Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Cyber Berkut leak

Doubts
The Cyber Berkut did provide the Paet-Ashton call that was legit, but this I'm far more skeptical of. Not to be overly flippant, but a first blush is just a first blush ... it seems a bit heavy on the clowning around like idiots - smacks of parody, which is a creative work, which this isn't supposed to be. "have you forgotten? We are sooper seekrit on Facebook 'k! more false-flag chat later ttul" And they complain the video was uploaded early ... is that a reference to one of those Youtube issues Russians often don't get? Did this pan out or not? Did these perps also just not get it then? Possible. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And what is this? "They reported that he couldn't hold there for long, as if it was high. Made one direct. Failed. Had to make air." I'm not sure I understand any of this, really. But that almost sounds like the insiders are saying there was a failed "direct" missile attack, followed by a last-minute attack from the air. As one inclined to think a successful missilie launch broght the plane down, these do not sound to me like informed insiders but fake personae employing current "CT" talking points on top of their clowning. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Dimity Orlov got it right the first time: If the Ukrainians tried to hit it with a Buk they would miss! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is to be believed, 'land' is surface-to air missile (=Buk), 'direct' is machine gun/automatic gun, and air = air -to air (missile). (Curiously, 'land' mentioned but not further discussed). But Facebook posts are easy to verify or falsify, and Berkut no longer having this material suggests that this Facebook 'intercept' is withdrawn. (Still something along those lines, perhaps not exactly as presented, still could have happened; short on some proofs, a info-warfare demo version/visualization was developed. --Resup (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Translation and interpretation
It seems clear to me that Oliynyk and Bereza are discussing the shoot down of MH17 by an Ukrainian plane after the Buk failed to hit it. What exactly was meant is another issue. I will try to interpret. Here is the original in Russian (Ukrainians all speak Russian in private) with translation as provided by Voice of Sevastopol.

Svyatoslav Oliynyk 21:22
 * ''Forget it. What’s there? And how?

Yury Bereza 21:23
 * землей – прямым – воздухом
 * ''land - direct - air

Svyatoslav Oliynyk 21:24
 * А воздухом какого хера???
 * ''What the fucking air???

Yury Bereza 21:26
 * Передали, что не смог долго удерживаться там, типа высоко. Сделал один прямым. Не проканало. Тогда пришлось воздухом.
 * ''They reported that he couldn't hold there for long, as if it was high. Made one direct. Failed. Had to make air.

Svyatoslav Oliynyk 21:27
 * А почему сначала харьковских подняли?
 * ''Why have they risen Kharkiv ones first?

Yury Bereza 21:30
 * Они сказали, что сначала команда пришла из Киева на харьковский пульт, а когда он начал разворачиваться, тогда уже остальных подключили.
 * ''They said that the command came from Kiev firstly to the Kharkiv desk, and as it began to turn, then the others were connected.

My interpretation:


 * surface-to-air missile – direct autocannon fire – air-to-air missile
 * What fucking "air"?
 * They reported that the pilot couldn't hold altitude for long, as MH17 was flying high. He made one direct pass with autocannon. Failed to bring down plane. Had to use air-to-air missile.
 * Why did they not first use fighter planes taking off from Kharkov?
 * They said that initially the detachment from Kiev came under the control of Kharkov, and as they began to be lined up, then the others engaged.

If this interpretation is correct then it would mean the plane was a Su-25 with altitude problems. I still do not understand why he would use the air-to-air missiles only after using autocannon. Forensic analysis would reveal what weapons where used and in what order. This could give credibility to the leak, if these statements are proven correct. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One more translation
One more translation via Elena on Facebook