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)