken to bloodless bodies spot FWIW - but I disagree with both the lack of blood and the validity of many "separatist" communications, but if we're not arguing a planeload of corpses being shot down, I won't argue it much.) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, leaving the above graphic aside, would be this newer one I should finally add. Basic straight path, 118 and placed as agreed by most sources. Alleged launch location, measures app. My best guess is a 2 km range from 22.75 to 24.75, weighted to the center. Or most likely about 23.75 km out (irrespective of actual projectile flight path, that's where it made contact, but this helps visualize how the alleged launch site might line up with the directional forensics). --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Straight line from launch is okay. But impact has to be further north, ie before the most westerly debris. You've used the map which assumes that debris to be blown back by wind. That can't be right, as it included bodies (too dense to blow back) and witnesses saw them and plane sections falling straight down. This only makes about 1 mile difference to the missile range, so does nothing to exclude that launch location. KatKan (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The map of spread is only app., some orange area I made. The pink dot and lines are from a map, Russian analysis, as you say apparently presuming a SSE wind. Debris including people would be blown back to some degree, all of it, varyingly; trajectory can only do so much when you have five miles of falling, with the breezes acting the whole time, and the lightest parts will be back a bit, whatever direction and as mentioned above, a SSE winds at some time or altitude still isn't ruled out at all). Do we know just where in that area those passengers landed, and what types of things are its far end? ?

(
 * I mean, you could be right and it's a bit further back, maybe with a continuation due east from there and no real wind effect except slightly back. It was only 9-12 mph, and maybe it fell halfway before starting to fall apart, which means less spread. I'm thinking about a possible left turn to explain the north aspect, or it could be wind, or being further back (more north, as well as west), or a combination. The turn has to be a certain size, the wind direction is not certain aside from east prevailin, ... whatever point best explains whatever happened ... we're down to a shrinking agreed range, and as you say, it's all within range of the one spot, so it's not ruled out after all. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

At this stay of play, I feel it will be helpful to have displayed prominently an overall map reflecting best guess on impact location as well as already flagged suspected launch sites, that is the two launch sites we have been discussing (near Snezhny ; near Chernukhino), PLUS launch locations flagged and TIMED by released satellite data (currently only Russian data is available). I would be generous with the range here, we can find range suggested by public sources but presumably actual range depends on a number of things (height, radar range, trajectory, wind), and may exceed the "official" range. Another useful graphics piece info would be indicating the front lines, if there is a way to have those known. I would be extremely cautious with displaying graphics reflecting just one way of thinking (whether "worst", "best", or "middle of the way"), for the reason that any graphics is easy for human brain to absorb, more than words spread out on all our numerous pages, and   no graphics at all   is better than displayed  skewed  graphics. One-sided graphics may be inviting even more noise releases "supporting"  some already skewed scenarios, and I feel that was already happening way too often. I feel that most helpful stance at this point would be as neutral as it gets. (Regarding trajectories, a default guess is a straight line, anything else requires an explanation. Straight line is implied so no strong need to actually display it, especially if it ends up curling in suggestive funny ways on graphics). --Chingachgook (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been doing a lot of graphics, so not all fired up for more. But if you are, I wouldn't mind making another if it helps. Maybe this is best taken to Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map (a lot of this is redundant, and I might move it, but at least I can say let's stop piling intercept stuff here as well as there). Up to picking a certain spot around Chernukino? Some outskirts area, on a major road, it'll be a guess. A couple guesses could be mapped. Also, if it seems worth it, I can do updates and upload the new version as needed. Any timed satellite launches, let me know. Front lines, not known and IMO misleading in this case. Those who would know would try - and maybe manage - to sneak this thing behind them... the caution about leading labels, I can leave to you - you could just tell me what to put. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Would take me forever, may try later on, but not immediately; some cleanup/re-arrangement seems the easiest option. (If there are tools for collaborative mapping, may be good to start using those; but not aware of any)  --Chingachgook (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The preliminary Dutch report says the flight recorders were suddenly lost at 13:20:04 UTC at a point that almost exactly matches the 22.6 km mark. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Plume Location Re-challenged
There is another video, essentially giving a bellingcat in voice-altered Russian. We discussed all that essentially; but he seems at least to end up with a claim for geolocation for the plume photo. Seems to be a new one (or I forgot the old one already by now). The claim is based on unrelated panoramic photo somebody took nearby, and claimed to be geolocated by presenter. Here it is on yandex map ; it is  taken from a terricon located at Lutuginskii bugor(=hill). There is a cableway from there to TsOF (remember, Khuevyi Torez tells about cableway from Lutugino to TsOF, so here they are); TsOF is central enrichment plant; photos from TSOF do show a similar cableway. So based on that and an audio of locals of unknown provenance and authenticity, discussing a missile-looking trail in the direction of Khimmash, our presenter ends up with this   claimed plume location, somewhere near this Mochalino village. And apart from this, his contribution to the topic is the claim of a white spot on the other side of 3'2 Buk which he claims to match on the way out. I do not believe all those Buk sightings were taken on the same day, and so do not believe in the overall glue-up of the story, but geolocating the plume, no matter what the plume is, remains legitimate. This author gives his answer to that question. Is this geolocation correct? I do not know, it is not tight, there are lots of cableways out there I presume, and some posts nearby are not too unusual. I do not see a tight fit between Lutuginski bugor photo and the plume photo--some elements do match, but those are obviously not identical places. --Resup (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Let's keep the title. But I guess you just forgot the previous location. This is the same view. The plume could be added, but I doubt it, and it's to that view at a consistent time on a consistent day. I'm not convinced all Buk sightings are same day, but most of them being so is a good fit with this plume that way, and a plane down with damage that seems consistent to me. (I hate this case) --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's the same? This new one is NNE from Torez, I thought it was placed SE from Torez by U@W--Resup (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Going back to check, this is a different filming location proposed. Line of sight isn't included, but it seems to be the same line over the same area to the same place. Even before he could see the distinctive mound, Petros (U@W) had this lineup, which includes this spot. Right where Petros pic says "trees" is what this guy decided were the foreground trees where it was filmed. I wondered when checking but decided on the further version. And seems to be the same result either way. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is accurate, video at this timestamp gives 'место пуска ракеты' (launch location) near Molchalino. I have not seen this elsewhere, I only seen the one claimed to be SE of Torez. He does not discuss filming location, but shows it on video and assumes it is in Torez near the terricon, which is close to what other sources assume. He does show the line of site on the video; it is nearly perpendicular to U@W. Lots of terricons, coalmines (so likely cableways), and power lines leading there in this area, so location now seems uncertain. As I understand, no solid evidence for either of these two being the correct geolocation (those cableways seems to be quite common)  --Resup (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am/was confused then. I thought it showed a SW view, just from closer to the mound. Now I see at 33:45 a view from right by it, looking NE? Can't explain the other one you see in the distance in the fuller view (right ?) That's kind of towards Molchalino, but that won't explain anything I suspect. (and what a bad fake or odd coincidence to have a plume up there and a the Buk tracking imagery lead to south of Snizhne, oops!) We'll see south and west faces of buildings if looking NE, so sun will be shining from well east of south, but also quite high, like mid-day in the early AM - or maybe just earlier mid-day, like 11 am. That would be another sloppy mistake. I doubt the details will line up. BUT a couple minor things didn't quite seem to the other way, so maybe worth a try (later). --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I will send this comment also to https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 The US map launch location can best best and almost exactly located from the last magnified picture: https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/32.jpg That location is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9571993,38.7466343,488m/data=!3m1!1e3 The triangulation result in the last 3 pictures of the article introduces unnecessary error and clearly does not match the magnified picture. There is a structure that looks similar to an airfield and it is just south of Chervony Zhovten (=Oktyabr), matching with a witness observation in that place ("it was flying as if from Saurivka", though not matching 2 other witnesses in the zello audio, indicating it came from government held positions further south, [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us.") It would be outside the range of the plume picture geolocation bounds, which may be either an error given the long distance, or, the plume picture was taken the day before from the reported grad missile launch (as well as the burned field). (The photographer gave his camera to the SBU after twittering the first picture, so later pictures and dates can not be taken for sure). http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/--MS (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) That audio, as it turns out, was posted by Torezinfo on 24 July, and updated on 1 February. Torezinfo is a favorite posting place of Khuevyi Torez(=KT), who posted a very similar location map on 17 July already. KT mentions zello recordings on 25 July in the follow-up, so shortly after it gets on torezinfo. With all that stuff linked to this KT poster, I would not put much trust that any of that is genuine. (Or that this KT poster is not acting as a medium for SBU). (2)Ukrainian map does give us some Ukrainian held area somewhere to the South, but from that map it is hard to tell where exactly opolchenie ends and UAF begins--(I would not know) (3) Actually, going from there, not likely to hit on the left side--so having it from Artemovsk (as Bezler told, indeed) seems most probable --Resup (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another map http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8
 * And here is an article which says that both Marinovka and Tarany were held by National guard. http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353
 * I just opened bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17 and see that large parts of the article disappeared, I think they are working on it. That location given by the US photo does not really match well with the plume direction anymore, lets see what they come up with--MS (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Marinovka was taken by opolchenie on 16 July (lifenews report). Tarany--do not know, perhaps still Ukraine, but not totally sure. --Resup (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * other sources say attack was repelled and forced them to retreat to Stepanivka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/213817.html--MS (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That US photo launch location differs by an angle of about 11 (?) degrees from the brown line in the bellingcat plot (measured from the photographer's location). https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/101.jpg (launch location is just visible below the letter 'p' of 'the word 'suspected'). I think this a lot and puts the 'plume' into question. But then there is only the US photo, which itself could be a production based on social media (or worse).--MS (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well some believed this is for real, then they got a case to answer Guardian: Photograph: US intelligence community @barbarastarrcnn --Resup (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In the following, I assume that most of the social media pieces and leaked audio tapes are correct and connect the dots in a different way:

1. On July 14, an Ukrainian Antonow 26 airplane was shot down by a missile near the Russian border town of Donetsk. http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ The video in above link showed the missile flying for 39 seconds until it hit. Only a BUK can fly that long, a manpad or Pantsir, also claimed to have been used, not (see first comment in link).

2. According to a recorded audio tape published by the Ukrainian Secret Service SBU, rebels possessed a BUK ('BUK3x2') in the Donetsk area at least since July 14 ('we already have BUK'). At that date it may have been either on Russian or already rebel held territory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4

3. A social media search discovered only one other system in the area, capable of shooting down AN26 - a Pantsir. However, a Pantsir can't fly for 39 seconds. Based on a max.speed of 780m/s and max range of 20km, it can only fly for about 25s. http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html Therefore and because of the crew's intent to engage in the civil war, it is likely that AN26 was shot down by BUK3x2. Afterwards BUK3x2 had only 3 missiles left.

4. On July 16, Ukrainian and rebel statements both confirmed the shoot down of a SU-25 plane near the "Marinivka border crossing", which is only a few kilometers south-south east of Pervomaiske, the destination of BUK3x2. Ukraine's defence ministry said: "It is likely that [the hit] was carried out by air-to-air rockets from the Russian air force which were patrolling the border in a pair." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28345039 This may have been another reason to install a BUK system in this area on the next day, leaving room for an accidental Ukrainian shoot down, apart from an accidental rebel shoot down and a willful Ukrainian false flag shoot down.

5. On July 16, rebels fired grad missiles from a location near Pervomaiske. The plume may have been photographed as well by an SBU informant in Torez and twittered on the next day, claiming to show the launch of the missile hitting MH17. http://7mei.nl/not-buk-m1-new-video-proof/

6. On July 17, BUK3x2 was seen in rebel territory on its way to Pervomaiske, south of Torez. Ukrainian SBU knew about the arrival latest since July 14 and about its destination latest July 17 morning, allowing a false flag operation from positions held nearby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4

7. There was an ongoing battle in the region with "fluent" contact lines. Marinivka and Tarany, about 8 kilometers south-east and south of Pervomaiske, were controlled by Ukrainian National Guard as well as all of the border region. Marinivka would match well with the direction of the Torez plume photo. http://liveuamap.com/e/2014/16-of-july-saurivka-is-bombarded-over-and-over-by-rus-grad?ll=47.907137219641115;38.75392913818363&zoom=8 http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-149-russian-tanks-and-artillery-reach-donetsk/#3353 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion

8. The Russian Defense ministry claimed in a news conference, that on July 17, Ukraine installed several BUK system near rebel held areas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs#t=1567

9. In a popular 'zello' audio recording, witnesses in the area were talking about the launch of the missile hitting MH17. A witness from "Oktyabr" (Chervony Zhovten) claimed "it was flying as if from Saurivka". Two other witnesses said: [2:00] "Well, it appears everybody saw where the missile has flown from." [2:04] "Well, where you are, everybody saw it, but the Ukrainian media, as usual, will say, will say that that were us." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkCcCmYlMZc

10. A Reuter's witness also claimed that the missile was fired from Kiev held territory. Reuters, however, said, "off camera, he said that it was launched from a nearby rebel site. Asked why originally he said the opposite he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels." In a new interview this witness claims that "off camera comments were just made up by the [Reuters] journalist". http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=497_1427729491

11. BUK3x2 was again photographed in Lugansk with its 3 missiles, no missile fired since July 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0

12. The US presented a very low resolution satellite photo with the track of a missile added. The launch location does not match well with the direction geolocated with the Torez plume photo, it deviates by about 11 degrees in angle, hence either or both appear to be incorrect. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/27/is-this-the-launch-site-of-the-missile-that-shot-down-flight-mh17/#comment-12493

13. Award winning investigative journalist Robert Parry reported about leaked US intelligence "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." https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ And later Parry wrote: "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity." https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/

14. During the coming months BUK shrapnel may have been collected from the AN26 wreckage and planted in the MH17 wreckage.--MS (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Photographer Statement
Reported to say : "That day did not foretell anything special would happen. In the morning I woke up and went to my work. At four ó clock in the afternoon I arrived home. And at 16:20 we heard an explosion. The first explosion was not very heavy. 15 seconds later, something like that, there was a second explosion, which was louder and it made the windows shake."
 * Did not foretell --an ass, --is this lawyer-written? 'We heard". --Took till December to polish up ? --Resup (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 'I did not know in advance this would happen.' Uh, who said you might? And 15 seconds must be rocket travel. Did he hear the firing from there? Could be, not that far. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Time delay consideration
Photographer reported two sound booms td=15 seconds apart; an interpretation may be launch and impact sounds arriving to him in Torez. If P=(0,0,0) is photographer cordinates, I=(d,0, h) is impact, with d ground distance between Torez and Rozypnoe, h is the height of flight at 10 km, and L =(x,y,0) is launch location, dist(A,B) is Euclidean distance between A and B, c is peed of sound, and n (about 2.5) is missile speed in Machs, then

(1).            dist (P,L) = dist(L,I)/n + dist (I,P) - td*c

(2).           dist (P,L) >=  h/n + dist (I,P) - td*c

(1) is a biquadratic equation for y given x (square enough times for square root to disappear); plotting that gives a closed 'ellipse-like' curve on (x,y) plane; once on that curve, time delay is exactly td seconds (doing this involves solving quadratic equations and removing spurious solutions not satisfying (1) ). That curve is at distance about 13 km in NW direction from photographer in Torez, and about 22 km in SE direction from him on the Southern ( Saur Mogila side).

(2) gives a simple estimate that distance between photographer and launcher is greater than the known right hand side; that distance is more than something like 13 km

(3) Requiring launch withing the range, --launch is not more than 20 km horizontally from the impact-- selects a NW arc of the curve described in (1) ; that arc is to the NW from Torez, and goes slightly NW from the impact point (meaning its ground projection).

Conclusion, based on the above, is that launch is too far from the photographer, to match the photo.

(Knowing exact time delay can tighten the argument. With what's actually known, and objection can be raised that whatever actual time delay was, it appeared to be 15 seconds to the photographer. Graphics of the curve may be supplied if needed). --Resup (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ooh. That kind of math could really come in handy with recorded audio cues, for example. But based on '15 seconds, something like that,' from memory months later, I wouldn't put any weight on it. If that turns out correct and pretty exact, there's a good point. Otherwise, the photo and other stuff is more solid, and says it's just about where it should be, as far as I've seen anyway. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Contrail
This is what an "impressive launch contrail" of a big missile might look like. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * АТО. Запуск двух ТРК Точка-У. Артемовск. (ATO. The launch of two TRK Tochka-U. Artemivs'k.) – August 28, 2014

Something happens in the sky. This is the people's reaction: -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 20/09/2014 Over many parts of the DPR and LPR were seen circles in the sky. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Tochka U missile is single stage solid fuel, which is a mixture of ammonium perchlorate with rubber and aluminum powder (Russian "ДАП–15В" fuel ). I could not find information on Buk with a comparable level of detail. Buk missile is single stage, solid fuel of some type, "dual-mode solid propellant (total work time - about 15 seconds)" , Earlier "Куб" ("Cube") missile used 'ballist' fuel,    gunpowder + plasticiser type  (Russian "ВИК-2") at the start, followed by some sort of ramjet ("direct flow rocket engine") at final stage. It is not clear, but possible, that fuels and contrails of Tochka U and Buk are different. Here are some videos with Buk launch: , and a longer with stupid music version. Those videos appear to be shot from a closer distance than Tochka U video; and a contrail on them does look quite impressive. --Resup (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The amount of smoke is highly dependant om Alumin(i)um loading. In general more aluminum is more 'oomph' and also more smoke.
 * On the other hand, it's common to alter the loading for other reasons. I refer to the Syrian Volcano (122mm variety) that started out as high Al-load and quite smokey but recent versions have low Al load but perhaps similar characteristics? --Charles Wood (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is something that might be a BUK: Ukrainian AN-26 shot down from Russian border area on July 14th. Ukraine@war claims it as a BUK. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unnoticed video of AN-26 downing confirms shot down from Russian territory – Ukraine@war, November 27, 2014
 * Video: Ukrainian Military Aircraft Su-25 Downed After Russian Attack Near Izvarino, July 16
 * Does not look like Buk, short contrail, --not all the way to the ground like on Buk video launches. --Resup (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a BUK. It flew 39 seconds in the video, a Pantsyr can't do this, see also first comment in this link http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/. Easy maths - at Mach 3 (1020m/s) it can fly for about 42 seconds (range 42 km, bit more because initially it is slower). According to the audio tape, BUK 3x2 was in the area on that day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 Ukraine@war needed 5 months to find something else in the area, but the Pantsyr can't fly that long. This is how BUK 3x2 likely lost a missile.--MS (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it does takes 42 seconds to fly 42 km at 1000 m/s, but that does not mean what we see must be a Buk. They start discussing that plane caught fire at 0:03 on the video already. We do not see what on hell is going on until some 30 s later.  This plane likely was brought down by Igla or similar modern MANPAD. Possibly two hits, at 0:03 and another at around 0:30. Or it got on fire at the start of the video and than eventually went down  (It is unlikely to have SU 25 pilot bailing out after Buk strike; or particularly likely catching fire as it's not aiming at the engine; contrail is weak for a Buk, too). Pantsir claims are much later from what I have seen,--- and no need for Pantsir to shoot SU 25.  ---If something is there on SBU audio and some murky photo, does not mean it's all for real, and that what we do actually see all have to be linked to all that murky SBU stuff. --Resup (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be some confusion here, just a recapture
 * First video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTT6BDRA8_k
 * 0:03-0:11 buring object
 * 0:17-0:33 contrail making a half looping
 * Second video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoS4kgHxPnE
 * 0:29-0:39 contrail making a half looping + detonation.
 * ukraine@war http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/11/unnoticed-video-of-26-downing-confirms.html
 * says both videos show AN26 shoot down on July 14 (second video with wrong label SU-25)
 * says 2nd video impact at 0:39, claims missile has been burning for at least 39 seconds--MS (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After reconsideration, I would say ukraine@war is right, both videos show AN26 shoot down, but wrong, people were initially watching AN26 with engine burning and a second missile was fired. That missile was seen burning about 16 seconds in first video, and time has to be added to reach that altitude/location, so likely over 20 seconds. That would exclude man-pad, Pantsir (?), likely BUK, R73 air-to-air, ...--MS (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is interesting to know how contrail of Buk on a long haul launch looks like. It is said that it fires engine for some 15 seconds only (and unknown will it do less, if it can do away with less). That 15 seconds need to put it at a spot where it can reach the target with little, if any, engine work and doing turns only. It is not very clear how much targeting happens in the first 15 seconds, likely it does some; and it is self-guided and doing proportional navigation later on. Knowing details here allows to find exact trajectory, short of that thinking it goes straight to the collision point is a sensible idea. In any case, heavy contrail raising from the ground, perhaps higher than the target is. Contrail is white, and stays put for a while. Seriously heavier than the stuff we see on social media. There are youtube videos of Buk launches giving an idea --Resup (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * These 15 seconds are wrong. Here is a video (start at 2:00) showing a SA-11 burn fuel for 35 seconds until its too far to distinguish. It is detonating at 42 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlU2hHYJMg (I just copied the comment from here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-weapon-was-used-to-shot-down-ukraine-air-force-antonov-26-at-july-14/ )--MS (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That video probably shows a modern version ('over horizon' capability was mentioned somewhere regarding modern developments; this one seems to be showing us something like that). 15 sec is coming from Russian sources Зенитная ракета 9М38 выполнена с применением двухрежимного твердотопливного двигателя (общее время работы - около 15 секунд).  Older versions also had shorter listed range. 22-25-35-42  km range, going through modifications. (Would be happier without 15 sec engine limit actually-easier to know trajectory)  --Resup (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually what goes off is 9M38M1, the one supposed to have 15 sec engine run, but the video lasts for 40 sec. This appears to be edited video, around 2:30 we got two tracks, than one slides right unreasonably for a natural recording. --Resup (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is a point we haven't already covered around that I know of, I'll pop in for it. 42 seconds I gather is the time for the fuel to burn out and the thing to fall, like a grad rocket or the like can only do. But this is a missile with guidance, set to intercept a moving airliner. Therefore, app. 40-45 seconds is the longest, not the shortest, it can fly (or am I just confused?) But 15 seconds is plausible, depending. Still might be untrue, not trusting people saying stuff. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After the engine is off it is high up and and at high speed, still can fly until gravity acceleration brings it down, and is on guided flight -unlike Grad-because fins can move causing it to turn. Issues here are visuals (contrail all the way or only about 15 km in flight), and trajectory. With engine on for 40 +secs it will go straight to collision point doing proportional navigation all the way (exploding earlier if it needs to be). If it is only 15  sec, trajectory is less clear, it may for example use engine to climb high up, than do guided fall and proportional navigation to the target from a spot where engine delivered it (for low and close-by target, that may potentially end up with a hit from another side--some drawings from unclear sources were showing opposite side hits at under 1 km and direct hits at 10-15 km).  Or it may use engine to end up on a ballistic trajectory hitting target (no side changing than). This is solid fuel engine so there is not much control on how quickly it burns off, that time is a set design feature. What we see on launch video is 40+ seconds of engine work-- will go direct to collision point in that case. --Resup (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's another clue that plume of smoke photo is not a Buk launch, that would give at least some 10-15 km worth of contrail, not a plume; with 40+seconds engine, contrail all the way to impact...(or else, launched from far away, over 40 km distance) --Resup (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

About accents
This report, released one day before the preliminary official report, recycles visual imagery already discussed on this page, and attempts a new claim that a BUK crew spoke with Russian-'Muscovite' accent. The claim is made by (British-accent) actors representing 'eyewitness(es)', with a visual imagery of a car at unknown night-lighted location in the embedded video, and some text, provided in English. Regarding 'Muscovite' accent, first it is not easy to tell, for example this video is Mr. Poroshenko speaking in Russian to a resident of Crimea, replying in Russian, and commented by a presenter, who is speaking 'Muscovite'. Although Mr. Poroshenko has a slight southern accent, there is little difference between the three speakers in practice. Moreover, actors and presenters can easily switch from Southern to Muscovite as required.

Secondly, if somebody speaks 'Muscovite', this does not mean this person works for Russia or the rebels,--- he can work for any side (PS. No change of condition to the blue dumpster on Zuhres video was reported in this latest update). --Resup (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this. What a stupid report. "Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit." Yeah, video shows the same. It was there. It probably shot down the plane. Accents, as you note, aren't the best indicator of anything, and even the reason sounds vague: the G thing, which even I know about (back to Olga/Olha). The "Russians" might even be Russian dissident mercenaries right from Moscow, for all we know. Who paid them? Their going up to the media and saying "you didn't see us" was not a good plan to stay secret. The witnesses: chosen at random? Directed to them?
 * If correct, the Kremlin has to explain to the relatives of the 298 passengers and crew who died - including ten Britons - why Russian military personnel were allegedly seen in the area escorting a BUK shortly before MH17 was shot down.
 * I think Russia could come up with a reason or two such allegations are made. Those ten Britons' tax dollars fund it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this foreigner is confused by dat BBC talk: "If correct" ... doesn't that mean it wouldn't be merely "allegedly" but, well, correct? ;oP --CE (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It means "If {made up vague allegation) is correct....then "SHOCK HORROR CONCLUSION IS TRUE". this lets them be as wild or wide off the mark as they like and the magic "if correct" turns it true. Without any effort to check if it IS true in our understanding of that word.KatKan (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Another BBC weapon in its arsenal of innuendo and dissimulation is the quotation mark. Whenever they are dealing with something of dodgy provenance, or something of good provenance they want to weaken they put it in quotation marks. e.g. - ISIS beheaded 20 Syrians. becomes ISIS 'beheaded 20 Syrians' or 'ISIS' beheaded 20 Syrians or ISIS 'beheaded' 20 'Syrians' or ISIS beheaded '20' Syrians. No need for corrections later. Any version can be retrospectively justified or otherwise. --Charles Wood (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If Buk 3x2 Was in Russia
Previously, it seemed quite likely the Buk launcher associated with the shoot-down was one of those owned and operated by the Kiev regime, simply snuck into separatist territory, maybe with some cover to make them even invite it in like a Trojan Horse. Then, I saw the November Bellingcat research on "Buk 3x2." As covered above, this claims to match that unit with a distinct one seen three weeks earlier, driving in a military convoy well inside Russian territory. This is widely taken as clear proof the Russian military supplied the weapons, and it is strongly indicative of that. However, the general possibilities are worth laying out at this point.--Caustic Logic (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All options below share these presumptions:
 * MH17 was brought down by the missing SA-11 missile AND/OR (in some cases) at least the launcher's appearance was coordinated to give that impression and is a clue to the plot
 * The videos and photos in question are genuine and not manipulated (my usual presumption, same here)
 * The Russia geolocations (many of them, making sense in context) are correct - Buk 3x2 as seen was seen in Russia, between Kurk, Stary Oskol, and a bit south of there (not verified but most likely correct)

Presuming all that:
 * Buk 3x2 (seen in Russia) and the mystery one are not the same - this require paint job match and matching damage to the lip above the track to make a Kiev-owned unit look like that one. It's possible, but not the most compelling.
 * The two units are the same - it was in the convoy in Russia and also towed around Donetsk oblast July 17.

If the unit is the same, there are a few possibilities for the nature of that connection, some of them silly or just there for logical fullness:
 * It was Kiev's unit and they snuck it over and into this convoy, and...
 * ... got it back later
 * ... the Russians kept it and used it for their own operation
 * It was Kiev's but some other way lost to the Russians
 * It was Russia's but Kiev managed to sneak over and steal it out of the convoy and then use it for the false-flag event
 * Same, but Donbass rebels then stole it from Kiev
 * It was Russian, and someone on the Russian side drove it over and then it was stolen by Kiev forces
 * Someone on the Russian side drove it over and it stayed in their control or handed over to their chosen parties, or transferred at the border - that is, no Kiev interference.

So far, I'm inclined to call Bellingcat's reading (the last option, the widely accepted one) the single most reasonable one, though maybe outweighed by the combined alternatives. It's not fun to feel almost swayed to a view so close to Kiev's problematic narrative, but this is what I see, pretty basic. Some combined maybes go against the straightforward reading. As for other thoughts I might be missing, well, that's partly why it's here. Let me know, I'm all ears. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Starting from that reasonable if unproven last option, not one but three final types of possibility remain. If it was freely moving in convoy inside Russia, it probably belongs to Russia at the time. Presumed. However, it could be that...
 * A rogue officer at Kursk - maybe a closet Nazi who sympathizes with Kiev, hates Putin, or just took a bribe - provided this unit to Kiev. He would set up this convoy to anchor the thing in Russia, then send the shady unit on, with his own guys or to hand off to Kiev's, who took it from there as I've speculated. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed - on both sides of the border, with its number slowly fading away - is consistent with this motive + intelligence.
 * It happened as reported (one way or another) Putin's military signed off on the loan, apparently with a sent crew or maybe given to local handlers, who for their own purposes did fire that shot. The strangely obvious manner it was displayed is consistent with this + stupidity/sloppiness, providing proof that probably wasn't even needed, just helpful, to start the punishment. At that point, it would be a real problem about as trumpeted, and still I would suggest we consider what the real crime is under the circumstances, if the solutions pursued are fair, or if this is all just geo-politics and warfare by other means cloaked in a cynical disguise of concern for justice. ^
 * Koo-koo (?): "as reported plus" - a mega conspiracy theory: it goes all the way to the top, and Putin is that rogue general selling the nation out, to demonize himself and Russia and be sure to get caught, in an elaborate staged play - Putin (or whoever's running things presumed to be run by HIM) is somehow controlled, his opposition scripted and ultimately geared towards provoking and achieving an expansion of "The West" into "The North." (I've always considered this possible, and one that's occurred to me more lately, and seems worth listing ... but I don't buy it. I'm going with "rogue officer" with a second bet on one of the other divergence points listed before that - unspecified. Third choice is "as reported.")--Caustic Logic (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ^ Not to apologize for egregious behavior if it really is that, but let's please compare this to the shoot-down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in 1988. A US Naval ship illegally in Iranian waters shot down an Iranian passenger plane with 290 people aboard, despite all the safeguards and sensors working correctly (the consistent clues the ship's computers gave them saying "do not shoot" can only be overridden so totally by choice). But it was deemed by the US to be no crime, just accident and Iran's fault for being provocative, and useful in the effort to compel them to quit the war with Iraq they were just starting to win. In Ukraine, repeated Air Force attacks on rebel-held cities, often hiding their jets behind civilian airliners, might both justify arming the rebels with such defensive weaponry, and invite an honest mistake from a team running this machine in stand-alone mode. The SBU version however overrides this all: it was an accident, but the Russians' intent was never defensive, always planning to kill an airliner, just meaning it to be a different one. That would clearly be criminal in all regards, and it's a sub-set of "as reported" - not a very good one. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you here as I don't share your presumptions. I consider it a waste of time and energy to connect dots that are laid out by "sources" like the SBU and Brown Noses - proven liars and at least in case of the former producers of fraud "evidence" - and therefore I didn't even read your logical chains based on them. Just saying to not make it appear that I agree. ;o) --CE (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Poking at specific presumptions could be helpful, but it all could go on and on and remain inconclusive anyway. And I take back what I say about leaning this way or that - I keep leaning different ways and on balance I'm feeling sort of weightless here. I think that comes through in the text... --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the numbers matching, getting close is not good enough, and I quit it there. Yes, it is weird that they are close, and that this murky business is covered by Spiegel, but can't really help with any of that. There is lots of murky weird stuff going on all the time, can't change the whole world to stop it. (Also: the Russian Government would be fully capable of doing a painting job properly if deciding to starting painting at all, their food trucks are all nicely painted, etc; just too sloppy for them to be behind) --Resup (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The paint being what it is, between that and the bend and light patch below all lining up, I think we're down to the same unit, or faked to match, and the possibilities branching off those two. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed earlier, the dot is shifted off the middle, more on Russian video than in PM photo; in Russian video, number 2 has well-curved semi-circle; in PM, it is almost straight segment. Bad photos for comparison but it's off, as far as it's possible to tell. As for the skirt bend, too blurry and distorted on PM to tell; Russian video, I think it is actually dirt, not a bend. --Resup (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, looks like two squares,  a bit darker than background, over first digit in PM photo. Unclear is it paint or digital camera effect. Any sane person hiding something will paint over everything, not paint just specifically over the first digit.    --Resup (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I got everything linesd up - it has to be de-skewed the same, and all ines up. You might be scraping bottom on this one. The curve is there, at its elongated part, at an angle. The dent/dirt looks the same, same place, relative to the light patch and all else. It's too much for coincidence by a couple of degrees. BUT I just shifted back to option ... should have numbered them. ... the middle starting option - image authenticity. I hardly ever call digital image fakery, and not calling it here, but... I still haven't checked the new (to us) June videos, so I'll stay presuming it might be okay - video's harder to fake than a photo. But on the other end, it all comes down to the one photo. That I noticed, no other views are close enough to say if these matching clues are present. (the bend, maybe). The squares you noticed, maybe a paint clue or just artifacting. It may too pixelly. I cannot really analyze the technicals properly to say. It looks okay, but possibly fishy too. Maybe the dirty windshield helps hid the painted in pixels to make this thing - just once - or maybe again in other images - look like that Russian 3x2 unit, exaggerated and going into rebel hands... Some kind of coincidences setting that up to work, but it's possible, and an expert should look closer at this picture. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I, --at the very start of discussion,-- zoomed picture on screen (by a lot), and measured length ratios (to the dot/  total panel length),  parallel to the 2 sides of the panel, using ruler (millimeters one) over screen. I ended up with ratios in horizontal side of panel directions were off, by more than blurring; in vertical, could not tell-within blurring.  This is not sensitive to skewing or zooming. So I don't think it's the same. May double-check measurement when have time; or somebody else can. Did not have time to try doing digital version of the same/similar method. Did not look carefully at comparison the 2 after de-skewing, but have an impression this is different; not that much skewing there; it looks essentially straight line on PM, skewing will not make circle into a line. May look at 2's some other time.  --Resup (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally took a closer look and PM was still off a bit on rotation and vertical-to-horizontal - in line with your observations. Still working out the adjusted graphic. The white is shifted a bit left of lining up perfectly... I think it's still close enough it's the same or is supposed to be, and not far enough off I'd call a bad fake - probably just pixel shift. Will see tonight. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't have a comprehensible graphic handy yet, but Maybe Resup is seeing what I am now. I was having a hard time aligning it all, so focused just one the one rectangle panel with the number. Still, on the PM photo I trace apparent edges, best line of dark pixels ... it lines up, proportion-wise, with the white spots on or a hair to apparent left. But when the whole image is placed by lining up that center, the rest of it doesn't line up - both sides seem shifted right, or the middle shifted left. (also the track areas appear far to the left, but they stick out a bit, and from the back angle flattened like this, that's why. Each difference in relief from "true flat" plane of the side will cause this... maybe I'm just not correlating it right, and maybe it's a clue the photo is messed with. possible offsets in both white patches as well, but maybe too in the natural fuzz zone. ?? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If the launcher was driven over the Russian border, fired once then driven back again after it had carried out its mission, the part of the story that doesn't make sense is the sighting on a stolen flatbed truck outside Donetsk. If the Russians were prepared to supply a launcher but not a truck, the stolen truck would have had to be driven to the border to be loaded and there'd be no reason to risk a journey back to Donetsk. The west to east journey is more consistent with CL's original suggestion of a launcher from the Ukrainian base north of Donetsk. If this was a false flag, there would have had to be a paint job to give it Russian markings (maybe to match one in a recent video). Otherwise the videos would point to separatists with a captured Ukrainian BUK, leaving the Ukrainian government liable for failing to close its airspace when it knew that a BUK had gone missing. Pmr9 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now this sounds engaged, thanks P. Yes, why drive it to Donetsk? (Other than to be seen in the smoking-gun rebel capitol, before getting seen in Lugansk too) And I never thought of that why it had to be Russian. Indeed, for liability reasons, it had to be a snuck-in surprise, not captured (unless they could come up with a reason why they didn't learn about it, and I suppose they could). The suggestion has problems and was slow to gain adherents, but maybe this kind of thought has swayed people to realize Kiev "must be right" about that... --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sunday Times story: original is behind paywall but reprint here. Eurocontrol's experts "spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts" about their concerns but Ukraine refused to close its airspace.  "Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for 'drastic moves' such as shutting airspace".  Pmr9 (talk)
 * Okay, well there's a train headed this way then. Several units? The whole June convoy? We do have this alleged maybe-Buk launch just before on July 14, an associated loader seen later, etc. And Ukie intel somehow did point to this number "312" you can't see on the unit they tracked so quickly. Did they already have that obscure Russian video everyone missed until now? And more yet showing the "1" still there? That early on? (that's all very speculative, but interesting). It has to be snuck in, maybe, but then it helps that you can vouch for it - so they fudge and average this aspect. Main point then seems to be, whatever failures they mumble out on their own end, it has to implicate both Russia (provided weapon) and the rebels (held the space needing demonized).--Caustic Logic (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)