Talk:Volnovakha bus incident

Initial Controversy: Rockets or Mines?
Ukraine distributes photos of a bus hit under Volnovakha, 10 people said to be killed, 13 wounded. Novorossia denied it shelled the area. Exact circumstances are not known, disputed. Cassad has the photos, notes that clearly those are photos from 2 different buses (different seats, etc). More photos here. . DPR source suggested a machine gun at a close distance (50 m); denies it was them. Grad shelling will have more severe damage. Looks well-concentrated in a particular area, and with small holes. Also can be anti-personnel landmine like MON-100, ( as a comment suggested). This mine has bullet-like shrapnel. --Resup (talk)16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now there are videos, showing explosion center, some 7 meters from the bus. No larger fragments typical of Grad seen on video; landmine still seems possible (e.g. somebody went out to get relieved, triggered it; or remotely controlled). Or can be a  fragmentation shell, --yet to be determined what exactly. --Resup (talk)19:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop! Landmines! sign can be seen at 11.29 and 12.12 of the video. The bus is standing on the shoulder, as if parked. It is just past a barrier with "Stop!" written on it (12:33). Wounds can be seen, appear to be shrapnel-type.   --Resup (talk)22:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On BBC, with first photo from a different bus. --Resup (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ms. Harf blames "separatists" --Resup (talk)23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fragmentation directional mine MON 50 suggested. Has a range of 58 meters; actual distance was just 7 meters. --Resup (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Russia's FM representative for Human Rights Dolgov "outraged", demands "objective investigation". Opolchenie says this is too far for their artillery.  --Resup (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel roll, looking similar to that in mines MON 50 or 90, said to be discovered on the video --Resup (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While according to Poroshenko, "President of the European Parliament. Martin Schulz said that on Thursday the European Parliament would call on the EU leadership to include the so-called DPR and LPR into the list of terrorist organizations". --Resup (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * UN Security Council condemns bus shelling near Donetsk, demands investigation--Resup (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ukrainian video said to be from block-post, show a series of explosions nearby a road. They claim one of those hit the bus. Unclear what causes explosions; Grad is the claim, but not the only possibility. Cannot see the bus on the video. Grad explosions have clear fireball, bigger, and do not occur almost-instantaneously, so Grad is in (serious) doubt. Mines setting of is a possibility (blasts may  have some well-organised pattern).  --Resup (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)--
 * OSCE, ICCC offer to set a joint group investigate the incident. --Resup (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OSCE has been at the scene three hours after the event. Reports that "The bus had shrapnel damage consistent with a nearby [Grad] rocket impact, estimated by the SMM to be 12-15 meters from the side of the bus.". --CE (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems that OSCE recorded the event, and not much else on top of it. They took Ukrainian report and took 'missile' from there, looked at the bus, and watched some victims taken.  No discussion of crater, or shrapnel elements, or analysis of why 'missile' and not something else. Or what, or whose 'missile'. They said they will do their own investigation, on top of ICCC. I recall that in the past they were saying they do not do forensic or technical evaluations, and do not assign blame. --Resup (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Crater seen on video is consistent with "frog" mine OZM 72,  a cylinder which jumps up at height of some 1.5 meters, than explodes.  May have rolls (or balls), so in competition with MON 50 version. Proposed versions also include IED. May be the case as "frog" is an old mine, sets of when a  cable is pulled . Crater looks like OZM 72, but action more like MON 50 (remotely activated). Also, some noted that on the video soldiers carry something resembling MON 50 (fuzzy footage towards the end of the daytime video), so such mines likely were there, somewhere, in any case, for protecting block post. Having radio controlled mine is safer for themselves than having hidden cables --Resup (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Blood. Some pointed out that pool of blood is along the bus, and at some distance from it; wondering how that may come about.--Resup (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

5 buses, 150 people, held on a road overnight in Volnovakha by Ukraine. Some of passengers are elderly people on their way to receive their pensions or coming back.--Resup (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Haven't had much to say yet, but this is interesting and maybe deserves its own page with graphics. Or at least a section. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Another version of the video, Poroshenko channel. What we see are quite regularly spaced, very symmetric (hard to tell which way they are coming) explosions with almost no  fireball. Number of flashes is hard to count, but may be close to 40 (something like 23-24 right, 16-17 left, and a couple in the middle, give or take few flashes on each side). Time it takes is close to 20 seconds. We also see a cloud from behind moving forward, towards the end of series of explosions.   Than after some fast-forwarded delay of 25 minutes, camera turns, and we see the bus and crater next to it; the rest of that field untouched. No sign people we see in front got too concerned with what happened behind, or that any cars which traveled there stopped; people seem to just start coming towards the bus, not much is seen going on near or in the bus.  Not sure what to make of all this.  Perhaps video glues different episodes, bus episode later than what's in front.  What we see in front can be mines going off.  Typical Grad missile give one big fireball, very different from what we see.  There are 40 launchers in one Grad vehicle. Full set is launched in about 20 seconds. This is clearly not a usual Grad (no fireball; blasts too small, too symmetric, needs to come nearly vertically down for that, but no parachute here).  A version with 45 bomblets in one missile said to be developed; one such  missile has 45 bomblets. Can it be one missile with 45 bomblets?   Those may be not even in use, or else very rare.  As late as 2007, folks were saying that they were developed but not in service. Do not know whether it ever changed, do not see much on internet about them. No reason to make advances with those, as it is old altogether and there are newer more powerful versions. Also, in the East-West direction, opolchenie would be some 25 km away, while the normal range is 20 km,-- and in any case trying to hit a small block post so far away is pointless militarily.  Well, they started to investigate, so I guess they shall continue. --Resup (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Witnesses
Pavel Cheperchuk (Павел Чепчерук), based on his [https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1569298346616222&id=100006082159074&pnref=story Facebook post shortly after the incident. Was travelling from Mariupol to Donetsk. Passed the check point, than continued further. When he passed Bugas (nearby), heard explosions behind and to the left. Left the car, and saw explosions at the block post. They were coming from the WEST. Time was 15.45. (Well, Facebook post is a Facebook post, but...). For example, they might fire on the field in front, after the bus was hit, and montage it together with the  bus on video. In answering questions, Cheperchuk said it was not Grad, but resembled mortar fire. Was landing at 75 degrees or so, coming from the West. His time does not match the time on the video. --Resup (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Witness, who was on the next bus, recalls both buses were checked, held at checkpoint for a long time, let go on empty road. Suspects a transmitter may be placed on a bus.--Resup (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A witness wounded on the bus video, Snezhana, saying that bus passed barriers, turned towards shoulder, perhaps at 60 degrees, and than there was a pop/blow/bang of an explosion. She says that she did not notice any shelling, just one pop going off. She says the bang "pushed the bus off" and broken windows. She was thrown onto people who were 'behind her' (as she says) --Resup (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

More survivors. Man 1, recall a queue -2 buses in front. Their bus stopped. Few minutes later, "big explosion". Bus was full, people were standing, not just sitting. Something hit him on the head, and right arm bones were broken. A young guy next to him was killed. He crawled out of a shattered window, got first help, and taken to a hospital. Man 2, recalls several buses in front, they were gradually leaving, one other bus was eventually in front and was checked. They had doors closed, as there was no command to open. He was standing next to the front door. Than there was an explosion. There were couple of familiar girls in front. He is loosing his track, starts to mumble- says "2 or 3, do not remember"--not clear what he means. Video cuts off.
 * Not clear where the bus in front disappeared--should be on the block-post video than? --Resup (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The videos appear to be from a more or less fixed webcam 1 or 2 floors above street level. There is some building with car park attached (roadhouse??) just outside Volnovakha where one road into town runs off the main road....good spot to use as checkpoint. BUT injured witnesses are saying there were 3 or 4 other buses in front of them, all waiting to be processed. So processors should be there already, not sauntering over one at a time...and certainly after an explosion maybe they can move a bit faster?.  Another bus should maybe be driving off in the distance. This video seems less edited, shows the camera swinging around a few times, as if from a nearby explosion.KatKan (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also some more craters when camera turns West... --Resup (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bus driver interview, korrespondent.net "In front of me at the checkpoint a big bus Mariupol entered, and it was checked. The guys from the National Guard waved me to pull closed. I stopped at the back (of another bus).  Opening  door  was not allowed:   a check was on-going. And then some rustling on the left side,  the hum, and an explosion". (note: this suggests that speed was subsonic).
 * - What do you think, from which side the firing was conducted?
 * - They were shooting along the bus direction. I went in the direction of Donetsk, shooting came from the left side of Volnovakha. This is our "northern region" as it is called. Not from Dokuchaevsk.
 * - What (weapon), in your opinion, the shots were fired from?
 * - The checkpoint itself was fired on with Grads. (Note: unclear is this what he saw, or what he learned later). But if Grad would hit nearby, I would have never talked to you. Just at the checkpoint there are still mines. And one mine, a fragmentation one,  went off.--Resup (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dashboard Video

 * Kyiv Posts' Christopher Miller on Twitter Dashcam footage surfaces showing apparent rocket strike near bus in #Volnovakha, eastern #Ukraine that killed 12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XATf-y9DmIk#t=70
 * same as discussed below

This shows two cars and apparently a row of others just parked on the road for some time. At about 1:15 is the explosion in the near-distance, seeming to have a directional force left-to-right as if moving, but maybe not. It goes on for minutes more, but I didn't watch the rest. No opinion yet. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it starts where the flash is (by the tree). Then blast, followed by debris, spread out radially; maybe a bit less where blocked by tree. This is always how it goes. There may be tilt if it was fast moving, but not here. Guys seen run into woods right before explosion; they may triggered that landmine --Resup (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Another video on rusvesna from a car videocamera (this is common to have). Shows single explosion at 1:14 on the video; that looks very similar to the bus event. Time shown on camera clearly not set correctly. Place looks similar (not exactly sure about towers and light poles match with Poroshenko video, but plausible). --Resup (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Longer version. The guy calls somebody "Artem" and tell about explosion(s) at the checkpoint; also stops at a next checkpoint, asks what happens and asks to call to check what happened.
 * More observations on video. Some noise starts 1:12, two seconds prior to explosion; got noisy microphone, vibration/wind, or something incoming (unclear). Somebody seen running into the woods and explosion follows immediately. In total, camera/car stay pointed Northward for about 10 seconds; apart from that 2 second noise (real or microphone-caused), and a single explosion, there is nothing else seen/heard exploding. While Poroshenko video explosions continue for 20 seconds, with  cloud from behind seen towards the end. So what we see does not look consistent with multi-explosions on the other video.
 * In case if noise is incoming projectile, not microphone or wind: Grad rocket speed is Mach 2, so no sound prior to it hits, and shock wave trails. Something travelling subsonic, e.g. mortar or shell, will be preceded by noise (e.g  projectile coming at about 0.7 Mach, 2 second delay translates into, roughly, 1.5 km range). Noise maybe also from something supersonic overflying (rocket/plane overhead).  --Resup (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Flash seen later, by the white post, on the opposite side of the road: likely heavier debris, blown off reaching there and hitting obstacle or plowing into snow--Resup (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I got it! Listen to the soundtrack on the video. This is what happens. GRAD strike hits road some 400 meter ahead of checkpoint. Somebody shouts Incoming! People panic. Seek shelter in the woods or in the ditch by the road. Duck and cover is the correct thing to do. Someone trips on the tripwire in the minefield. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but the idea of "Grads" and 400 meters is imposed by the checkpoint mast video, where something explodes for 20 seconds. I do not hear 20 seconds worth of explosions in dashboard video, I hear something like 2. So I am trying to say that this rumble can be anything. What we see from checkpoint mast video could be arranged to happen after the bus incident happened --Resup (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Video correlation, plus the move towards woods, supports that possibility, as well as yet another grad impact. Point being, the videos and audio (boosted, filtered, slow-and-low like the video) seem to line up.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skUnoJD4tow
 * Note: audio synch may well be off here, but point being, there are noises preceding the blast consistent with this bus hit being somewhere in the middle of the barrage. (Microphone design may filter distant sounds so they barely appear, explaining the sudden change in noise level when closer ones go off) --Caustic Logic (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Rocket Barrage Video
(could be called Many Explosions Video, but to me rockets seem illustrated enough... ) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(coped from above - that and/or this can be deleted or kept) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another version of the video, Poroshenko channel. What we see are quite regularly spaced, very symmetric (hard to tell which way they are coming) explosions with almost no  fireball. Number of flashes is hard to count, but may be close to 40 (something like 23-24 right, 16-17 left, and a couple in the middle, give or take few flashes on each side). Time it takes is close to 20 seconds. We also see a cloud from behind moving forward, towards the end of series of explosions.   Than after some fast-forwarded delay of 25 minutes, camera turns, and we see the bus and crater next to it; the rest of that field untouched. No sign people we see in front got too concerned with what happened behind, or that any cars which traveled there stopped; people seem to just start coming towards the bus, not much is seen going on near or in the bus.  Not sure what to make of all this.  Perhaps video glues different episodes, bus episode later than what's in front.  What we see in front can be mines going off.  Typical Grad missile give one big fireball, very different from what we see.  There are 40 launchers in one Grad vehicle. Full set is launched in about 20 seconds. This is clearly not a usual Grad (no fireball; blasts too small, too symmetric, needs to come nearly vertically down for that, but no parachute here).  A version with 45 bomblets in one missile said to be developed; one such  missile has 45 bomblets. Can it be one missile with 45 bomblets?   Those may be not even in use, or else very rare.  As late as 2007, folks were saying that they were developed but not in service. Do not know whether it ever changed, do not see much on internet about them. No reason to make advances with those, as it is old altogether and there are newer more powerful versions. Also, in the East-West direction, opolchenie would be some 25 km away, while the normal range is 20 km,-- and in any case trying to hit a small block post so far away is pointless militarily.  Well, they started to investigate, so I guess they shall continue. --Resup (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Land Mine Anyway?
So when it seemed a controversy between a rocket barrage from the NNE vs. a land mine incident, the video of a rocket barrage made me lean away from the other option. Now that we can see the wider range of options ... I don't see any clear cratering pattern to suggest a direction. The OSCE investigators said it seemed NNE, but did it look the same by then as it did right after? If there's no riection, that means it came straight down, basically, or was already down. Above, it's noted the bus driver now claims what actually hit his bus, rockets aside, was a landmine. This is interesting. The whole subject of land moines (which Resup has done some great work on) is now widely dismissed as the wrong part of the wrong 2-options set-up. I'm agnostic about the issue, starting to lean already ... but anyway, it should have a section with a couple of concise sub-sections. (concise means me: shut up ok) --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for a Minefield

 * Now there are videos, showing explosion center, some 7 meters from the bus. No larger fragments typical of Grad seen on video; landmine still seems possible (e.g. somebody went out to get relieved, triggered it; or remotely controlled). Or can be a  fragmentation shell, --yet to be determined what exactly. --Resup (talk)19:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop! Landmines! sign can be seen at 11.29 and 12.12 of the video. The bus is standing on the shoulder, as if parked. It is just past a barrier with "Stop!" written on it (12:33). Wounds can be seen, appear to be shrapnel-type.   --Resup (talk)22:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)



From around 11:29 and 12:12 - I can't see what characters those are below what looks like stop, I guess. If it says mines, etc., I'd like to see how. Nice stencils and spray paint, prominent placement, partly above the moderate snow-line ... should have been an ominous thing to stare at for the folks on the bus, if it was there at the time.



The other sign at video's end, a few meters behind the bus, (stretched frame to fix foreshortening, make more readable) is in English, maybe "do not pass" beneath (not readable, but that's logical and consistent). Not well-displayed at the moment, nor very specific vis-à-vis any danger from mines. Hand-painted stripes, couldn't resist adding a wolfsangel, and K2, meaning I guess the Kiev-2 battalion wuz here. If this is a minefield, seems professionally managed, not the kind of place where a startled child might trip a deadly mine by refusing to obey the neo-Nazi's signs. Right? --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: sign was set here as if for temporary storage, after last snow anyway. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bus Blast Consistent with Mines
An experiment conducted with OZM 72 mine. This is an old mine. Different bus (so metal thickness different), windows with no glass; possibly different distance to target and to camera. There are two types of holes, smaller one from rolls, bigger one from mine encasing, all pretty high. Most elements seemed to go through the window. Judging visually, some overall resemblance. Flash on the dashboard video appears a bit bigger, but not much bigger. Possibly more larger-type holes on the bus (but here more may be throw the window). So I'd say this mine is a possibility, but IED (which may be as simple as a couple of those mines and some extra metal pieces going in the shaft together) would give a better match. --Resup (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Witness Supports for Mine Blast
http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3468394-vodytel-avtobusa-smerty-nas-obstrelialy-so-storony-volnovakhy
 * Bus Driver: forthcoming


 * "Fake Witness" This may be one we've considered, I'm not sure. Helping to bell another State Dept.-selected "Cat," eager-beaver BM acolyte Aric Toler "unpicks" this but cannot unpick BM's nose. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Russia has not formally offered a scenario, but state-controlled media has clearly come out against the Ukrainian narrative, evidenced by their interview of a fake victim on Vesti on January 14 that supported the mine theory.

The link is not to what the "fake victim" said, but conveniently right to [http://uatoday.tv/politics/russian-tv-accused-of-faking-bus-attack-survivor-interview-403256.html his reasons (via pro-Kiev UAToday) to call him fake.
 * On the day after the tragedy, Russian state TV channel ‘Rossiya 1' broadcast an interview with an alleged survivor of the bus attack who claims that the deadly blast was local in nature and not part of a rocket barrage.
 * Ukrainian media outlets have raised a number of concerns about the credibility of the ‘Rossiya 1' report, pointing out that the interviewee, who is named as Snezhana Karpeka, does not feature on any of the lists of dead and wounded which have been made available to the public by the Ukrainian authorities.

So, she (?) is not pretending to be one of the dead, that's a good start. And s/he's not pretending to be one of the wounded, just one of the luckier passengers. Or did she claim to be wounded? It's not mentioned. "Furthermore," as if we need more,
 * ..the interview takes place just one day after the attack in what appears to be the interviewee's home, despite the fact that none of the wounded had at that point been discharged from the hospital.

Oh my God, she has the audacity to clearly be claiming to be one of the lucky ones neither killed nor injured. Or was it ALL just killed and wounded and still held then? Was the very act of being free to talk from home supposed to be suspicious? If not, what? --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Security camera footage which has emerged since the incident appears to confirm that it was a Grad rocket attack.

Shows 'there was' an attack, not 'it was' that attack. --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Throughout the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian media has been repeatedly accused of faking news coverage as part of a systematic disinformation campaign. 

Not every entry in the campaign is as stupid as this one, but some are and they're adding up. ;) --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That said, fake witnesses do happen, and I'm rarely hesitant to call out the signs. May have a look-see. Aric's reasons to simply say fake is pretty weak, and suggests half his other patchwork arguments are wrong (and most of the other half irrelevant red herrings, I imagine - attacking the different stories from a confused DNR - note one intelligent comment at least worth reading for: "I’d argue that a fixed and unwavering story may actually be more indicative of guilt than multiple theories, subject to forensic confirmation." Toushie.) --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Snezhana Karpeka (forthcoming)

Other/General Mine Discussion
(forthcoming)

Ukraine@War Analysis
Activity before impact: zoomed/slowed version Seems useful. It looks like a person, maybe small, runs in that direction just before, but doesn't make it far enough to have stepped into the blast zone. And even if so, one should hope that wouldn't set off the whole field. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to step on it, "frog" mine is set off when a hidden cable is pulled setting it off, same often the case with IED --Resup (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine@War of course blames separatist Grads, a volley of more then 50, meaning two launchers, both based to the NNE in rebel turf. This was already run by James Miller's Interpreter Mag. A number of semi-compelling points, seeming to line up. He seems to presume rocket shrapnel would fly straight sideways from impact, so picks a line perpendicular to the one suggested from impact to the bus. Would be fairly close, I suppose. Seems a bit surprised at the video of multi-explosions (at least 33 seen, somehow counts over 50 impacts), but easily dismisses minefield claims (refuses to link to the video) and suggests why these look different and less fiery than the one, maybe a bit like mines: "The reason why you don't see clear explosions of fire is because most of the rockets get buried (deep) into the snow and ground before exploding. Although SOME fire can be seen." --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow thing is just total rubbish, will not make any difference to high explosives blast, which occur as detonation and does not need to suck oxygen. Especially with 6 kg of high explosives as in Grad. The  guy has no clue what he is talking about, this is just laughable. --Resup (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Un-addressed issues: WHY besides evil-stupid, would they want to blast this place with 50 grads, knowing it would probably kill civilians? Why is there exactly one impact that really shows a fireball, and it's that one? Why is it the furthest out only that did this, and killed people, when the other 98% of the rockets fell well short of causing fiery stupid-evil like this. Just doesn't seem coincidental ... something weird here, not sure what. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Special question: he shows there several realistic-looking photos of rocket tubes sticking out of the ground, pointing northeast (the one in the median anyway). Did he miss the one at this special spot by the bus? A blast pattern, a hole, a hypothesis, but no rocket? Another strange difference with this spot? --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On the special flare-up issue: looking closer, there are a couple of flashes in the barrage/cluster of blasts. One is right amongst the treeline, and is the only other really visible fireball. Is it maybe the lesser snow, the packed/non-tilled earth at the roadside, and branches to combust that makes that dramatic flash? If so, scratch one oddity in this alleged impact amongst the trees by the roadside. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * nothing is combusted in HE explosions, charge detonates almost instantaneously, what is around does not really matter, what matters is how much charge detonates, is it 6 kg like Grad or something like 0.6 kg like a landmine --Resup (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Radar Station Findings
(Ukraine at War analysis with no @  here). According to DPR intelligence major general Petrovsky aka 'bad soldier', from 11 of January Ukraine had top-notch radar tracking station Zoopark 2 in 1.5 km NW of Bugas (nearby that checkpoint). This radar tracks mortar, artillery, missile fire. However, Ukraine refused to provide coordinates of artillery position which supposedly fired on Volnovakha checkpoint. Which would be very easy for them to do. But they prefer to spread info-war rubbish instead, and profit from it--Resup (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shady. The tubes seem to point on the right line 'towards' sep territory, but no proof I know of how far along that line. If they won't show it, maybe that's because it was their launchers in their area. One clue I think is how steep they came down - looks fairly close to straight down, which I think means fired from closer, vs. more horizontal travel if further away. I don't suppose we know the actual angle, nor the formula to turn that into distance (if that even is a clue)--Caustic Logic (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is possible to estimate. For a ballistic flight  on a parabola, ignoring air resistance, distance = L = v^2 sin (2 a) /g   , v starting and arriving speed, g free fall constant. That means that when close to the maximal range, it goes at 45 degrees. Two different shooting angles are possible for smaller distance, those two add up to 90 degrees. From now on, need assumptions. So assume it has a maximal range of 20000 m (like what is listed for regular Grad). This needs speed of about 1.3 Mach, supersonic, silent arrival. Opolchenie was 23000 m away, and we are forced to say it was in fact at maximal range of about 20000 and therefore arrived at 45 degrees. Now anything 1-3 km away can arrive almost vertically (86 degrees for 3 km distance, even steeper if closer). Now if it goes subsonically, as audio may be telling us, it's top range is under 12200 m, which pretty much excludes opolchenie. --Resup (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Direction of artillery strike?
The rooftop video shows the attack came from the west. See the splatter patterns. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Across the road, undecided yet which way. Petrovskii is saying "latest marks are in the NW direction." I read this as saying it was from SE to NW. Not entirely clear what he means, is this about near-bus splatter, or about explosions elsewhere nearby --Resup (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OSCE now examined craters.--Resup (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we may be mixing up two things: Sergey Nikolaevich is saying that the "dispersion ellipses there are perpendicular to the roadway". I understand this to mean is that the pattern formed by the 60 or so hits forms an elliptical pattern. THis is because artillery is more acurate in direction than in distance. From the major axis of the ellipse it is possible to deduce the direction to the origin -- almost. Problem is that both directions are equally likely. The ellipse is not exactly perpendicular, but crosses the NE-SW road in a n 45 degree angle, meaning the strikes came from the west or from the east.
 * What I am referring to is the splatter patterns of the individual hits. These too are elliptical in shape. The crater is at the western tip and the soot on the snow extend to the east. At 3 minutes 08 seconds in the video (14:53:55 in real time) the camera turns northwest showing three impact craters on the snowy field some 150 meters away. The soot pattern extends to the east. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely he means individual hits, putting together 50 hits is cumbersome and not very meaningful. Not sure which hits; maybe latest hits which could be found nearby, possibly not the bus itself.
 * Ellipse discussion: Blast center also can be found, and will be at or near a focus; than as presumably some textbook will say, direction is towards the other focus point --Resup (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At 3:08 those spots seem to extend kind of parallel to the road, a bit from the west, meaning extending to the northeast, so at least partly east. Unless that blows backwards (doesn't sound right to me) these should be opposite the suggested direction, from behind, the southwest, with most rockets overshooting the target by far. Three more spots at 3:11 show the same pattern. U@W has a photo of the one that hit the median (0:56 in this video) and its tube points NE, almost right up the road. That could be faked, I suppose, but the furrow looks pretty real. So maybe not just two launchers were used, but two totally different positions? Note the southern ones nearest the bus come from the shady direction. So how about the one that hit by the bus? --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How do we know location of this photo? Can be photographed anywhere. Or somebody may just put it in the furrow. Assuming it is real, I think this looks like motor part, which is in the rear 1/2 of missile, it does not have any explosives which are in the front 1/2. So this motor part could be thrown off by a blast  and got buried in the ground. It than tells us the blast was further up (North), but does not tell us  where  the rocket itself came from. I do not think there was any explosion at all at this place we see, otherwise we will get much more scorched Earth, and smoothly blown in all directions material. Since missile first buries itself into the ground at incoming angle, than explodes, best chances are that motor part is thrown back; so missile is more likely to travel up the photo; but as it was thrown by a blast, that could send it  elsewhere. --Resup (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does look a little strange - did it just plow in that deep instead of exploding? This isn't a tilled field here. I'll side with 'presumably legit' for now, but a grain of salt...--Caustic Logic (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Splatter pattern?
I have now had another look at how the asymmetrical pattern could be formed. The GRAD warhead explodes on impact, with the explosive force and shrapnel spreading radially. This can be seen in impact patters on pavement, where the side facing the origin is littered with impact grooves. On the far side we do not see any markings on the ground. For comparison see these two photos from Sartana and Israel. If the shrapnel hits soil on the ground it might bring up a cloud of dirt on the side of rocket origin. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This point is crucial for the points below, obviously. Just looking at the pictures, I see the radial pattern, but not direction of origin. Basic logic suggests to me that an omni-directional blast plus forward momentum means the side away from origin is where fragments will scatter, and the one in the pavement just bent forward like I've seen before. I'm having a hard time seeing how it only blasts backwards and to the sides. But then, OSCE (see below) suggest even these ones looking to be from the southwest are also from the northeast, all blowing backwards on impact. Maybe it's just counter-intuitive like that. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, the OSCE only looked at five craters, perhaps not including the six I think came from the southwest. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this actually true? A bit tired now. Well say it is cylinder which firmly sticks into ground, and THAN exploding, everything goes radially away from the axis. Say most of it is still above te ground. 1/2 cylinder  closest to the ground  sends stuff into the ground, gives marks. The other 1/2 cylinder is  pointing up, sends stuff far away before hitting ground. Pls tell me if this is wrong, will get back to it later. --Resup (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I get what you mean, how the down side in the angled impact \_ marks pavement, up side damages things above the ground. That would be marks on the side it originated from. But these are two different situations; that's surface marking AT impact when it only impacts the surface. It will be different if it's plowing into dirt. That will cause the same force on the down side, but also blow dirt out and up, and that will fly in a forward direction plus all directions, making ovals of dirt like we see, extending from the crater pointing in the direction of travel. So it doesn't really apply here. Right? --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, if charge buries into ground, the up part will excavate dirt and through it around as ellipse, most of it forward. --Resup (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And if that's so, the pictures below show at least six of these hits came from Ukrainian regime-held territory. Thanks for noticing this and bringing it up. This should be a huge issue. As long as we're right on this basic concept. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo analysis
Well, here's the southern impacts:



And those arcs and impacts roughly set on the map, compared to the north evidence (bus impact is thought perpendicular, would fit either of these opposite directions, in theory)so ... which half hit the bus?:

Taking the visual implication of the median impact, not totally verified as Resup notes, I'd say less NE than U@W says, taking the furrow as a better guide. --Caustic Logic (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I suspect this is a dud rocket. Or, the photo looks like that; there's no forward crater, just the trench it dug burying itself. On impact, the rocket that hit the spot this is supposed to be looked kind of explosive, sending up lots of dirt. But is that just the weight of the thing hitting? (if so, were most of them duds?) --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Something to keep in mind, but don't believe so at this point all were duds. I recall there were (many) flashes in that white field video, just weak ones, not well above the dust. That looked like small charge, considerably less than Grad. Fiddling with warhead would require a lot of expertise, so not too likely as it's difficult. Unlike for guided missiles,  unguided dud is useless as a  weapon.   With the  photo, it could be that this one hit the ground but did not explode, but  it is in such shape (a bit melted / bruised) that is more likely  to be an  engine part surviving blast elsewhere. (Also the whole thing may be not real,  fiddling with crater near a road is the easiest, no stepping on minefield and now track in the snow left). --Resup (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wind Here's something I should have done before. I checked the northern impacts to see if even they appear to be coming from the north. Initial dirt cloud roll seems to suggest that, but not sure. What I noticed is that it moves little (so hard to tell any direction - might be interesting) and the dirt hangs around for some seconds before forming the final oval like we're looking at here. And that movement is after all momentum is lost - the breeze determines it. The settle and the flag say the wind is from the southwest shifting to south and east, a pretty strong breeze. And even the northern dirt spots appear like they came from the southwest, by that standard. These six with pronounced ovals might still be that effect plus a southwest firing direction, or this whole thing might be a false lead after all. It is/was handy in proving Kiev side must have done it, but it is/was also a little stupid: unnecessary AFIK and easy to spot. Unless someone talks me back out of it, my money's on all moving shots coming from NNE, with the question being how far. And the mine part still seems extremely plausible from what I've seen. After all, it's that one blast that matters here, not the barrage that maybe just startled someone to just barely dart towards the trees before he remembered too late that there's a minefield. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrolary finding: the lack of directional dirt by the bus is not a good sign of a lack of movement; if the wind mainly does that pattern, this one should be nearly the same. But it's not, quite. Maybe the bus, other traffic, and/or trees, somewhat blocked the wind. Noting the smoke cloud as it rises seems to roll to the east, and apparently to the north as well ... in fact, why does only this one missile impact have a huge smoke cloud (it looks like smoke, not soil) with a long shadow dominating the field? It was hotter, rose higher, contained almost no dirt to settle (as we can see, it almost all stayed on the ground somehow) ... okay, even more, I blame that mystery for no dirt spatter around the one that matters. Big difference from the rest, needs explained. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For real Grad as it comes, it's strong blast, should excavate a lot of heavy stuff by a lot at high velocity, and wind would not matter at all. Here, with not that much blast, and pretty symmetric one initially, and snow around which may create light movable cloud, it may be that wind does the ellipse. Indeed as I recall from watchtower video, a weak blast  all covered by dust cloud created ; it is plausible that this mostly light movable cloud.  May be worthwhile to try to spot Grad craters in current weather conditions--frozen Earth and snow covered. There should be lots of them but have not seen clean shots on recent videos. There are some unexploded missiles on recent videos (220 mm or 122 mm-not sure); those go deeply into (frozen)  ground, like 3/4 length; than blast would be mostly heavy dirt, less snow.  --Resup (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What are GRADs?
What are these "GRAD rockets" anyway? Are they cluster munition or HE fragmentation? How are they fused? Does the warhead separate from the rocket motor part before explosion? Is the warhead buried into the ground before it explodes? Which way does the splatter go? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * According to a table on the Wikipedia page, just among those originating in Russia/USSR there are several types of rockets, mostly Fragmentation-HE but also ones that spread Anti-tank mines, and HEAT submunitions, RF jammer, Underwater charge (for BM-21PD). Some range info is given, plus warhead weights. Other details, not there. There's a photo at the bottom of an unexploded rocket with a only few feet of the end sticking out of the ground, kind of like here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Simple cheap old unguided HE fragmentation which explodes on impact is the most widely widespread. As reference shows, other more modern version are developed, but those are not known (or rare) in actual use. Only basic info is known from Russian sources; maybe more info elsewhere but have not seen it anywhere, more   than in the quoted reference. If such info exists,  must be from Western sources. --Resup (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nearby Grad missile strike on video Much stronger blast with big fireball. --Resup (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tracking devices
Rusvesna, 19 January Ukrainian tracking devices matchbox-size, used to correct artillery fire, were found many times. This report says that there were unexploded Uragans missiles hitting coal mine "Zasiad'ko" on 11 of January. Later, tracking device was found at the mine. Many people will be killed if Uragan exploded. (Uragan missile-- unguided, but artillery-type targeting still used where to shoot it). Tracking device use on the bus was hypothesized by opolchenie. --Resup (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tree cut down?
The roadside tree next to the bus is cut in the middle. How did this happen? When. Was a mine attached to the tree? Did it cut the three in two. -- 21:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure we have the same tree, but  this one at 0:36 is cut down with a chain saw. It has a standard chain saw cut resembling  _/. This is an old cut, because there is snow on horizontal part of the cut and tree itself. It was not snowing on the day. We also see a very neat and small foxhole-like crater in the ground. So charge was not attached to the tree, it was on the ground (possibly 'jumping frog' mine, normally activated by a trip wire). Also note lots of noise in the recording, --likely wind causes it, and may cause it on the dashboard video as well. --Resup (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can't say what kind of saw, but that definitely a cleanly cut down tree like Resup says. When and why, not clear, but before the last snow. Presumably irrelevant but who knows for sure.--Caustic Logic (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Standard wind noise, yes. But in the other case, to me, it gets windier right before the explosions, so I think that's the distant explosions there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Official Reactions
President Poroshenko: I am Volnovakha. (And they are terrorists). --Resup (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not official but from an official: The claim is lodged by Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin of Russia - a nation with about ten time zones. Lodged after reading a news report in Russia. Correct? Or, no ... inside jobbity-job is proved by de foreknowledge in Washington paymasters!!!1!11!!! (/missing JREF mode) Just how he decided Washington placed its bet on the secret plot working and killing the right number of people on that bus, they read out the script publicly at a published press conference. Surely this will put to rest the western lies of rockets from the NNE, right? The strange claim draws credibility from the high office this guy holds, but how long can you keep drilling that? Eventually, you start sucking up nothing but mud (fake). Why does this happen? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The charge of the State Department against the DPR was published the day before the Volnovakha - Hunter New, 14.01.2015.


 * If you auto-translate his Russian tweet it comes up with "published", but the guy also tweets in plain English and there it reads: "Psaki's accusation was written a day before the event" Which could be a hint at something different, like that they own her phone/her script writer. That's the way the guy ticks (he's the man on the nanoratmobile, btw ;o)). Not one to confuse time zones. --CE (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not likely in an honest accident, no (unless tired, drunk, etc.). It would be dumb-playing of a depressing sort. I hope not. That picture didn't help my unease, somehow. Ok, well he didn't specify how he learned that strange fact (written, and/or published), or why we should believe except it might be convenient ... previously 'a day early' claims from Russia are over Youtube time stamps (California time, almost a full half-day off from Ukraine), not CNN etc., usually eastern time, less of an issue. Afternoon incident in Ukraine should still only be same day, probably all across the US (hazy on the exact time). Maybe he made point to read a Hawaii or Japan paper? Or, separately, he learned of its writing prior to the press conference ... details would be nice if so. Was 10 people killed (sry, and 13 injured, at the time) in the original script or added after confirmation? Etc. We expect no further explanation, right? Does he tick in mysterious silence as he drops implications that are stupid, mysterious, or both? --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's nothing about time zone confusion in his tweets. The English one was posted 23:40 my time, which means 01:40 Moscow time (16 minutes after the Russian one). That's three hours after the RT article he linked to, which says that Psaki made the announcement "today during the daily briefing". So this was either a hint (for people who might "follow" him out of professional interest) or a "joke" (Psaki's stupidity and outright wackiness being a top laughing stock and Internet meme in Russia). Because I think it's safe to say that Rogozin couldn't care less about what you and I believe. He is among the people hit by the first round of sanctions, not only US but also EU. His last twitter "joke" that made the news was when his plane was banned from crossing Romanian (IIRC) airspace and he tweeted that the next time he tries to enter would be in a Tupolew bomber. --CE (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most likely an ironic comment (not sure). --Resup (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now look at this coming in timely: Russia: Putin meets Russian battle android Notice Rogozin inconspicuously standing behind the nanoratmobile, apparently a bit embarrassed that his job will soon be taken by an AI... ;oD --CE (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Independent reactions
With Isis, Assad and Putin exposed, who's next on citizen journalist list?-Independent.co.uk
 * Riley Waggaman proposes an answer
 * unpicking-the-donetsk-peoples-republics-tangled-volnovakha-bus-massacre-narrative --Resup (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

CyberBerkut claim
Google translated. "We," CyberBerkut "by technical penetration of computers in the Office of the SBU in the Donetsk region have at its disposal electronic documents proving that the attack and killing of civilians around the roadblock near Volnovaha 01.13.2015, it was planned and carried out by the Office SBU in the Donetsk region. This crime, as well as the use of resonance around him in order to discredit the leadership and militia Donetsk People's Republic was carried out under the order of the first deputy head of the SBU - Head of the Anti-Terrorism Center at the Security Service of Ukraine Colonel-General Vasily Sergeyevich Gritsak. Monitor the implementation of the above activities was entrusted the chief SSC "A" SBU Colonel Gennady Ivanovich Kuznetsov, "- said in a statement on the website" CyberBerkutOriginal news RT in Russian

page 2, translated to Russianby Cyber Berkut google translation Information campaign on charges of power block so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" (DNR) and "People's Republic of Luhansk" (LC) in the deaths of civilians.

Considering the above, and given the task and the goal of the information campaign on charges of so-called power unit "Donetsk People's Republic" (DNR) and "People's Republic of Luhansk" (LC) in the deaths of civilians and operated corresponding propaganda and anti propaganda activities to build up the necessary information impact on the population of Ukraine. As part of the planned activities to discredit terrorist organization "DNR" on popular regional Internet resource "News of Donbass" (http://novosti.dn.ua/details/242457) and "In The City" (http: //dn.vgorode .ua / news / sobytyia / 248,106) published information material titled "Under Volnovaha shell" DNR "exploded near a passenger bus. 10 dead" and an article entitled "DNRovtsy Ukrainian checkpoint fired at Volnovaha: killed 10 civilians." In order to reach more readers this information was disseminated in the news bulletin "Ukrnet." As part of the counter-propaganda action was organized interviews Battalion "Kiev-2", which is directly in the area of the checkpoint near Volnovaha. The above interview will be published soon on the rating of Internet video of the "Public TV" called "Shooting checkpoint in Volnovakha. Eyewitnesses" (https://www.youtube.com/user/HromadskeZP). The content of a movie aimed at the prosecution of so-called power unit "Donetsk People's Republic" (DNR) and "People's Republic of Luhansk" (LC) for the death of bus passengers about Volnovaha 01.13.2015 year. In addition, at our initiative on the pages of the rating of the Internet publication "0629" (http://www.0629.com.ua/news/710328 and http://www.0629.com.ua/article/712305) were promulgated informational materials "on the track Donetsk Mariupol militants struck artillery attack on the bus. killed 10 people" and "cause of death under Volnovaha - certainly not mine, - expert opinion", the contents of which explains to readers who really has been fighting in eastern Ukraine, Minsk breaking the ceasefire agreement on a bilateral basis, and the consequences for the civilian population of Ukraine they lead. In order to create the necessary information impact on the population of Europe and the United States on the English-language pages of the rating of the Internet publication "Ukraine @ war" (http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2015/01/volnovakha.html) was published informational material "Bus with civilians hit at Ukrainian checkpost near Volnovakha ", where by bringing legenderized graphic materials, in the tragedy at Volnovaha accused the so-called power unit "Donetsk People's Republic" (DNR). --Resup (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to dig deeper, but it seems they're saying they have such info, in a number of places,but haven't yet shared the info or given details. I'll stay skeptical for at least as long as it remains this vague. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They published several pages of Ukrainian document, first ordering to do propaganda (they say counter-propaganda, of course); and the report back that some articles were arranged at popular resources with 'separatists did it' overall message; that includes u&w to impact English speakers. That page (number 2) is above; there are two more pages, of less interest. This is probably as much as they got. --Resup (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So the "documents proving that the attack ... was planned and carried out by the Office SBU in the Donetsk region" is documents showing how they seeded info to news sources and U@W to blame separatists? Could be, but mostly they seem to cite gov. statements, witness statements, and videos, in line with known biases, and don't need special SBU guidance to report the story that, to them, will be evident already. But no one's saying they have actual SBU plans to carry out the attack? It's just implied from how they (supposedly) created the opposite story? Not that impressed, and still skeptical they even got that one part. On our end, SBU orders or not, it should come down to the evidence - is it real or fake and what does it say? I'm not going to ignore stuff because Cyber Berkut suggests it's all part of a SBU plan (in case that was their intent). Secret plans are always involved in reports anyway, so we're prepared for it! --Caustic Logic (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe cultural differences here, when Government has a detailed plan to spin news in a particular way, with concrete supposedly independent publications actually linked to the Government (and especially secret services),  this is may be a non-event in the West,  but The (Orwellian) Empire at work in many people's minds over there. This is happening before, and instead of, proper investigation, without any concern for the actual truth. (Resisting propaganda streams is essentially what we do, is it not)? I don't think it is realistic to expect to find non-fake intentional bus shelling plan and completion report spelled out in detail on paper, so this scoop is like the next best thing out there. --Resup (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also there is resources issue, if a Government (secret service, to be specific) is busy producing 'legenderized' graphics, and there is well-oiled machine picking it up, dealing with every such graphics---pro bono--- is just not feasible. --Resup (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to say it would be no issue if SBU were writing news; it would be shady, arguably criminal, etc. But it doesn't prove Kiev was behind the attack, though it's consistent. And while they could be putting out such orders/suggestions/bribes, usually a false flag even just doesn't need that close of management. Attack is reported, flag is reported, poss. falseness ignored. The "flag" is the direction and presumed distance in that direction, and that's down to the evidence, which is interesting. Two directions! And only Kiev forces could be in both of them! --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I was just missing parts of what they claim. See below. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaked Kiev Security Service Docs Show False Flag in Volnovakha Bus Attack Sputnik News, Jan. 19
 * The bus shelling incident in Volnovakha could have been organized by the Security Service of Ukraine, hackers from CyberBerkut group claim, publishing compromised SBU documents on the official website of the network.
 * In a ‘confidential’ letter from January 13, SBU first deputy head Basil Gritsak instructed Gennady Kuznetsov, head of the center “A” of SBU Anti-Terrorist Center, to carry out a provocative campaign, aimed at laying the blame for civilian deaths on independence supporters in Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic. Gritsak ordered “to plan and submit proposals for provocative actions, which would help to charge DNR and LNR militias with civilian deaths”.
 * In a communication they had good reason to think wouldn't be hacked, they might say this. Depending on wording, it might be a plausible discussion, or one with too many hints of the cartoon style (like "don't screw this up like the last false flag I will specify again by name, with your disinfo published a day early all we think! oh yeah, sry!") Either way, right then, the Cyber Berkut again hacked the communication. In a way, plausible enough... some days after, getting in because they suspected a plot and tried extra hard ... finding a message from a few days before. At this point, plausible enough but still possibly untrue. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CyberBerkut also published a cryptogram, where employees of the SBU Office in Donetsk reported they had implemented “propaganda campaign to make the required informational impact on Ukraine's population”.
 * Again, unnecessary it seems to me, but possible. Unnervingly similar to cartoon-style claims. Nothing proven, but red flags. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The cryptogram was sent from SBU Office in Donetsk region to Kiev and Kramatorsk. The network also released a list of media publications, accusing independence supporters of shelling the bus.
 * If this means Cyber-Berkut just added the list of media outlets they think might be influenced by this order, it means just what it does - seems silly to me. If they claimed the communication itself specified which media the SBU targeted, I'd say it's another red flag that this whole thing is fake. Not sure why on that point, just doesn't sound right. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That list was released inside that outgoing cryptogram, page 2 of the scoop,  which is translated above. "Outgoing cryptogram" is written on top of letterhead pages 2, 3. It is not explained how they got all that (they are hacktivists, not James Bondss, so it is unlikely a photo of something printed on paper, but likely either cryptogram decrypted, and than visualized on empty letterhead; or the whole thing intercepted in ready to print form). Faking is possible, but my impression is that they try to be real; propaganda part is added in how those documents are presented, thus "proved" and all that. If they are in faking mode, why not to fake something blaming the whole thing on Ukaine.  What they have is not outside of reality. There is a feeling that Ukraine is heavy into propaganda and light on anything else, anyway. Propaganda needs to process payments, thus they need to have such reports. This is like any other Western-type business, not James Bond or USSR. --Resup (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The first part so far doesn't sound really suspicious. But even if it's legit, whole or partly, it's not a good point to lead with, due to how possible it is to not be. I've seen similar things from CB before, and I think some good stuff (didn't they publish the Paet-Ashton call? suggests good connections, probably) One possibility here is that semi-plausible but fake info is actually drafted by the SBU and left in some easier-to-hack part of their system for these guys to legitimately find and get fooled by. Or maybe, in this and some other cases, it is all right and I'm just a grump. --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The first part so far doesn't sound really suspicious. But even if it's legit, whole or partly, it's not a good point to lead with, due to how possible it is to not be. I've seen similar things from CB before, and I think some good stuff (didn't they publish the Paet-Ashton call? suggests good connections, probably) One possibility here is that semi-plausible but fake info is actually drafted by the SBU and left in some easier-to-hack part of their system for these guys to legitimately find and get fooled by. Or maybe, in this and some other cases, it is all right and I'm just a grump. --Caustic Logic (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * maybe I'm just being too cynical here, but (slipping into sure it's fake mode) I'm not happy that alt. media and pro-Russia / anti-Fascist people keep pushing leads like this. It will work on the choir already bent on ignoring all western lies - but it won't do anything but push away everyone they should be building bridges with outside the choir. IMO. The fake needs to stop, but something keeps it always there glutting the truthways. (/mode) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OSCE report
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/135211
 * Direction. They say, NNE. But so is the M20 road. (It's on the M20, is it not?) So, NNE direction may still be Westward from the road---as the engine part photo we discussed suggests. Or somebody may fire right from the road (what this does is not leaving tracks in the snow)
 * "Rockets". They do not give any details how that determination was made, or what "rockets".
 * Distance. They give no clue, even if they have one. Dokuchaecsk is some 23 km away. Range is likely under 20 km
 * --Resup (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The implied direction is pretty much straight up the road, or close to it. Straight up might be ruled out, but not yet. And if it's the case, that's a good point I didn't think about. But now, thinking about it, it doesn't run 20+ km straight, just 2 or so. It'll be at some other point of interest along about that line. Or a point of no interest, better yet. here's an anonymous spot about 10 km distant. The hills a bit further to the NNE seem to offer even better possibilities. All just stabs in the dark though --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Splash-crater patterns are in contention. Does OSCE believe dirt and debris will fly backwars out a rocket impact, only avoiding the direction it's friggin' moving? Does it get vacuumed out around the rocket tube as the tube plows in, or only after, because it can only fly out the hole? Is it that hard to kick up some dirt and blow it in all directions but back, like I always thought was standard? Or am I just wrong to have thought that? Resup, you did too. That looked to me like rockets from, basically, west. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ukraine bus attack not by pro-Russians: Russian OSCE envoy
 * Russia’s envoy to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has confirmed a conclusion by the European body that a recent attack in Ukraine’s Volnovakha was not carried out by pro-Russia forces.


 * “The [OSCE] monitors examined the craters on the site of the attack. The conclusions are that the fire did come from a Grad [multiple rocket launcher] system but not from an eastern direction as the Ukrainian military has claimed but from a northern direction,” Rossiya 24 quoted Andrei Kelin as saying on Sunday.
 * He comments on the report. The report says "NNE" direction, and "rockets" (not North, or Grads). NNE is like along the road, and that road, according to Ukrainian map we posted here, as I can tell looking at it, separates conflicting sides further North, Ukrainian south--Resup (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Was it ever alleged to be east over north? I thought it was always northeast they alleged. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So I tweeted the image w OSCE snippet. I don't think we're wrong on this. "OSCE "The SMM (inspected) five craters ... caused by rockets fired from NNE." Why not these 6?" Looking to be more direct, noticed a tweet of their next step, Jan. 15 statement: "The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)conducted a flight over the Ukrainian checkpoint in Volnovakha and gathered imagery and video data of shell impact craters at the incident site where the passenger bus was hit on 13 January." At the tweet summarizing this, responses before me were pro-Kiev neo-Nazis raging that OSCE is Putin's tool. My later reply probably isn't a direct clue onto why, but I like how it works in context. "@OSCE Excellent. You'll see the ones originating from SW, Bandera turf where the Nazis hate OSCE - wonder why" + link.

OSCE looked at 5 (possibly direction-wise) but examined in detail 2. Likely the 2 is bus itself, and what we see on the road. Nobody saw Grad at the bus location on the day (even if there is Grad storage there now). While at the road, takes no effort to fake. Throw a blast there with anything to dig up a hole; through engine part in the hole. One hour job, not costly. --Resup (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "The SMM conducted a comprehensive inspection, focusing on five craters caused by explosions that had occurred during the incident. The investigation included comprehensive crater analysis of two specific blast craters, including the crater located 10 metres from the side of the passenger bus. In the SMM’s assessment all craters examined were caused by rockets fired from a north-north-eastern direction"

OSCE published drone photo. Not sure what to make of it, can't really see much. Except that it shows possibly 3 or 5 larger craters not close to the road (or what is this? Not entirely clear), and many other type craters in the field, --looks like not all show clear impact center. Some are elongated, some others not so, and some have flame-like shape. That may be due to the wind, from how it looks like. Light stuff, soot, very fine dust, snow, smoke deposit, may perhaps go furthers in a small explosion, that may be affected by wind, and this is what we may see on photos. Shooting direction is more to do where most of heavy stuff goes and blasted crater shape. --Resup (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bus crater
OSCE report is assuming that crater is formed by a "rocket". Details of analysis are not spelled out, and so unclear (why/what rocket?). Presumably they analysed crater thinking it was made by a Grad. Soot/debris pattern is along the road extending South  from the impact spot, which may be interpreted as Northern approach (NNE, after more careful look). Actually, if it is Grad, it sticks into ground whichever way it arrived. But also, we see nice shaft going into the ground, almost vertical, maybe with a slight tilt. Whichever way is the tilt, is than supposed to tell where it came from. But it looks like mostly vertical and a bit across the road, not along the road, as far as I can deduce from jumpy video

However, if this is cylindrical "jumping frog" mine, it will depend on tilt after it jumped. Tilting cylinder away from the road will send blast going upward in the bus direction; while soot/debris on the ground will extend more along the road than across (as we see indeed). Slight axes tilt parallel to the road may result in large imprint towards South. Of course if it was mine, it  was just sitting there in the ground and did not arrive by rocket from NNE.

Pity they do not give more details of analysis and photographs. --Resup (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)