File talk:MH17 Russian 1TV.jpg

Another claim on Russian 1TV They show what they claim to be a letter from some George Bilt, who tells he is MIT graduate and aviation expert with 20 years experience. He claims machine gun into pilot cabin, followed to missile into right wing and engine, and attach some aerial photo showing a military plane, likely Mig 29, or Su 27 launching a missile not far from a civilian plane.

May be a fake, wrong (as far as we can tell) side of hit reported (right not left); unclear how he is the only person in the world having a real photo. The letter appears to speculate on a scenario, not report on the fact (such as the photo). So the photo attached is -what? Illustration of concept? Real photo? Hard to tell for sure, but illustration rather than actual photo is a suspect. --Resup (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks fake: Boeing 777 (63.7 m) Mig 29 (17 m) , ratio 3.7; while on photo, length ratio is 4 (or a bit more); even if they are 10 km apart vertically, there is not much difference in height from satellite height, ratio should be close to their length ratios. One needs to take a photo from below, perhaps, some 140 km to get military plane so much smaller because it is presumably lower. But satellites fly at above 300 km, so it can't be. Su 27 is longer, so it works even worth in that case. (Other thoughts?) --Resup (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another argument why it is fake: Donetsk Airport runway can be seen, and is about the same size, even a bit smaller, than Boeing on the photo. But the runaway is 4000 m, while plane is 63.7 m; they are about the same distance from satellite at 300 km or more. One needs to be at some 150 meters from the plane for them to look the same size, impossible. As for optics, observation from satellite is effectively 'at infinity', and will work similar to a telescope, increasing all angles by the same factor; can't be from satellite--angles ratios too much off to be rescued by optics (Somebody noted Donetsk airport seen at Cassad blog, thanks! ). So much for MIT & Russian engineers union, ha-ha-ha! --Resup (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good work on the specific. I would have just called this one obvious fake, with no time wasted on explaining why, just out of disdain for such obvious fakery. Can't eat up my time that easy! Georrge Bilt produced this image? What a clown. Russian TV aired it? So sad. Something's wrong over there. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you translate the 1TV.RU article with google, you get "George Bilt" (that's what everybody is running with). If you translate it with Yandex, you get "George Bilton". I tried it because the English language TASS article has him as - wait for it - "a George Beatle"! Can't imagine what the purpose would be, but this almost seems like made-to-be-debunked. --CE (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Now BuzzFeed claims to have interviewed "George Bilt", who just found the photo on the internet and is now very sorry. And those Russians are either desperate or incompetent. He says. Does this come as a mirror event of the Syrian "hero boy" meme which just turned out to be a fake by Norwegian filmmakers and had the "Western" pre$$titutes run with it (as usual)? ;o) --CE (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Scott Creighton has a series of posting about the image. Always contrarian, he smells a rat. And tries some debunking of the debunkers, with mixed success and some ridiculous conclusions of his own I think, but as he sticks it to Brown Noses and cohorts, maybe worth a read. One point he makes, and that's a good one, is that the apparent wrong proportions must not mean that the image is fake, but just that is isn't a satellite image (which it certainly isn't). He impolitely reminds readers of the existence of the Global Hawk. Somewhere else, forgot where, I read someone making an over-the-thumb calculation that what we see fits a camera around 700m above the planes. And the distance between the planes is about the same (10 times the length of the Boeing). Which reminded me that some claim to have seen two jets, not one. Maybe the second took the photo to document a job finished so that Kolomoiski would come around with the rest of the money? ;o) In another post the origin of the picture is confirmed. It was posted to a Russian forum already on October 15 and that's apparently where our Mr. Bilt found it. --CE (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but to me it just seems fake by its cut-and-paste basic-blur clarity and lucky view, regardless of proportions. Relative distance will change those, and a high recon craft could explain this kind of image, depending. But it also seems fake in being in front of us now. Just "leaked" isn't convincing. Good find with the early forum post. The uploader first just said here's a picture, then explained: (trans): "The image obtained by mail from enthusiasts Russian Wikileaks, the source is not named. The time on the image, Greenwich mean time corresponds to the time indicated in the data of objective control, presented Minoborony RUSSIA. According to the inscription-the international designations of time, the picture would be with the American satellite or intelligence apparatus." Unconvincing detail - Russian Wikileaks - do they hack Defense computers or just wait for a leak? No further comments there until it appears as a news story there a month later. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is noted by Ukrainian sources that Malaysia logo should be above the wing, while according to them it is further forward. Their vision must be better than mine, I guess. (So with this, until proven otherwise, the villain K is considered denying a payment). --Resup (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this article from yesterday, a specialized company has examined the image and didn't find any signs of manipulation. The company is legit but I didn't find anything about the topic on their website. --CE (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there are clear signs of image manipulation. The background satellite images show a high level of pixelation, while the planes show far greater detail. The insert and the larger image seem to have been created separately. The background was first zoomed out before adding another copy of the fighter plane. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

AP article about the new crash site video offers three debunks making the rounds:
 * But several bloggers said the photograph was a forgery, citing a cloud pattern to prove the photo dates back to 2012, and several other details that seem incongruous.
 * Mark Solonin, a Russian author who is an engineer by training, said in his blog that both aircraft looked disproportionate to the landscape and concluded that their images were crudely edited into a satellite picture.
 * As noted, not necessarily a de-bunk unless one can show the proportions are wrong for spy plane --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Others noted that the commercial airliner in the photo appears to be of a different type, a Boeing 767.
 * Sounds like the easy one to check. I say it's not certain, but this fits the 767 profile better. Made the graphic here. Left side, cannot get the tail fin and wing lined up right - maybe a realistic banking effect (they are on slightly different planes...)? Maybe another graphic problem (a crooked control surface, something you'd have to try and do)? ... anyway, not fully considering angles, just how it looks on-screen, the wing-tail fin proportions favor 767. Both seem to show too much tail and not enough wing, with both problems worse for 777. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Origin?
The file is NOT a photograph. It is more like a screenshot. It shows the area in a map projection, yet covers an area of 40 × 60 km. For a camera to capture the flat projection in a single photograph, it would have to be some 1000 km away. It is more likely that the flat projection is created by some satellite image viewing software, like Google Maps or Google Earth. It does not even seem to be photographed by on satellite on a single day. If you activate the date function in Google Earth and zoom in and out, you will see that files created by individual satellite runs are smaller than the 40 x 60 km area in the image. I identified one set of clouds on a August 28, 2012 image, but this file does not cover all the area shown and does not match all the clouds. It seems that the base image is stitched together from multiple satellite shots so that the seams never cut the clouds. Who would want to create such a base image?

It is not possible that this is a photo from a spy plane. The plane would have to be flying at 34,000 feet. Yet it sees an area 70 km across – from directly above. No wide angle lens could do that! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Screenshot would explain no image manipulation, but who has a 7,406 × 5,000 pixel screen? That is a rather strange format, all things left aside. --CE (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you scan a 35mm film (slide) with 5000dpi, you get a resolution of 37,5 Megapixels (7500x5000). The Leica S2 has a maximum resolution of 7500x5000 pixel. This film scanner is called 7500i for reasons I am too lazy to explore. --CE (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

LogoPhere Report
The Duke Photo: A closer look at the MH-17 satellite images debacle Denis O'Brien, LogoPhere.com Nov18.2014 --Pierpont (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (hope the move to here is okay) I read this last night. You dug in deeper than me anyway. This makes a number of great observations on why the photo is fake (two different sunlight angles on the two aircraft, for example), points out how easy it would have been (by paying attention) for the Russian media sources to de-verify the image, raising the question why they didn't. And it points out that just because this evidence for a jet strike is fake, it doesn't mean it must be a missile. All fair points including the last, and I say that as someone who leans to the missile explanation and gets annoyed how Kiev has successfully made that so synonymous with their innocence/Russia's guilt that everyone's left scrambling to see a Kiev jet anywhere they can... --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to say (I really have to): Don't call Wikipedia "Wiki", especially not three times while writing a report about how other people are idiots. Wiki is a type of software not least we are using here and has been used long before Wikipedia came along. Thanks. ;o) --CE (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)