File talk:MH17 Launch Plume.png

Initial photo was discussed for  Weather Considerations and Geo-location. Appears to be made on a different date, and unlikely direction-wise. --Resup (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is "second photo", which seem to exist in several versions. Low resolution versions were on TV. Now this claims to be "high resolution" version. But I also remember seeing what I now recall was "blue-sky" version of this, on the day around publication day (smth like 22 December). It looked a lot like the first photo overall, just had this ropes hanging. I no longer can find blue sky version. I did not spent much time looking at it, thinking it is actually the original version of the first photo, not an independent photo. I did not save photo or link, not thinking it is of importance. I am now uncertain whether there was in reality one photo taken, and various digital "photoshops" of it issued,  or there were two truly independent photos--Resup (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a " bluer sky" version ; I guess this is what I saw. With stupid things like brightness, contrast, color/saturation editing it may be possible to produce different impressions on light/cloud conditions. That blue sky photo 2 appeared in comments to the article, on 23 December. Looking at  electric poles or single trees, I can see no shadows, so timing would be afternoon-ish... --Resup (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More on Facebook by Max van der Werff. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Max van der Werff post suggests that was Grad launch on a previous (sunny) day. --Resup (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This video shows it was sunny in Torez at the exact moment MH17 was hit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was almost clear blue sky on 16 July (as on Grad video), and some 70% cloud on 17 July; --crash video does show those clouds.
 * Grad video discussed by Max van der Werff  time-stamps:  http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/Lik4CmltOhM 2014-07-16T19:10:11.000Z  2014-12-21T14:51:55.000Z --Resup (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick, general, maybe useless thoughts: the one photo is enormous and looks odd - maybe blown-up from normal resolution, then a film grain effect added? The grayer photo does look a bit blurry, maybe compressed or something. I do not know how to read pixels accurately and tell. And I'm not suspecting fakery. But there's some messing. The "blue sky" version seems to have an all-around color saturation enhancement - the trees seem brighter too. So it was grayer than that, but only so gray. Apparent cloud cover: can be deceptive. There may be a clearer patch to the east (in the distance will be clouds over Russia) while the area right behind is cloudier. To me the general ambient lighting suggests the sun (to the west) is shining through a decent cloud cover, and while it's all well enough lit, it's fuzzy light. Fuzzy enough to match the day's weather? I suspect so, but I don't know. As for previous day launch ... no coincidence it points to that burned strip that, I guess, a Grad launch a day earlier could also cause. But it would leave the Buk launcher hanging loose as an irrelevant oddity, that drove almost to that spot the next day, right before a jet was shot down, however it was... --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another quick comment on the plume photos, there are 3 versions, the earliest one published July 17 there are 3 versions, the earliest one published July 17 (known to be an extract from a larger photo according to publisher comments), and the one from December in (a) grey and (b) blue sky formats. They all may be versions of the same photo or two photos taken at the same time, but with various post-editing, because they all show two plumes, bigger missile-ish trail, and smaller grayer  fire to the left, all at roughly the same place in all 3 cases. Second fire  is seen on 3 Mb grey version, and clearly seen on blue sky version.  The first photo is roughly below-wire portion from the later two;or perhaps from a similar photo taken at slightly different angle  but essentially representing the same event. Probably there was fiddling with color/saturation/balance in the later two photos; possibly blue sky version was trying to undo altered color of the grayish-looking one. --Resup (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is part II of Max van der Werff's analysis. A part III is announced but apparently not yet published. --CE (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Part III with a link to this page. Hi, Max! :o) --CE (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Max has published today a report from his visit to Torez, where he says he met neighbours of the photographer he was able to identify as one Pavel Aleynikov and went with them on the roof of the building. Some interesting findings there. --CE (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He has a video from the roof-the point he is making is that to see foreground trees on 'launch' photo, one needs to be on part of the roof which cannot have  overhanging cables. (There are some electrical cables on the other side of the roof, seem well-strung, or else down completely-don't see a good match  even on the 'wrong' side of the roof). Another point is ripples on Wowihay crash side plume, interpreted as a photo made from a screen (from a TV screen -a news report? from a video played but not allowing quick screen grab?-- A photo seen on a computer screen usually can be downloaded easily, why photograph it from a screen)--Resup (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

more from Max van der Werff; also an extra on flights on the day -we discussed it somewhere but this is a direct from Press-service of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine --Resup (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Two smokes are one?
This so-called enhanced version, taken at face value, can make some sense. Missile, whatever sort, goes up quickly and its pretty vertical contrail is translated as a whole afterwards, staying pretty vertical but with the whole column translated by wind horizontally. While from burning field, it keeps raising from the field and blown by air, so still connected to the origin, and with some upward from buoyancy but much less than in a contrail. Those two meet, as contrail and initial field burning or raised dust were initially in the same place and so travel staying together; burning smoke emitted later will be wind-drifted less and closer to its origin. Yes, but the whole level of trust to this photo, in its many reissue versions, is very low, so it cannot be relied on, e.g. 'enhancement'could be made to bring about such a theory. Photo could be doctored, or can show a launch of a smaller missile, on some day, not capable to hit a plane at 10 km height (opolchenie did have smaller/less capable ones). Some further cross-checks could be made, to check face-value theory some more. If distance traveled can be estimated (from ground smoke to contrail), in what is said to be 11 m/s wind, it gives an idea how long after launch this was made. But all that is not really establishing anything. Photo can be fake, and having a burnt field area, somewhere roughly near, --yet in summer + conflict zone is no surprise at all. "Catching a fly and making it into an elephant " business--Resup (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Roof?

 * Business Insider – July 17, 2014. "Although he did not see the plane crash, he said he ran to his window after hearing the sound of an explosion after the plane fell to the ground. He could not see the situation from his covered balcony, so he climbed to the roof of his house and "saw the smoke on the horizon." --likely the same person, although photographs not explicitly discussed.
 * RTL News translated;  December 22, 2014. Run to the covered balcony but saw nothing, the rest (roof/balcony) is not clear.
 * Meduza – blog of Russian journalist Parkohmenko, published March 17, 2015 (a pro-bellincat Russian)
 * Blog author was in communication with photographer, and was informed that photos were taken from the roof of the photographer house
 * Этот человек подтвердил, что прошлым летом жил в Торезе и действительно сделал с крыши своего дома несколько фотографий, на которых, как он считает, изображен запуск «Бука» 17 июля.


 * Daily Mail, March 22, 2015. --From the roof. --Resup (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Balcony?
The view from the photographer's balcony

Some criticism was raised; balcony? Does not seem likely because of the angle of view-almost along the house-and if a balcny view is from his balcony, there are more wires there than just the two. --Resup (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wind
Wind was E /ENE on 15-17 July, so from East to West. It will appear right, viewed from Torez to Saur Mogila, consistent with fudge on the photo (on any of those days)--Resup (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Background
Video (second, embedded into article) from Marinovka (map), taken by opolchenie on 16 July; their attack started at 5 am. Fires burning seen on video. Planes (SU 25, and apparently higher-altitude, called 'intelligence/scouting planes'; one plane shown on video). A SU 25 was shot down by opolchenie at about 19:00 local. That plane could be seen from Kuibyshevo, on Russian side of the border in that area. Three MANPAD shots brought it down (16.07.14 21:50 Сообщение от Игоря Ивановича Стрелкова. «Из Снежного сообщают о сбитии второго Су-25 тремя выстрелами из ПЗРК). That was the second Su 25 hit on the day. Earlier one, apparently at 9:20 over Dmitrievka. --Resup (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Opolchenie equipment
Opolchenie is known to have: MANPADs; and said to have Strela 10 (this sits on top of armored track-equipped vehicle; 4 smaller missiles on top; if top is covered, may look similar). --Resup (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Strela on a video. Looked it up, it's no longer there because the account was deleted. From the title it might have been Vostok batallion. I remember it was a Lifenews report from an airport, likely Lugansk. --CE (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The video of Strelkov in Marinovka with the Strela 10 APC was included in the Southern Cauldron article. The original got lost when the Life News YouTube channel was terminated but I found a copy here: The Strela 10 only flies to some 3,500 meters. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't the video I was referring to. That one had no Strelkov, but a Strela in it. --CE (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He is just a man-with-a-van guy. When the camera turns into the woods, we see some of his other parked equipment, but definitely no Buks there. Apart from some beech trees, perhaps (Buk means beech tree in Russian) . --Resup (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)