File:East Aleppo bomb craters by UN.jpg


 * Description
 * ''This satellite images released by the United Nations, shows road damage and craters, in the Sha'ar district of Aleppo, Syria, Sept. 25, 2016. One official with the U.N.'s satellite imagery program saying new pictures from rebel-held parts areas of the city show "an awful lot of new damage" _ presumably by airstrikes. The release coincides with a stepped-up offensive by Syrian pro-government forces that are attacking the city from the south in a bid to penetrate its opposition-controlled areas, where the U.N. estimates 275,000 people are trapped in a government siege. (Digital Globe, US Department of State, Humanitarian Information Unit, UNITAR-UNOSAT via AP)


 * Source
 * UN releases satellite images of damage in Syria’s Aleppo - Jamey Keaten, The Associated Press, October 5, 2016
 * (Article updated, mirrors of original: New York Post, The Times Record)


 * Other verions
 * Syria aid convoy was hit by an air strike: UN

Discussion
Three very close and apparently quite large craters, hmm...Could be shallow or deep, hard to know. Is it there at all? liveuamap appears to locate this elsewhere. If this is Urm al-Kubra still, will be good to locate those with respect to warehouse, trucks, and big flashes on video... --Resup (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This was part of the larger UN Lars lie and added by western MSM to further confuse people. The satellite image the UN has wasn't ever released and probably never will be. The image that constantly shows up with the "UN has sat imagery of convoy attack" is, in fact, a location in northeast Aleppo here. To further confuse the plebes, the image is inverted North to South, so you have to flip their image to match the North/South alignment of the Google Maps image. The three craters image is completely unrelated to Urem al-Kubra, which is on the complete opposite side of Aleppo and several km into the countryside. Nearly every major UK and US newspaper site has published the three crater head-fake as part of the 'UN satellite image expert sez' story so readers draw the conclusion that the three craters are, in fact, in Urem al-Kubra. --PavewayIV (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like it, the L shaped building (the right one on google map), and 4 taller buildings to the right (East) of it. Great !
 * While place of attack we discuss is here, and nothing like UN photo is seen around --Resup (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good match. You can tell it's not rotated right, since the sun never shines from due north in Syria, and this should be mid-day, not early morning or late PM, so it's not 90 degrees turned. (just shoing off..). I didn't think it could fool anyone into thinking it's Urm al-Kubra, but forgetting how little most people know. --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

BBC propaganda stunt

 * Syria conflict: Aid convoy attack was air strike, UN expert says - BBC News, October 5, 2016
 * ''Lars Bromley, research adviser at the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (Unosat), told a news briefing in Geneva: "With our analysis we determined it was an air strike and I think multiple other sources have said that as well." "For air strikes, what you are usually  looking at is the size of the crater that is visible, and the type of crater," he added. "Basically air-dropped munitions are often much larger than anything you would fire from the ground."
 * ''But another Unosat official, Einar Bjorgo, who also attended the press conference, later toned down the language in an interview with Reuters, saying the agency was not 100% certain. "There is significant damage, and we believe it may be air strikes, but it's not conclusive."

Who the hell is Lars Bromley? Google finds the answer: -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lars Bromley - Geospatial Analyst, UNITAR/UNOSAT
 * ''Lars Bromley is an analyst with the UN Institute for Training and Research Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNITAR/UNOSAT). He was previously project director with the Science and Human Rights Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has conducted extensive work to apply remote sensing, satellite imagery, and related tools to large-scale atrocities in Darfur, Burma, Ethiopia, and elsewhere, in partnership with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and numerous other organizations. He has published in the International Journal of Remote Sensing, the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, and other publications and has presented at a wide variety of academic and private-sector venues. He holds an MA in geography from the University of Maryland.

Note the date: on Oct. 5, "a meeting of the Principals Committee, which includes Cabinet-level officials", after an earlier deputies committee meeting where  US 'limited military strikes against the regime' were considered-Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2016 --Resup (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Arc of Attack?
Side-note and question for PavewayIV: I don't suppose it matters in this case, but these three impacts form sort of an arc. Petri and I have a running debate about my "arc theory" that this pattern is peculiar and can be a sign of a surface attack, firing from a center point. I noticed a clear arc with the Douma market attack and used it to decide the rockets (blamed on a fighter jet) were fired from 800 meters south. (as shown, and for details see here and here).

PavewayIV, from what you know, is their any validity to this? I sort of made it up, but I don't see how it could be wrong. I mean, they might fire from several positions, or vary the vertical angle/firing distance (would cause an irregular arc, maybe still readable), but if they turn and fire evenly from one spot with the same munition at the same vertical angle, it would have to form an even and readable arc, right? (testing it on this image: arc is very tight, and not even quite right unless middle one was aimed a hair further than the others. It would have a firing position about 80 meters north in one of those houses, which is plain silly - besides the huge craters (probably could be done, but problematic) and unclear motive for rebels (not that it stopped them in Douma, etc.)) --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For any 3, but not more, points on a plane, which are not on the same line, there is a circle (the circumscribed circle) with those points on it, so I guess you are asking is there a weapon at the centre of that circle. (I'd say if it is a crude mortar or hell cannon, likely yes, as they have elevation firing angle fixed or not easily changed). But this may imprecise and unreliable method as small variation in crater positions may lead to big change in estimated firing locations. Triangle needs to be sufficiently 'thin', otherwise you could conclude it was fired from inside the triangle, for example. But there is not a great difference between thin and nearly equilateral triangle distance-wise.--Resup (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a 3-point arc or shape is also almost meaningless (but the Douma scene had 4). In this case (UN image) I only asked as a test, but in general... You have good insights too, Resup. In a case like the Douma one anyway, pretty sound reasoning? (could hardly ever be 100% proven, aircraft bombs etc. could also form a perfect arc, but central artillery is strongly suggested, so long as other clues like evident firing direction don't conflict). (and I suppose this should go on the forensics page eventually) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My 2 pc on this: With four or more points, question will be what's the best fitting circle (in some sense of 'best' for example a version of 'least- squares'- distance best), and how sensitive is the result to shifting craters a little bit (as noted above, 3 points/craters may be too sensitive; with lots of craters, you will start to see something clearly and it may be mentioned in military manuals, a version of method how to find direction knowing where fragments are. With 4 points, well, its neither first or second above, need to see whether best fit works. For a start, select 3 points (4 ways to do it, leaving one behind); for each of those 4 ways, find center; if centers are not too far away (or majority are, and say one outlier, there is a hope, and centers if they do not group well, then probably not. --Resup (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)